Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 6 June 8 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. Peacent 03:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Adrenaline Vault[edit]

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

AfD closed with no consensus to delete in December, in the six months since that time it has had a primary sources tag, and the article has not improved. There is no evidence that the article satisfied WP:WEB or that the content is verifiable. WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep, article should be deleted. RWR8189 23:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Alexa rank of 88,514 [1] does not confer notability. Carlossuarez46 00:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB. --Evb-wiki 01:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is quite well known (it must be, because even I've heard of it!) but I doubt if it can meet WP:WEB in near future, since it has not done so thus far. Adrian M. H. 17:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 01:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Speculative Dinosaur Project[edit]

The Speculative Dinosaur Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable project speculating what the earth might maybe be like if dinosaurs had not died off BassoProfundo 23:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because its notability and suitability for Wikipedia are directly dependent on those of the Speculative Dinosaur Project article. Any other articles on hypothetical dinosaurs should be added to this list if found (also note that the first comment below from User:Javit was made before the additional nomination was made).:

Smilotyrannus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am also nominating another two related articles (added after comments by Javit, Horologium, Someguy1221, and Adrian M.H.) for the same reasons (also note many redirects have been created pointing at all these articles):

Drak (Speculative Dinosaur Project) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gihugrongo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete per WP:VERIFY --Javit 23:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A look at the external link shows it to be something conceived by a bunch of college students, who apparently haven't updated anything since 3/2005. Non-notable, and fails WP:MADEUP. Horologium t-c 01:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We could consider this as any other work of fiction, but in that case I'm still unable to find any reliable sources suggesting notability. Someguy1221 05:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. They are not going to meet WP:V, and WP is not here to host ideas of what life might have been like if, to paraphrase Eddie Izzard, the dinosaurs had not held their AGM on the day the asteroid hit. Adrian M. H. 17:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Google search looks thin: [2] and after reading their website, the project doesn't sound serious. nadav (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SaveThe Scientific Accuracy has no relevance, it's just a glimpse. It is just a project meant to be fun, There is no reason to attack it for being "innacurate".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.42.0.243 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: At issue here is not the accuracy of the subject, but its notability. BassoProfundo 22:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all No assertion of notability. A look through the Google links shows some self-promotion and a few bloggers commenting on the project, as well as evidence the group is still active (current webpage) (blog for the project), but no evidence it could meet WP:NOTABILITY. Lyrl Talk C 23:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sheesh. JJL 23:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 02:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal DeMaria[edit]

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

does not meet notability guidelines ponyo 23:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO --Javit 23:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - same as the above. --Evb-wiki 01:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. From 2001-2004 he held the official title of "King of the San Fernando Valley". Whatever. NN, vanity bio. Horologium t-c 01:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as non-notable actor. BH (T|C) 02:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails to meet criteria for WP:BIO. StudierMalMarburg 15:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability established. Acalamari 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. JJL 23:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "DO NOT Delete"- A simple Google search for the name Pascal DeMaria yields many results which bring this man's credibiltiy forward. Citations are needed, deletion is not. I'll add the citations.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 02:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regulations by State for Tanning Salons[edit]

Regulations by State for Tanning Salons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Em, "WP:NOT something or other" -Docg 22:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. Yellow/White pages stuff. --Javit 23:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article clearly violates WP:NOT#DIR BH (T|C) 02:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Doc glasgow. This is a directory of health departments. A sourced article on how the laws regarding tanning beds differ from country to country might be interesting (due to the skin cancer aspect) if anyone's talking about it, but this isn't that article. --Charlene 13:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a blatant violation of WP:NOT#DIR. Acalamari 18:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasclosed as possible hoax. I am not opposed to re-creation should sources be found. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melano Supriatna[edit]

The article seems to be hoax or a bad conflict of interest. It was originally a redirect to the user page of a problem user User:Haggawaga - Oegawagga created by the user himself. Later it was developed into the article. No google hits outside wikipedia and its clones. The paper references exist but appear dubious. In the image the author claimed to be a sailorman who shoot the image himself? User:Haggawaga - Oegawagga was a subject of a recent sock puppeting investigation and appear to be a college student - not an old sailor or a dead Indonesian revolutionary Alex Bakharev 22:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - There is no mention of anyone with this name within one of the claimed references. No specific place of birth, and usually javanese of this era were always quite strongly identified with their place of birth SatuSuro 23:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Reading the response of one of the editors who claimed in one minute to be an expert on this alleged hero and then the next denying authorship (within the space of a few minutes) I would be most concerned that to keep what is from my knowledge of Java of the era tantamount to saying we are not sure lets keep the hoax - most doubtful articles like this have been deleted on the spot. Javanese of this era - with their usual regional and home town allegiances would never be vague about place of birth - there is no appear genuine about a book that has a meticulous index and also a biographical list with nobody the slightest similarity in name actually there. The slippage of usage of the name by the editor in question is not a usual derivative used by javanese of the era either - I would consider that NPOV is totally irrelevent in the case of an article which makes a mockery of the Indonesian Project - to allow temporary keep of an article around a fictitious project of an editor is problematic. There is either date of birth, place of birth, specific reference with name in a published item - or its out as soon as possible. And to throw in Andersons or Cribbs book as a decoy is tantamount to ... well I leave it up to others SatuSuro 23:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Keep - If the claims are verified then keep and fix for NPOV. The references cited appear genuine but hard to confirm. It would be best if the editor involved provided further material for verification. I'm not sure about the nominator's claims, I'll assume good faith in this case. --Javit 23:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verify References - but most likely a hoax Delete - apparent hoax- needs to be confirmed by checking the supplied references. I have read both books listed under ‘References’ but these were library borrowed and now not handy. But this was late last year and I don't remember this character. The books themselves can be considered authoritative sources on the Indonesian revolution period, so if this character is not in them, then it should be scrubbed.
THe article history suggests a hoax, the main contributor is being very evasive on how he developed the article. Such hoaxes are very damaging to wikipedia and should be dealt with very strictly.--Merbabu 23:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - I've borrowed the Cribb reference from the library - as I expected, not a mention. SatuSuro has already given good reasons why he thinks the anderson reference is also false. Plus, check user suggests all contributors are the one person and this likely sockpuppetry case has been issue recently. Thus, should be removed and editor's other articles examined for truthfulness. Such hoaxes bring wikipedia into disrepute. Merbabu 11:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion if this does turn out to be a hoax (not something I can easily determine) other articles created by this user should be checked as he has written several historical article of a similar nature. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support Suggestion - SatuSuro 23:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely. --Javit 23:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will possibly be prepared to AGF if page numbers are presented, and a quotation included. But it is highly unlike that academic books of the types cited would provide the biographical details in the article, so I would want a specific source for them, or a quote from one of the books providing the information. DGG 02:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Andersons - Biographical Appendix pp.411-458 has no mention - all of the 135+ persons mentioned in that appendix have birth place and date (although about 4 have contradictory birth dats and annotated info about that) - I can assure you that there are some particularly obscure characters mentioned. Also in my slow plodding through Javanese names for a number of different off-wikipedia projects I have never found a javanese with the name melano (or melana) SatuSuro 03:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete salt and block the socks as a hoax, SatuSuro's comment above are compelling. The editors of the article now need to support the article with WP:V and WP:RS sources. Gnangarra 08:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC). update by Gnangarra 01:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is and was no such person. regardless of editors comments- neither the cribb or anderson books support such a person in Indonesian history SatuSuro 11:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I have no reason to assume bad faith from this editor. He has written articles before that were questioned and deleted as hoaxes when in fact there were reliable sources to substantiate the articles. See Hendrick Jacobszoon Lucifer. Jsut because we have not heard of him does not mean he exists. I think tagging for references is the most appropriate action. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh come on, we have between us in front of us, at least five of the most reliable scholarly books on this 45-50 period that mention dozens, even hundreds of people - not one mentions this character - and we've shown that the editor has falsely added such references. Furthermore, the whole article smells of hoax; overly general, weird name and nonsensical interpretation of his name ('lucky'). The editor first claims he is an expert on the topic, then within minutes, says that he can't remember if it is even accurate. Reliable sources or delete. As for this apparent hoax Ocking Jayat Mayaj from the same bunch of editors who, according to check user, are one. The whole Jakarta harbour thing stinks of hoax. I wrote Indonesian National Revolution and i all the sources, there wasn't a mention. Wikipedia is not based on vague memories of a sailor in a bar in the 1960s (which is what the editor is claiming), but based on WP:RS. Merbabu 12:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether good or bad faith - there is an obvious thrill in being able to create an article about somebody who never existed - and to continue to work on it uninterrupted for so long - there could be a few in the wikipedia pantheon who havent been weeded out yet. A small problem is that articles about lesser persons have seen AFd and speedy deletes at the hand of enthusiasts - under the banner of WP:N Notability, and WP:V verifiablity and in most cases good sense - to hold onto this one when there is no mention in the two references - and for a highly unlikely followup that would clear the hurdle of WP:N and WP:V at this stage - I would say patient good humoured waiting for the editor in question to respond is probably sufficiently good faith - rather than actually nominating to keep or delete the article, I am wondering with anticipation what he might say this time SatuSuro 12:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes SS, Chris' offer to provide further verification either way will help. Let's give it a few more days for O-W to find his sources. Merbabu 13:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected it to Indonesian National Revolution; it was just one of the many rebels from that era. I think, perhaps their a small section can be added about him (really small), and the rest merged. So not deleing, just redirecting it. And than, I think the issue is sttled for now; the article isn't fit for wikipedia. The man might have been just legend, and I might have accidently made a mistake between several dfferent people. Sorry, my fault. Is that a satishfieng solution? -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 16:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response - I'm sorry I'm not happy with that redirect at all, I've listed it as speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A3. From your comments above I gather you withdraw your position on the notability and verifiability of the subject matter. Therefore, it must go rather than redirect. Please feel free to recreate when you have verifiable sources and can share them with the community --Javit 17:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment i have reverted the redirect as an innapropriate redirect. I would prefer this afd run its course. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment - the Indonesian National Revolution topic is so broad with so many characters and events of verifiable notability that have not been mentioned due to space in that article, and limitations in time to create other articles. Thus, why should we include a small passage from this Melano case? At best he is of no verified notability at all (only claimed memories of a 1960s conversation) - at worst it is a hoax of sockpuppeting vandals. What a joke such a new section would make of wikipedia. Merbabu 01:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This Sockpuppet of User:Mrlob -- User:Zabuzza claims to be Melano Supriatna, not only is this a bad faith edit it appears to be a common claim of sockpuppets Mrlob User:Murlock dif given that User:Haggawaga - Oegawagga has gone to a lot effort to write this article, adding false sources then say "its not fit for wikipedia" just redirect it is sufficient in my eye to remove the assumption of good faith extend in the recent checkuser as well. Gnangarra 00:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is disturbing that the major editor should claim that the article should remain when no WP:V or WP:N has been forthcoming. Too much patience and good faith is being allowed on a fruadulent hoax article. What a waste of time. SatuSuro 10:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I got some news for you, this man did exist but was called Supriata and not Melano Supriatna. The Honorable Kermanshahi 12:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N ???? SatuSuro 12:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment google search for Supriata -"wikipedia" returns 23 hits only 3 arent about Jan Supriata-- marketing support manager for "Sugi Samapersada Tbk PT SUGI.JK (Jakarta)" from 1995 to 2002, 2 are about a Yousef Supriata -- of Bapedalda, the central environment department responding to concerns about industrial waste. the other is mirror here. Gnangarra 12:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - yes, i agree. It is up to Kermanshahi to provide some verification. It's interesting that this group of editors are the only ones who know about him (and at least 1 other apparent hoax). Merbabu 12:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. user:Zabuzza said he was called Melano Supriatna and that this shouldn't be confused with a famous general named Supriata, thats why I thought he might be called Supriatna. I looked on google as well and I couldn't find anything either so I support the deletion as well. The Honorable Kermanshahi 17:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment please decide which of opinion you want to stand an strike the others, what are you referring any way to this article is about Melano Supriatna an apparent freedom fighter, not some unknown general called Supriata. Gnangarra 01:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I think, the redirection should be best. Not simply deleting this one; I've got to much work and contributions in the articl eto have it just deleted like this; redirect it, as I allready suggested, to Indonesian National Revolution. Don't merge it, but redirect it. Okay? I don't see any reason in just deleting this one. It's to easy. Deleting it would make it impossible to improve it when better sources are found; I than would be forced to recreate the whole thing. For god's sake; redirectb this one. -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 19:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - better sources aren't going to be found. In fact, your use of 'better' sources is misleading as no sources have been found yet (hence the belief that this is hoax). Merbabu 02:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Caniago 21:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • 'Comment - its unbeleivable in view of WP:V and WP:N that this has not been closed and the article removed. That a group of editors (or the one perhaps) can ask for a redirect of a clear hoax goes against what WP:Not implies. SatuSuro 02:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way: I've also nominated Ocking Jayat Mayaj for deletion. Same 'group' of editors, identical false references provided (now removed). Merbabu 03:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Procedural close. This is a reopened old AFD, I will revert to the previous dif which was a request to blank the AFD page per a ticket. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dekker Dreyer[edit]

Dekker Dreyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All secondary sources in this article are trivial and all non-trivial sources are primary sources. Fails all notability standards. Speedy delete Devlindetails (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given that this is the 3rd AfD nomination of this page, with the first 2 closed as Keep, it would be helpful for nominator to specify what has changed in the article since the previous decisions to suggest reconsideration. And while the content is what ultimately matters, it's worth noting additionally that all three nominations have been created by (different) accounts whose activities are focused on nominating this specific article for deletion. Bakazaka (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 00:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laher[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, non-notable family. Name of article is the same as the user who created it, and there are no sources referenced. JoeyETS 22:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Appears to be a non notable family. Borderline speedy case as the only hint of notability is the ambiguous last sentence referencing royalty. --Daniel J. Leivick 22:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR, WP:N. Sens08 23:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sens.Shindo9Hikaru 00:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An autobiographical and unverifiable, possibly made-up, family history. Adrian M. H. 17:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Fury[edit]

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

Youth/amateur basketball club. We don't generally consider those to be notable. Author has reposted (after two speedies) and attempted to assert notability, so bringing here for definitive decision. NawlinWiki 21:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 14U Youth team, can't find major accomplishments -->fails WP:Notability --Javit 22:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there are probably a lot of elite amateur sports teams in the Twin Cities, but I don't know any of them that are notable. About the most publicity they seem to get is bumper stickers on minivans or SUVs with the name of some traveling team. The individual players aren't notable until they get coverage in the paper (and not just the Minnesota Sun, either.) Delete. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 23:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come to think of it, I can't find any coverage of club sports teams in the Minnesota Sun -- at least in the suburbs I checked. They only cover high school sports teams and the occasional disc golf tournament. So much for eliteness, I guess. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 23:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Country Club of Troy[edit]

Country Club of Troy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable country club, with no claims of notability to make this any more than any other country club. Corvus cornix 21:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per nom and talk - notability is very poor. --Sigma 7 05:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I nominated this for speedy deletion when it first appeared. Non-notable, no notability asserted apart from the fact that the golf course was one of many designed by a well known designer. Only secondary source is a list of said designer's output. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 12:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as not sufficiently notable. Having your golf course designed by a reputed expert in the field (so to speak) is not really enough, even though the designer has his own article. Adrian M. H. 17:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Some serious sockpuppetry going around... Sr13 02:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chessckers[edit]

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

Contested prod. No references for this game at all on Yahoo or Google. Blueboy96 21:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a real argument. See also:WP:ILIKEIT. Cool Bluetalk to me 15:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a real argument. See also:WP:NOHARM, WP:ILIKEIT. Cool Bluetalk to me 15:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a real argument. See also:WP:NOHARM, WP:ILIKEIT. Cool Bluetalk to me 15:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a real argument. See also:WP:ILIKEIT. Cool Bluetalk to me 15:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Very much under WP:NFT. Note to Yummysalad, Dyingpossum, and Funnybunnies (the latter two of whom are evidently SPAs and possible socks), please divert your attention to WP:AADD for a nice long list of arguments that are best avoided here. In short, it actually is hurting Wikipedia's integrity, that it exists is not enough (case in point, I exist), that it is evidently fun and/or "awesome" and that you've played it before is not enough either. Sorry. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep-while that is true, you could have a page that is valid on you, not true? Also in France, my homeland, i used to play this as a child, a very strategic and difficult game it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giantratz (talk • contribs) — Giantratz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep-this is a real game, while it was not once called this, but still, what does it matter if it's on here it is a real game, and by its being here more can find out about it, because some people apparently haven't heard about it and this is a good opportunity for others to hear about itPuppetman 00:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC) — Puppetman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep- first of all, what's everyone's problem with a game on here, at one time chess was created just like this game has been made, so it's real. Also this game could take the world by storm, being the biggest phenomenon since titanic or possibly pokemon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.251.102 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - Board Game Geek turned up information: this game was published in a chess fanzine around 30 years ago. Google search for "Chesskers" turned up roughly 50 hits - mostly myspace and some online conversations. It apparently exists, but that I recall, publication in a 'zine does not constitute notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not appear notable. No WP:RS, so must be WP:OR. --Evb-wiki 01:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Chess variants. Clarityfiend 01:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. anything that has this many feet should be killed. No references, no assertions of notability, and doesn't show up in Google. Horologium t-c 02:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as a WP:NEO. Rules don't appear standardized, and the only other Chessckers Google hit gives a completely different ruleset (which isn't reliable either.) Also, I posted an example within an article that indicates an undefined portion of the rules - is the game a draw or loss? Given that these questions are unlikely to be resolved, I wouldn't consider it notable enough for a chess variant. --Sigma 7 05:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NFT. If it must be kept, it should be merged with Chess variants, as Clarityfiend suggested. I don't think it's significant enough to have its own article. --DearPrudence 13:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Capmango 02:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closing admin - There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mysterious J, in which many of the "keep" enterers are alleged to be sockpuppets of eachother, resulting in a possible voting fraud here. Cool Bluetalk to me 13:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly, I wouldn't worry about the voting fraud aspect. The sock votes pretty much revolve around WP:WAX, WP:ILIKEIT, and WP:INTERESTING, and my experience over the past year is that such arguments have an annoying habit of being ignored. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article is WAY too insignifigant. If it's "such a great game", why have I never heard of it or seen it at the store? Crowstar 17:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I hate to cite my credentials, but I worry that the message isn't yet clear. I'm an amateur expert on chess (as my contributions will demonstrate) and I know a thing or two about checkers also. I've never heard of "chessckers." It's the kind of chess variant that was made up in school one day. Just because a few kids have played it, doesn't make it notable. Until I see at least one citation from any of the publications in List of chess periodicals (which I wrote) or works of equivalent quality, I will be very disappointed if Wikipedia gives its stamp of approval to this article. YechielMan 06:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into chess variant. This is actually a fairly fun game, and Id hate to lose the pointer to it.
Can IPs make an entry here?
  • Keep - this game is real and awesome, definitely keep. Wikipedia exists to catalog all human knowledge, this certainly qualifies. Suppafly 14:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you get a grasp of policies that could be used in AfD debates before anything else. Cool Bluetalk to me 18:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, demonstrate to us how this qualifies. I'm very curious. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability
  • Delete made up in school one day. JJL 23:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete (hoax). Peacent 03:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Race: MK[edit]

The Amazing Race: MK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Obvious hoax. CrazyLegsKC 20:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete per nom. Even if it were not a hoax, it is fancruft. Even if it were not cruft, it is completely written in-world for a fictional event. MKoltnow 20:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Who are we kidding? It's a hoax. More accurately, its fan fiction, as any google search can tell you. W1k13rh3nry 21:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as nonsense. --Haemo 21:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense, unfortunately we still haven't got a speedy delete criterion for obvious hoaxes. Too bad BJAODN has been wiped out. Corvus cornix 21:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A7 sounds like a hoax Rackabello 22:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete It is a hoax which is obviously set in the Super Mario Bros. universe. Can't get any more fictional and nonsalvageable than that. Tinlinkin 04:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Speedy declined. --Sigma 7 05:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even though the article's premise and plot description was nonsensical, the article was written in a sensical way. That's nonsense. (comment meant to be a joke, not a personal attack on the admin who declined the speedy deletion.) Tinlinkin 06:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 02:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Real Estate[edit]

Dallas Real Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Originally, I pondered putting a speedy delete tag on this, but there was a lot of demographic information about the Dallas area, so I left it. Another user and I discussed it and felt that unsourced and wikify would work. But now the demographic information has been removed, leaving us with just some vague statements with nothing to substantiate them. I really don't see how this stub can be expanded without turning it into an ad. Corvus cornix 20:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per WP:VERIFY --Javit 20:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - DISCLOSURE: I am the editor that removed all the demographic information. All of that information already exists (and properly so) in the Dallas, Texas article. None of the deomgraphic information was being used to support information on the Dallas real estate market. The rest of the article doesn't provide any useful references per WP:V and WP:RS. -- Whpq 22:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right. I have no objections to the removal, by the way. Corvus cornix 23:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I support deletion of the article, I orginally put a Speedy Deletion tag, but removed it after Corvus Cornix discussed it with me, we thought it would be a valid article considering the demographic info, since then it was removed, I placed the wikify and unsourced tag, but it doesn't seem like someone will be able to come in and make the article any better.--♫Twinkler4♫ 15:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has no value on its own. If there is anything worth saying about Dallas's real estate market, it belongs in the Dallas article. Not suggesting a merge, since there is nothing worth merging. Adrian M. H. 17:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of references and quite frankly, this should only be mention into the Dallas or related articles on population or economics related to Dallas or the DFW region.--JForget 00:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 02:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drawloop[edit]

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

Contested prod, apparently company-produced PR. Assertions of notability are made, but I don't believe this meets the threshold for WP:CORP, especially since references given are mainly self-published (i.e. blogs). RJASE1 Talk 20:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 09:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danyadi[edit]

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

Article is about a surname, which as the article states, is not very common. Although well-formed, it was not categorized correctly, without stub tag, and originally a dead-end. There are no Wikipedia links to it, nor an article on someone with the name. There are thousand of surnames out there, and not all are notable enough for Wikipedia. Reywas92TalkReview me 20:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Exactly per nom, well presented --Javit 22:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed. Not notable. Adrian M. H. 17:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP. David Eppstein 02:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detleff Neumann-Neurode[edit]

Detleff Neumann-Neurode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject may seem notable, but contrary to to the POV "work of Detleff Neumann-Neurode is known the world over," he has few Google hits. Only one contributer, and the article is wildly unwikified. Sources are two small things he wrote, and are not in-line. It is possibly a copyvio. Also has no links to it. Reywas92TalkReview me 20:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Ghits again, for an early 20th century academic. Fortunately, Google also produces Google Books, which gives 21 references, being highly favorable reviews of his books in the major relevant German journals of the time--and Google Scholar which gives 4. The article itself talks about the views of medical leaders of the period about the subject, and recognition of the method as a sub-speciality and in the name of an institution.
    Examples of irrelevant criterion: "only one contributor" -- "wildly unwikified" -- sources "not in-line" -- all of them factors having nothing whatever to do with notability. This is not GA review. The effort for the AfD would have been better spent in wikifying. I've added the reviews, and better citations for his works. I apologize for any exasperation in my tone, but some attention should be paid to improving articles that look inadequate--or at least to finding some reason why the subject may not be notable. DGG 02:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve further as required. There is no compelling reason to delete this. Adrian M. H. 17:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Books satisfy notability. [3] ~ Infrangible 01:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep without predjudice for or against a merge which can be carried out without an AfD. Eluchil404 18:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chariot of Wisdom and Love[edit]

The Chariot of Wisdom and Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Listed as a speedy, but I'm really not convinced it meets the letter or spirit of A7. On one hand, a good deal of research suggests that there's not much else regarding this specific publication, but Jeremiah Hacker, the publisher, is certainly important, and a number of sources about him could probably flesh this out, too. I couldn't in good faith leave the speedy up, but I can't comfortably let this sit without better discussion, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment- Why not just merge it to Jeremiah Hacker then? -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 20:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought about it, but I'm typically against merging in most cases. A merge to Hacker isn't going to help anyone looking for Chariot. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it will. The redirect will still be there, and the search engine will find Jeremiah Hacker if asked for Chariot; it's the fourth entry down now, even without quotes; Pleasure Boat is the third. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Allow me to rephrase - it will be able to be searched for, but people looking for info on Chariot aren't necessarily looking for info on Hacker. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • With a cut-and-paste merger, and a redirect to the new section in Hacker, they should be able to find all the information they want, right? (and more information about the publisher too) -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 20:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • After they sift through the stuff they don't need, yeah. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's what the redirect to the #section is for. They dont have to sift, it will be at the top of their screen by default. (example at Dispersive PDE Wiki -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 20:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I understand how those work. That doesn't mean a merge is more useful. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Extremely Wicked-Strong Keep There's nothing wrong to the article that meets the eye...JONJONBTTalk to me! 20:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Hacker, which won't be hard. Almost all the information here is in a couple of sentences there. We don't need this article until it has some facts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Hacker per WP:Notability --Javit 20:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the problem with merge is to see that the content is not lost--all too often it happens that the heading is merged, and the content gradually deleted. That should not be the purpose of suggested merges at AfD. DGG 03:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge it seems verifiable, and not a speedy so I'm really not sure why Jeff has brought it here. As to merge, no opinion. Personally, I'd merge for now as the Hacker article is so short too. If we get more information on either any editor can unmerge later.--Docg 13:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge as suggested by Docg. Could be split later, if required.--Arthana 10:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Essner Mathematics Competition[edit]

David Essner Mathematics Competition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability; a local math contest, named after a local who died in a motorcycle accident. Wikipedia is not a memorial service. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep This isn' a memorial service to David Essner, it's just an article informing about a math competition. JONJONBTTalk to me! 20:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete- MathCounts is a notable math competition. I'm not sure a competition limited to a single county of schools really qualifies, at least not on that scale. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 20:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but author should add a reference to an independent source. Capmango 21:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a competition for a scholarship within a single school district is not notable. If kept, the bio of the nominee should be removed (28th in the Putnam competition is not notable, not even as a section of an article) as well as the details about the awards.. Neither are encyclopedic, and are fit only for a web site. (I don't want to remove content during an AfD) DGG 03:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG's comment, or if appropriate, consider merging into Miami-Dade County Public Schools. Not certain if that is the right article for a merge, as I am not familiar with the US school system. Adrian M. H. 17:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DDG. Indrian 08:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. JJL 23:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. W.marsh 14:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Search Engine Marketing[edit]

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

Propose Deletion. This article is not Noteworthy. It is an overlapping topic. Same author wrote (Search Engine Land also not noteworthy) It is an overlapping (subset of Search Engine Optimazation). Search Engine Marketing belongs as a subtopic of Search Engine Optimazition, as it is currently written.

The article is poorly written, even after it was reverted. SEM is a subset of SEO work, as such, it belongs in the SEO article.

Any SEO company will do SEM work. It is a subset of the topic and should just have a redirect to that article. --Akc9000 19:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is false. Jehochman Talk 20:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Search engine optimization is concerned with free listings. Search engine marketing is primarily concerned with paid listings, according to current use. As the main contributor to search engine optimization , I am in a good position to know the difference. This article is horrible, but that's not a reason to delete. It needs editing and expansion. Jehochman Talk 20:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • dunno the article is better for being shorter, but still lacks independent sorces; the word marketing is the world's most abused weasel word, and the article currently talks about search engine advertising. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, marketing isn't a weasel word. It has a very precise meaning. Please do read the article. Jehochman Talk 22:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. SEO and SEM are not the same thing. Those of us who are in the Web 2.0 industry know this. Sorry to rain on your parade, but SEO firms absolutely do not do the same things as SEM firms. But, if you're not convinced, see: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10]. And that's not even cracking the surface. That's just after a very quick search. Just because you don't know about something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Rockstar (T/C) 20:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Most of the information would be better in a section of search engine. Better yet, rename the article as "Search engine advertising". Agree with Guy's argument.W1k13rh3nry 21:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that "Search engine advertising" is not a term, and there are no reliable sources citing Search engine advertising. All articles are about Search engine marketing, as displayed above. Much of SEM does deal with advertising, but what SEM is not SEA. Hell, SEA doesn't even exist. Rockstar (T/C) 21:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that Wikipedia doesn't make up new names for things. We use the names that other people assign, especially people like New York Times editors. Jehochman Talk 21:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think search engine advertising would be more accurate. Whatever, why don't we merge it though? It's not worthy of its own article. W1k13rh3nry 21:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from your own opinion, what evidence or argument can you present? The simple fact is that this thing is called Search engine marketing and I've presented rock solid evidence that it's a US$9 billion per year industry. On what basis can you possibly argue to delete this. My belief, at this point in time, is that this may be a bad faith nomination meant to troll and disrupt. If I attempted to delete the article on Uganda, which has a GDP of about US$8.7 billion, I suspect the result would be a speedy keep, and I'd get some kind of stern warning. Jehochman Talk 22:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently those seven sources I cited don't count? All of which are either from the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal? Rockstar (T/C) 00:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how many times you say you disagree, Jehochman, SEO first of all does not only deal with free listings and the optimization of a site. Here is an example of an SEO company, http://www.submitexpress.com/ have a look. All companies that do SEO work also do SEM making SEM a subset of SEO. You optimize a site so you can market it. You do not market a site that is not fit to be marketed. SEM needs to be mentioned but not how this article is written. It need to be a section on the SEO article only and not a section of its own. If this was a very comprehensive article I would say that it would / should be its own article but not currently. As it is written, it is more like a footnote for the SEO article. Sorry, Search Engine Advertising is not the proper term or nomenclature, the proper term is Search Engine Marketing, as I stated, this article needs to be deleted or merged with the SEO article. --Akc9000 02:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone actually do research before you say keep this article? You are citing references from 2005 ! http://www.dmnews.com/cms/dm-news/search-marketing/34955.html for example. Do you think the information from 2005 is correct today? Do you read these things or do you just post them as cites to try to prove your point? Just because it is written, does not make the author correct. He tries to say that SEM picks landing pages and SEO does not. What a bunch of rubbish. I can do SEO on a site and get the search engine to land on a page. It is called "doorway" or "gateway" pages. Also, in the same way you changed this articles intro to make it look like SEO is a part of SEM you should have done the reverse. All SEM must starts out as a part of SEO, its just common sense and if you did that and merged these to articles we would not be having this discussion.
This is a very, very poor argument and a further testament to your misunderstanding of the industry. A citation that is two years old does not mean that it has become irrelevant or any less fact today than it was two years ago. Quit being a troll!! Jasonmurphy 20:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore look at PPC for example, just one year ago you bid to a position. This is no longer true, you still pay-per-click but the actual position is based on a number of factors, 1 is the amount you are willing to pay per click and 2, is the quality of the ad. The quality of the ad is SEO not SEM therefore SEM is a part of SEO. Do any of you have PPC accounts and do SEO/SEM work? --Akc9000 03:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge I will compromise with a vote to merge instead of delete. I never said that SEO and SEM are the same thing rockstar. I said that SEM as the article is written, is a subset of SEO and as such, needs to be deleted or merged with the SEO article. When the article is developed properly it could be later split but not as it is now. It does not have to remain as a seperate article that needs house keeping as it is, it is a subset of SEO. If this article was written from a different point of view, we would not be having this discussion. --Akc9000 14:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree to merge this into it's parent article, Internet marketing, until we have time to expand it into a proper, separate article. Jehochman Talk 14:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Internet marketing would be more appropriate than merging with SEO, though it will become its own article once I find some time to properly reference it. And for the record, I do work both with SEM and SEO, and trust me, they're not the same thing. Rockstar (T/C) 16:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right; they are not. Even those of us who do both services entirely in-house as "just another part of the process" are aware of the distinction. Adrian M. H. 17:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Bill Slawski's expansion is sufficiently detailed that there is no longer any reason to merge this. We just need to keep working on it and add more references. Jehochman Talk 16:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Yeah, it's a poorly written article. However, Search Engine Marketing is an important overaching concept that encompasses many different elements (SEO, PPC , etc.) all of which are represented on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pryzbilla (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep - You have it completely backwards, Akc9000, and show very little understanding of the subject matter at hand. If anything, SEO should be a subset of SEM. There are firms that practice only SEO and label themselves as SEO firm. If you went to them for SEM, they'd refer you to a SEM firm. --Jasonmurphy 18:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I'm not clear on the distinctions, if there are articles on search engine optimization and Internet marketing, under no circumstances would deletion be an acceptable outcome. Merging is a possibility, but we should defer to the subject matter experts on editorial questions like that. If the topics are clearly separable, as some of the experts seem to be saying, I encourage them to improve the entry so that will be more clear. --Michael Snow 18:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Note to closing admin: This discussion was mentioned in an article at Search Engine Land. [11]. Jehochman Talk 18:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's just another example of people trying to delete something they don't understand or haven't heard of. But that's why Wikipedia exists, and why these articles especially exist -- education. It's pretty short-sighted to propose deletion. Rockstar (T/C) 20:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not upset by this in the least. This exposes an opportunity for the industry to do a better job educating the public. The ones who really missed the boat are SEMPO. Where are they? Why aren't they commenting? Jehochman Talk 20:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge SEO and SEM overlap quite a bit -- the distinction may be more about philosophy than actions. SEO is more about organic results, where SEM includes (focuses on?) paid placements and other external links. Ideally, they'd both belong to some larger discussion of search engines in general. JeffJonez 20:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a matter of opinion. To me, as someone who practices both industries, the two are as different as magazines and books. Sure the printing press is required for both, but the motivation, funding/costs, editorial process, production timelines, content, revenue streams, delivery logistics and release schedules vary widely. Both SEO and SEM involve search engines, but there are two many distinct differences beyond that to brush it off as a matter of philosophy. The actions involved vary a great deal. Jasonmurphy 21:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Note to admin: I have reason to believe the article was submitted for deletion out of personal spite and unresolved disagreement between the original article author and the nominating user. A review of the history of both users would suggest such differences. Jasonmurphy 21:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The article itself is not noteworthy, but the subject matter of the article is, as a multibillion dollar industry, and the correct term of art for the topic it describes. It should be improved, and not deleted. (didn't sign. Sorry) Bill Slawski 00:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reprehensible but still noteworthy non the less, no need to merge either. RFerreira 06:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and tell the jerk who flagged the article and states that search engine marketing is part of search engine optimization to get his facts straight [12]. This is no joke. The guy would be right, if it would still be pre 1997. 10 Years too late mate. What's next? Army merge into Guerillas? America merge into USA? --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 12:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment. Some use the term SEM or Search Engine Marketing for Pay per click advertising, which will probably be understood in the right context. Some also prefer Search Marketing over Search "Engine" Marketing. There are valid arguments for that. As Bill Slawski already stated, Search Engine Marketing is used today as term for a broader industry, which continues to broaden. Things like Social Media Optimization emerged less than 2 years ago, Pay per click 10 years ago, SEO since over 14 years (with different names used for it at the beginning) and before that inclusion into directories. ODP is the only notable left that is free, the rest are fee based, hence the name "paid inclusion", which was extended to incorporate also the payment of a fee to ensure that crawler based search engines include paid for pages in their index. Who knows, but local search and mobile search will probably become so big to be noteworthy on their own merits as part of SEM.--roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 12:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2nd comment. While it was possible in the past for one company to offer all kind of search engine marketing services, did the landscape became much more complicated and competitive over time. The trend of the industry is towards specialization on one aspect of search engine marketing. Even within the indivdual sub sections of SEM, such as SEO, is a trend to even further specialization within a sub section noticable. It is not as comon anymore that one company offers pay per click advertising services in addition to SEO services, even SEO shops do not necessarily offer all kind of SEO services anymore (in depth), but specialize in one or two aspects of it instead, such as Link building and viral marketing (linkbaiting) etc. These trends will continue, because search is going to become a larger market within the next few years and at the same time also much more competitive. The complexity of the new market if much too great for an individual to handle and deliver quaality results in all areas. The size of the companies in this space is still relatively small. Large companies that will be able to provide the whole spectrum of services across search marketing and beyond might emerge, if massive consolidation in the space will take place. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 23:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete; with no prejudice against recreation in the event that the band becomes notable. Sr13 01:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Masque:rade[edit]

Masque:rade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Asserts notability (speedy was contested), but I don't think they meet WP:MUSIC. ` NawlinWiki 19:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - independent releases, no major label releases that I can discern, very, very minimal discussion online (a Google for '"Masque:rade" Perth' turned up three hits, '"Masque:rade" Koe' ten) - unless I'm missing something, there's no independent sources regarding this band as yet. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely Weak Delete, for the bottom section needs to comply with WP:NPOV. JONJONBTTalk to me! 20:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if you must I was only trying to help out a band that is very important for my scene in my city. I must say this is a very disappointing first experience in editing Wikipedia articles. Probably the most unwelcoming online community I have joined. Unfortunate. Sfmcf 20:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We are sorry that you didn't like your first experience, but Wikipedia has policies and guidelines that must be maintained to keep it well-organized. This band simply isn't well enough known to have an article here. Reywas92TalkReview me 20:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Unlike most things on wikipedia where notability is pretty vague, WP:MUSIC has well-defined guidelines for what is notable. Meeting any one of the guidelines should get your band in, though from the arguments you read in afd, you would think that missing any one keeps your band out. My suggestion to Sfmcf is to look at WP:MUSIC and honestly assess if this band meets at least one of the criteria, then point out which one in the first paragraph of your article (Criterion 7 looks promising for this group). I agree this is a surprisingly unfriendly place sometimes. Capmango 21:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I cannot find anything on Google News or Google News Archives about them and the article lacks sources of its own. Capitalistroadster 03:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't meet any WP:MUSIC criteria, except perhaps #7, but even there I'm not sure that this band is "prominent", given the lack of independent coverage. Support article re-creation however, if any of the criteria are met in the future. Lankiveil 05:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ameer Abro[edit]

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

Unreferenced autobiography; notability doesn't meet threshold of WP:BIO. RJASE1 Talk 19:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Probably doesn't meet the WP:BIO threshold, and has WP:COI problems. But the article was tagged with autobiography, notability, and verify on June 5th and then nominated for deletion June 7th. An author ought to be given at least a week to rewrite in response to the tags before being sent to afd. Capmango 21:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I find it unlikely that anyone will improve this article, but they've still got 5 days or so while this AfD is running. RJASE1 Talk 21:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A week from article creation is plenty of time to establish notability. COI issues make me lean towards deleting in any case unless notability is firmly established. --Daniel J. Leivick 22:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment tagging a newcomers' first article and then sending it to afd 2 days later just doesn't fit very well with WP:DBN IMHO. Saying (in effect) to someone who's most likely not familiar with WP:N or WP:COI "your article is going to disappear in 5 days unless you can fix it to our standards" does not help someone learn to be a better contributor, it just alienates the new people and frightens people from trying to make any contribution at all. Capmango 23:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sorry Capmango, but I don't understand what you are proposing instead. This is an autobiography of a non-notable person. We get one of these every five minutes (look at special:newpages and odds are you'll see one). You think these kinds of articles shouldn't be deleted? That would be a great day for resume posters, I can assure you. nadav (talk) 01:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am proposing that we don't bite the newbies, that we assume good faith, and that we give the author an opportunity to fix an article, no matter how convinced we may be in advance that the article is unfixable. We are not the ultimate experts on what is and what is not notable, and we should stop acting like we are. Any author should be given a chance to fix COI and establish notability unless it is obvious spam or clearly posted in bad faith. If it means that a non-notable page is up for 10 days instead of 5, it still pays off in the long run because new writers won't always get slammed for their first attempt. Capmango 17:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears then that you are proposing a change in policy and not arguing about the merits of this particular article. I suggest you make this proposal at the talk pages of WP:CSD, WP:DEL, the village pump, or a similar forum. That way more people could sound off about it, since it would be a pretty big change from how speedy deletions are now usually handled. nadav (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was trying to propose that we follow policies and guidelines. The WP:DEL policy states "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion". What we are doing here is prejudging that this page cannot be improved. Following the spirit of WP:DBN and WP:AGF, it seems reasonable to give the author a chance to respond to the tags. Why do we even bother tagging a page if we don't intend to let the author respond to the tags? Capmango 00:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the whole point of an AfD discussion: it allows everyone to make their case. Five days is enough time to offer evidence that there exist secondary sources about him. And when I expressed my opinion that the person is non-notable, I had already checked for English language sources. I didn't find anything longer than a few words about him. Now, there may very well be more info out there, but I think 5 days is enough time to wait for an answer to that question. Also problematic is that if we editors don't have access to the sources, then there will be nothing to include in the article (since it is undesirable that Mr. Abro write the article about himself). nadav (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow delete. Peacent 03:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of foods with strong odor[edit]

List of foods with strong odor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subjective. What I think is a strong odor is not what you think is a strong odor. People perceive it differently. In addition, there are too few sources cited per WP:RS for this not to be subjective. Crystallina 19:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete — nonsense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthana (talk • contribs)
  • Something smells....oh it's the article delete Wildthing61476 20:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete smelly. Whsitchy 20:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ach du lieber! Doesn't even have an entry for limburger! Deor 21:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - incredibly subjective list criterion. Beyond salvageable. --Haemo 21:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Who are we kidding? WP:NPOV (what I think is strong odor may not be what you think is) and WP:NONSENSE. W1k13rh3nry 21:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think this would be an excellent time to bring out the WP:NOONECARES. (WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NONSENSE, WP:IINFO, WP:L vios as valid reasons) Cool Bluetalk to me 21:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unmaintainable list, nonsense, entirely subjective--need we continue?--Blueboy96 22:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as strong odor is subjective, this borders on Original Research. BH (T|C) 02:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsensical and subjective. StudierMalMarburg 15:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as an unmaintainalbe list. Also, as users have said above, how do you define food with a strong odor? Acalamari 18:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JoshuaZ 01:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ingham County League[edit]

Ingham County League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Lacks notability. The organization has now folded. When it was around it was only a bunch of high schools competing against each other. Clerks. 19:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Yeah, okay, but the Soviet Union is an organization that has folded as well but wikipedia still seems to host an article for it. If the next point is valid that it was "only a bunch of high schools competing against each other," then can someone explain the relevance of, say, Ohio High School Athletic Conferences or any of its subdirectories while maintaining that the ICL is irrelevant? Free the ICL! Hornet00
  • Delete no notability is asserted. To the previous commentor - please see WP:N guidelines. If this organization meets one of the criteria listed there, please assert that in the article - such an assertion, if backed up with a source, could turn this nomination around. As far as other articles, please read this essay: Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Lyrl Talk C 01:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Indrian 08:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment i'm completely confused. after reading the WP:N and reviewing some of the articles for deletion, it seems that wikipedia is deliberatly striving to be the opposite of what it should be. since the experiment of wikipedia is to allow anyone the authority to edit, one would assume that the result would be one of the most comprehensive encyclopedias assembled. the product, however, is an encyclopedia which is full of prejudiced submissions towards contemporary or even remotely controversial subjects (ie. Dick Cheney) while deliberately devoid of any articles that are written by true authorities about subjects that would otherwise not receive any general-audience encyclopaedic notoriety yet still merit some sort of historical preservation... and therefore eliminating what should make wikipedia unique. therefore, articles are either 1) spotted with misinformation or 2) do not exist. Sorry for wasting everyone's time, apparently.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Peacent 02:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humber students' federation[edit]

Humber students' federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable student union organization -- there's some group like this on every college campus in the world. NawlinWiki 18:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or perhaps merge. Definitely not notable. Full of indisriminate information. Reywas92TalkReview me 20:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the lack of notability. Adrian M. H. 17:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Interestingly, in previous deletion nominations of similar articles I have seen it successfully argued that student's unions are inherently notable because of the power they hold and their large membership (normally, the entire student body). I don't agree with that position, but find it interesting no one has argued that here. Lyrl Talk C 01:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep...this is the english *language* wikipedia... --Stephanie talk 12:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mexican voice actors[edit]

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

I'm pretty sure this site is English Wikipedia, not Spanish Wikipedia, where this information is better suited. If we have lists like this for all languages, what's the point in having different language Wikipedias? To my knowledge, the video game and manga/anime Wikiprojects have agreed that articles should list the voice actors for English and the native language if it is not English. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm sorry, but I really don't see your reasoning here: "I'm pretty sure this site is English Wikipedia, not Spanish Wikipedia, where this information is better suited." Are you trying to say that the English-language Wikipedia should avoid any topics that do not pertain to the English-speaking countries? I thought we were trying to avoid just the opposite. Crystallina 19:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree! This deletion proposal was set up in order to wipe those Mexicans out of our heads! Plus, I speak fluent Spanish, so I'm highly offended by the deletion proposal! --Ryanasaurus0077 19:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And now, my comment - I think I smell traces of Tokugawa Iemitsu. It seems like NeoChaosX is living up to his name: he's set this up to cause chaos in the Wikipedia community, just to annoy the living crap out of Spanish-speakers who use the English Wikipedia, myself included! He's trying to scare Spanish-speakers on this Wikipedia, and he's definitely trying to spark hatred against the Spanish Wikipedia! I will not stand for this any longer! If this keeps up, I'm going to have to report him on the grounds of prejudice! In fact, I can only hope the admins order him to pack his bags for this fiasco! --Ryanasaurus0077 12:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me comment again. When I said I agreed, I meant with Crystallina! This deletion proposal is not only a sheer act of prejudice and an attempt to imitate Iemitsu, but also systemic bias, which is not recommended on the Wikipedia. Propose deletion of one more Mexico-related article, NeoChaosX, and I'll have you reported for violation of deletion policy! --Ryanasaurus0077 12:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move, it is an interesting article, but it should be change to List of Spanish voice actors, as the birthplace of the actor shouldn't matter. Clerks. 19:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I might be wrong. For the dub of the Simpsons they had a Spanish version and a Latin American version, thus maybe the move should be to List of Latin American voice actors.Clerks. 19:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if this list stays, the precedent for creating lists similar to this could encourage the opening to floodgates for articles such as List of Canadian Voice Actors, or any other country. BH (T|C) 02:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Allow me to comment on your blatant and open support of NeoChaosX's systemic bias, Black Harry. If I report NeoChaosX when he tries to get one more page deleted, you're going down too. Not to scare you, just a warning that you're siding with someone who tried to attempt systemic bias. --Ryanasaurus0077 12:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm going down for what? Expressing my mind in a discussion. Your extortive blackmailing may work against other editors, but not me. Further more, if you ever threaten to take me down again, I will report your and see to it that you are blocked for harassing me and trying to intimidate me into voting keep on article which I find pointless.BH (T|C) 18:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think my twin brother was harassing you (I've already severely disciplined him for the incident, believing he had a big hangover at the time; I say he was delirious). Sorry I couldn't keep him under control, he was out of my sight again (why can't I keep up with how much aspirin he takes!?); I should probably try to give him some more medication so he doesn't go violently delirious again. --Ryanasaurus007 22:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's my next comment - We don't want to discourage anyone from creating an article devoted to the voice actors who were born in (or currently reside in) our neighbor to the north. It'd be like blaming Canada for WP's problems if we deleted this page, only this time we'd be blaming Mexico! BTW, to blame Canada means to target an unreasonable scapegoat (i.e. Canada or Mexico). --Ryanasaurus0077 21:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Black Harry. Political correctness should not be the driving force for keeping anything on wikipedia. Sleep On It 12:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Time to comment on Sleep On It's vote. I voted "keep" for this article based on the fact that NeoChaosX, or should I say Tokugawa Iemitsu, is deliberately promoting systemic bias. Now, I'm actively speaking out against this political incorrectness he's been showing... but unfortunately I can't warn you about the consequences since my twin brother (that's Ryanasaurus007 for you) put me on probation for a few days, part of the terms being that I can edit Wikipedia, but I can't drink beer. But I can tell you that what he's doing makes me want to report him if I see this page go under. Don't worry, you'll be safe. But I can't guarantee his Hans Gruber-like behavior is going to let him get away with being politically incorrect and trying to make the entire WP politically incorrect in doing so. I don't like anarchy or systemic bias, and neither does WP! --Ryanasaurus0077 21:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the Closing Admin please review the thread on WP:ANI concerning the two Ryanasaurus users, before closing this debate. The thread is viewable here. BH (T|C) 23:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure the deletion reason is all that applicable, as while this is the English Wikipedia, that refers only to the language of this Wikipedia. Articles about foreign language media is perfectly fine, so long as the article itself is in English. That said, I am not at all certain that this is a notable intersection. At any rate, I find I can't vote either way, though I was tempted to vote delete exclusively on the basis of the ridiculous sockpuppetry by the two Ryans. Resolute 00:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If this is going to be deleted, it should be deleted on cruft or indiscriminate information grounds, but not to do with nationality or race. There is List of Spaniards, for example. But I don't think it's anywhere near cruft nor is it indiscriminate information. So I am bordering on Speedy Keep rather than Keep. x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks notable like other similar lists from countries that had several notable voice actors. --JForget 00:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


{{He's trying to scare Spanish-speakers on this Wikipedia, and he's definitely trying to spark hatred against the Spanish Wikipedia! I will not stand for this any longer! If this keeps up, I'm going to have to report him on the grounds of prejudice! In fact, I can only hope the admins order him to pack his bags for this fiasco! --Ryanasaurus0077 12:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Let me comment again. When I said I agreed, I meant with Crystallina! This deletion proposal is not only a sheer act of prejudice and an attempt to imitate Iemitsu, but also systemic bias, which is not recommended on the Wikipedia. Propose deletion of one more Mexico-related article, NeoChaosX, and I'll have you reported for violation of deletion policy! --Ryanasaurus0077 12:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move, it is an interesting article, but it should be change to List of Spanish voice actors, as the birthplace of the actor shouldn't matter. Clerks. 19:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I might be wrong. For the dub of the Simpsons they had a Spanish version and a Latin American version, thus maybe the move should be to List of Latin American voice actors.Clerks. 19:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if this list stays, the precedent for creating lists similar to this could encourage the opening to floodgates for articles such as List of Canadian Voice Actors, or any other country. BH (T|C) 02:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Allow me to comment on your blatant and open support of NeoChaosX's systemic bias, Black Harry. If I report NeoChaosX when he tries to get one more page deleted, you're going down too. Not to scare you, just a warning that you're siding with someone who tried to attempt systemic bias. --Ryanasaurus0077 12:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm going down for what? Expressing my mind in a discussion. Your extortive blackmailing may work against other editors, but not me. Further more, if you ever threaten to take me down again, I will report your and see to it that you are blocked for harassing me and trying to intimidate me into voting keep on article which I find pointless.BH (T|C) 18:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think my twin brother was harassing you (I've already severely disciplined him for the incident, believing he had a big hangover at the time; I say he was delirious). Sorry I couldn't keep him under control, he was out of my sight again (why can't I keep up with how much aspirin he takes!?); I should probably try to give him some more medication so he doesn't go violently delirious again. --Ryanasaurus007 22:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's my next comment - We don't want to discourage anyone from creating an article devoted to the voice actors who were born in (or currently reside in) our neighbor to the north. It'd be like blaming Canada for WP's problems if we deleted this page, only this time we'd be blaming Mexico! BTW, to blame Canada means to target an unreasonable scapegoat (i.e. Canada or Mexico). --Ryanasaurus0077 21:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Black Harry. Political correctness should not be the driving force for keeping anything on wikipedia. Sleep On It 12:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Time to comment on Sleep On It's vote. I voted "keep" for this article based on the fact that NeoChaosX, or should I say Tokugawa Iemitsu, is deliberately promoting systemic bias. Now, I'm actively speaking out against this political incorrectness he's been showing... but unfortunately I can't warn you about the consequences since my twin brother (that's Ryanasaurus007 for you) put me on probation for a few days, part of the terms being that I can edit Wikipedia, but I can't drink beer. But I can tell you that what he's doing makes me want to report him if I see this page go under. Don't worry, you'll be safe. But I can't guarantee his Hans Gruber-like behavior is going to let him get away with being politically incorrect and trying to make the entire WP politically incorrect in doing so. I don't like anarchy or systemic bias, and neither does WP! --Ryanasaurus0077 21:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the Closing Admin please review the thread on WP:ANI concerning the two Ryanasaurus users, before closing this debate. The thread is viewable here. BH (T|C) 23:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure the deletion reason is all that applicable, as while this is the English Wikipedia, that refers only to the language of this Wikipedia. Articles about foreign language media is perfectly fine, so long as the article itself is in English. That said, I am not at all certain that this is a notable intersection. At any rate, I find I can't vote either way, though I was tempted to vote delete exclusively on the basis of the ridiculous sockpuppetry by the two Ryans. Resolute 00:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If this is going to be deleted, it should be deleted on cruft or indiscriminate information grounds, but not to do with nationality or race. There is List of Spaniards, for example. But I don't think it's anywhere near cruft nor is it indiscriminate information. So I am bordering on Speedy Keep rather than Keep. x42bn6 Talk Mess 01:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks notable like other similar lists from countries that had several notable voice actors. --JForget 00:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 02:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Biggs[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 18:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as per nom, doesn't appear to have passed the notability threshold. Studerby 19:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom --Javit 19:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Valrith 20:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. JJL 23:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETED as an attack -Docg 22:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Gipson[edit]

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

Hapless criminal. Falls into category of people known only for being in the news once. NawlinWiki 18:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, widely covered in respectable media, verifiable. Doesn't matter if it was once or twice. Needs wikifying though. --Javit 19:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think it does matter if it was once, per WP:NOT#INFO: "Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article." Why so many Wikipedians are willing to ignore this bit of official policy is something I just don't understand. Deor 20:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, extreme WP:BLP violation. Corvus cornix 20:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amira belly dancer[edit]

Amira belly dancer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No sign of any notability for this person Lurker 17:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No sources given to back up the claims to fame. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete peer WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTABILITY. Tagged as such. --Javit 19:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy deletion isn't valid for an article that asserts notability. --Wafulz 20:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sources to back up notability, and no GHits for her name. --Haemo 21:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:VERIFY WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NPOV.W1k13rh3nry 21:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Data verified, do not delete, re Paris Match, Time user Drroberttaylor— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drroberthtaylor (talk • contribs) 00:30, June 8, 2007 (UTC)
    • Most magazines have website archives, I know for a fact that Time does. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 17:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If you could cite the Paris Match issue and page numbers as soon as possible, perhaps it would be helpful. --Javit 17:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I have asked for more discussion of these sources as well. -- Satori Son 17:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. Article contents are not properly attributed to reliable sources and cannot be verified. -- Satori Son 00:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Fernández[edit]

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

Non-Notable. Stellatomailing 20:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the article does not comply with the rules below.

Entertainers: actors, comedians, opinion makers, and television personalities: 

  * With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.
  * Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  * Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Stellatomailing 20:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 03:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as pretty obviously notable. Has appeared in numerous TV series and notable films, so very easily fulfills the criteria. Ford MF 03:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is close to a stub class, the subject meets the first two criteria you mentioned well enough (or is otherwise asserted). You can still ask for references. --Sigma 7 06:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, I still disagree since she was not a main character in any of the movies she participated. Looks like more of a job of somebody trying to promote her. (not the voters in this AfD) Stellatomailing 06:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She passes WP:BIO - "With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions". The problem with foreign language entries in the IMDB is that actors are often listed in alphabetical instead of in credits order (more common in North American productions), which makes it seem like she's rather far down the list in some of the things she's been in. But she was in 66 episodes of at least one program (Todos los hombres sois iguales) that received the Spanish equivalent of a national Emmy for Best Series while she was on it. She had a major part in the film La lengua de las mariposas - that was nominated for (if I count correctly) 13 Goya Awards (the equivalent of the Oscars). --Charlene 09:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If she had a meaningful contribution in Todos los hombres sois iguales, she has some N. But for La lengua de las mariposas, she is not even mentioned in the reviews I found.([13],[14],[15],[16] among others). Regarding Todos los hombres sois iguales, you can see that in the spanish IMDB she was added later as an extra [17]. I doubt she was in 66 episodes - she is not even credited here,here, or here. Google search brings only a couple hits for non-imdb sites. Stellatomailing 19:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This debate is relisted per nominator request, please add opinons below this note. - Mailer Diablo 17:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stella has been giving me the impression she thinks Elena needs to clear every bar on WP:BIO, which isn't true. Morgan Wick 18:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I was under the impression she met none. I was just trying to demonstrate that her film credits are not notable.Stellatomailing 18:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't saying she met any; if I was I would have voted keep. I just got that idea from the way you cited specific lines of WP:BIO she didn't meet. Morgan Wick 21:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok. I just did not want to repost the entire WP:BIO article. Stellatomailing 21:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is definitely going to be kept, but she did not have a significant role in the movie. It was just added by the creator of her article. [18] He created "advert" articles before Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Everest_Capital. Stellatomailing 20:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Her own web site includes a listing of her film and TV projects. It states that she had a principal role in Mi nombre es sombra and in the TV show Menudo es mi padre. Her other roles were secondary, according to this list. I was thinking of updating the article accordingly, but it's not too far off the way it is stated now. Though the case for a 'Keep' has been weakened, the large variety of her projects, and a speaking part in Butterfly, seem to justify keeping the article IMHO. To go for delete you'd have to argue that Mi nombre es sombra was insignificant. EdJohnston 18:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Mi nombre es sombra" fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). She worked (judging from apparently her own contributions to YouTube - there is a madridchico in the Everest Capital discussion), she worked around 7 minutes in the ...Sombra movie (note how she is not cited [19],[20]) and has a speaking & Beyond role in Butterfly (the video is here, her participation is about two minutes, starting at 4:34 in the clip. (not sure how long it will stay there, since it is NSFW). I admit this may not represent her entire participation in the movies, although it is likely. Stellatomailing 18:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not used to deletion debates that get down to this fine a level of detail. In a sense, this is beneficial, because we get to understand the sources better. (I also hope someone will go ahead and add some of this info to the article, if it turns out to be Kept). My comment on your first links above is the following: The todocine link only includes *four* cast members, so she would not have been mentioned if she weren't in the top four. You are not insisting on that as a criterion for film notability, are you? She was also featured in a rather intense two-minute romantic scene that you included in the Youtube clip. Though that was only two minutes, don't you think she gets some credit from the fact that Butterfly was a big critical success? Also I'd like to hear more about why Mi nombre es sombra was not notable, in your view. EdJohnston 19:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ed, I just try to show the "why" in detail. In some AfDs this makes more sense, in others it goes uncontested. What I was trying to show using the todocine link (one of the few that mention the movie) is just that she did not have a major participation. My point on the Butterfly is that if she actually added to the success of Butterfly critically, she would have been mentioned by name in at least one review, and she was not. About "Sombra", the movie does not comply with any guidelines for notability - I am not sure how can I prove you the movie do not comply, since there are no "negative proof" that I can show. Stellatomailing 19:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Waltontalk 16:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James W. Sperman[edit]

James W. Sperman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Autobiographical article, notability doesn't meet level of WP:BIO. RJASE1 Talk 17:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Relevant information is already summarized at Pink Taco, and many of the sources in this article have little to do with him. We don't need both Pink Taco and this article; I'd keep the other one and delete this one. MastCell Talk 23:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sperman's restaurant has nothing to do with Morton's Pink Taco restaurant. The connection between the two restaurants is original

research, and all references to Sperman's restaurant have already, appropriately, been removed from Pink Taco. Pan Dan 14:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Please consider my suggestion at Talk:Pink_Taco#original_pink_taco as an alternative to deletion. Pan Dan 09:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MastCell. Alternative doesn't make sense: we don't need more than one Pink Taco Article. Also, given the username, there is likely a WP:COI issue here. Savidan 15:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because Sperman's restaurant has nothing to do with Morton's, we need two Pink Taco articles if Sperman's restaurant is notable. Do you think it is? Pan Dan 14:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to userspace The original pink taco has serious claims to notability, as evidenced by the sources found in this article. Please see Talk:Pink_Taco#original_pink_taco, as User:Pan Dan suggested for the proposed resolution of the two Pink Tacos. I will be editing the original pink taco article and basing it off of the sources and prose provided here. Copysan 21:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet WP:BIO.Mmoneypenny 21:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether Sperman meets WP:BIO is not at issue here because no one claims that he does. The question is the notability of his restaurant. Pan Dan 14:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No one recommending deletion has addressed the central question of whether Sperman's restaurant is notable. Pan Dan 14:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the information, which seems notable because of the documented state and national controversy. Merge, split, move or whatever as necessary. --Rbraunwa 14:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MastCell. Fails WP:BIO - G1ggy Talk/Contribs 22:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is about a restaurant, not M. Sperman, so WP:BIO is irrelevant. Broken Record 12:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO, WP:N, and WP:COI. ♠TomasBat 22:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Pink Taco. (If that gets deleted....*shrug*.)--Mike18xx 09:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sperman's Pink Taco restaurant has nothing to do with the Pink Taco restaurant that is described at Pink Taco, so a merge is contraindicated. Broken Record 12:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 02:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Nelson (Police officer)[edit]

James Nelson (Police officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NYPD officer and 9/11 victim. Not notable for anything else, and WP:NOT a memorial. NawlinWiki 17:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. The keepers have established notability (multiple national titles, international representation) and scope for expansion (notable Grandmasters playing for the Clubs) but OTOH the deleters make the equally good point that there needs to be more secondary sources. TerriersFan 17:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lunds ASK[edit]

I don't see this club meeting the standards of WP:ORG as there are no third-party sources that I could find about it. There may be more in Swedish, but the only claim to notability made in the previous deletion discussion was winning some championships. But what is important about these championships? They aren't even named in the article, and while they may be named here [21], I don't speak Swedish, so I can't tell. And why is this the only team that has won them with an article? What about SK Rockaden which has won far more of these championships? It might be reasonable to mention this team in an article on chess in Sweden overall, but it would still need to be sourced to something besides the organization itself. Also see related AFDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne Chess ClubWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Box Hill Chess ClubWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bearsden Chess Club FrozenPurpleCube 16:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addition Due to SK Rockaden being created in what I assume is a response to this nomination, I am adding it to this AFD as the arguments for the initial nomination apply equally well to this club. FrozenPurpleCube 20:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since several editors gave their !vote before the addition of SK Rockaden to this AfD, the addition seems too late to be include in the results of this AfD. -- Jreferee 22:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've notified all of them(with the exception of the editor who created the article), if they choose to change or modify their comments, they can. If the closing Admin thinks there is somehow a difference between the two, I'll start its own AFD. But honestly, I can't find any more non-trivial sources for this new article than Lunds ASK. The references on the page are a directory entry, a list of winners, and a couple of sets of statistics. Significant coverage that doesn't make. FrozenPurpleCube 02:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Atown chess club? not notable. Reywas92TalkReview me 20:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - obvious keep. This club has won its national team championships 8 times - a highly notable occurrence in any sport, and has a notable grandmaster playing for them. The other AfDs mentioned are total red herrings since no notable achievements were in those articles. The absence of an SK Rockaden article is also not relevant; it simply means that an article should be created. BlueValour 22:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unconvinced. Who has noticed these unspecified national championships? Where can I even find information about them other than one bare list? Also, I don't believe that one individual's membership in a club automatically makes the club notable. Is there any support for that method of notability assertion? FrozenPurpleCube 23:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can mention that Bergen's Chess Club, (which does not have an article, and since I am a member of the said club, I won't write one due to WP:COI), has an article in Bergen Byleksikon a "city encyclopedia" for Bergen. That article makes a point of having Ivar Bern as a member... and at the time of writing he was not World Champion of Correspondence Chess yet. The reason I point this out is that a strong individual's membership of a club can contribute to the club's notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One would expect a reference work intended to cover a local city to include almost any club from the city. Sorry, but that's not actually good evidence on its own. It's no more an indication of notability than a Who's Who entry. In any case, do you have any support for that on Wikipedia? Any sign of consensus for the idea that one individual member makes for a notable club? FrozenPurpleCube 06:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, even the city encyclopedia doesn't bother to cover the chess clubs Nordnes, Fana, and SK96, nor the former clubs of Fyllingsdalen and Åsane, all of which are within Bergen. In terms of membership, Nordnes is about as big as Bergens. The authors of the city encyclopedia have almost certainly chosen to make a distinction based on the clubs' merits of achievement. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said "almost any club" . But wait, we're not even talking about Lunds ASK, but a second club, not even in the same country. So, exactly why is arguing for the existence of this one club indicative of the notability another club that isn't related to it at all? It's not. Maybe you should try to find out if there's any kind of actual coverage of Lunds ASK that is significant as opposed to using the existence of a local "city encyclopedia" that mentions another club. FrozenPurpleCube 13:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this discussion started because of your claim that a strong player being a member does not make a club notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And as I asked, do you have any support for that on Wikipedia? Any sign of consensus for the idea that one individual member makes for a notable club? I don't think I've seen it, but if you have, you can point it out. The practices, however, of a reference work of dubious status are not convincing. Sorry. FrozenPurpleCube 15:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was not just some local championship they won, it was the national team championship, the elite series of a nationwide tournament, and winning it qualifies the team for European championships. Becoming national champion is thewrefore a clear claim to notability, and the list of winners shows that we do have a reliable source for that achievement. The fact that these championships were won in the 1960s and 1970s explains the relative paucity of available information on the internet, while I do not have access to the paper versions of Swedish chess publications (probably Schachnytt), I can say, that clubs in Norway (which is formerly was a weaker country when it came to chess) with this level of achievement have received ample coverage in Norwegian chess publications. To answer one of the concerns, "Why is this the only team that has won them with an article?" Well, because nobody has written an article about them. Anyway that argument is effectively a reverse WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. SK Rocaden would certainly justify an article as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a note for the Elitserie of today, note that the international "The Week in Chess" website, gives active coverage of the championship, see [22] for an example. So this is not just some local joke championship masquerading as a national one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's important about this national championship? Where is the article on it? Or even these European championships? Who has written on them and where? One website that only recounts the results of it, along with numerous other results? That's not significant coverage at all. Sorry, but while I suppose including this information in an article on Chess in Sweden might be viable, I don't see the case for this individual club or its own. Sorry, but all I'm seeing it WP:ILIKEIT. FrozenPurpleCube 06:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- it is notable. / Fred-Jn 09:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC) (Closer: see Fred Jn !vote below) -- Jreferee 22:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please say why, and show it with sources. See WP:N. So far, nobody has done that. I'm sorry, but a simple listing that this club has won a championship isn't significant coverage on its own. FrozenPurpleCube 13:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:ORG says "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization." The scope of this chess club is plainly national, playing in the national premier league and the reference in the article verifies the championships. BlueValour 18:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this club is not national (let alone international) in scope or scale. It's a local club, whose team has simply taken part in what seems to be a national competition of unspecified character. Chess in Sweden does have a national organization, but Lunds ASK is not it. This [23] is the FIDE member for Sweden. See the difference? Besides, even if you weren't mistaken in your interpretation, you need to read the whole section, not just pick out one portion of a sentence to justify your views. There's a reason why it says and information can be verified. Then read a little further and you'll see this: "In other words, they satisfy the primary criterion above." But wait, there's no evidence whatsoever that any of the primary criterion above has been met. Unless you can tell me what about the sources you've provided meet "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." So far, I'm not seeing it. Sorry, but your attempts to justify the existence of this article have continually failed to meet that standard, or any at all. FrozenPurpleCube 19:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find the arguments of BlueValour and Sjakkalle to be persuasive, and the nominator's arguments to be equally unpersuasive. Quale 18:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could explain what you find persuasive or unpersuasive? Simply saying "Me-too" isn't very constructive to a discussion. FrozenPurpleCube 19:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll add that to this discussion since I suspect you only created it because of this discussion. FrozenPurpleCube 20:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GreenJoe 19:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Any team that wins the top division of its national league is plainly notable. We need to be aware that finding sources in English for teams from non-English speaking countries is always going to be problematic. I also have some problem with the approach of the nominator - I am puzzled by his frenetic efforts to get a perfectly harmless article deleted. Also, the basis for the nominator adding SK Rockaden is highly suspect and based on a failure to WP:AGF. BlueValour 20:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not assuming good faith, but I find it hard to believe you created the article for any other reason. Still, I'm sorry for being suspicious, but perhaps you should consider whether that action of yours was appropriate. If you don't see how the action could be negatively interpreted, I'm afraid you may need to take a bit more time and think about your actions. Besides, you'll note that I've applied the same arguments for the initial nomination to this other club as well. The references you have are nothing in the way of significant content. They are nothing more than statistical listings, one is just a directory. Sorry. Not significant coverage. I'm sure you believe that a team that wins the top division of its national league is plainly notable, but I don't, since I know there are many competitions going on every year. None of them are notable without sources. If you truly believe that the problem is foreign language sources, then perhaps you might wish to create these articles on sv.wikipedia.org instead? I don't see a Lunds ASK on the Swedish Wikipedia, or even one on the actual Swedish national chess organization, so perhaps you would care to contribute there. It is even possible that you could develop an article that could be translated over. In any case, WP:HARMLESS is not a valid reason to keep an article. FrozenPurpleCube 20:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Both teams have won their national league multiple times and represented Sweden in the European Club Cup - that's enough for notability. Bridgeplayer 22:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? Where can I find mention of this notability standard? It's not in WP:ORG. What non-trivial sources offer significant coverage of these teams? Where can we even find coverage of this national league or the club cub? If all the sources you have are the same ones as above, perhaps you might want to consider looking for better ones. If you can't find any, consider whether or not this club warrants an article. Not every club and organization needs to have an article. FrozenPurpleCube 22:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the chess league in Sweden consists of the divisions I-IV and the elitserie (premier league), the one Lunds ASK has won on several occasions. The league is organized by the Sw. Chess Federation, and is not "some national championship". / Fred-J 13:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second time you have made a statement in this thread. If you feel a need to expand on your comments, it would be preferred if you simply replied to them. Or to the question I asked of you earlier. In addition, I see by your edit summary you still seem to believe that AFDs are votes. But as I explained to you on your talk page, they aren't. This is a discussion based on the weight of your arguments, not the number of people. FrozenPurpleCube 14:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond that, where are your sources covering this team? You haven't even confirmed your statements, just asserted them. Why is it notable? A local team that has won a national championship doesn't automatically meet notability standards. FrozenPurpleCube 14:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you don't think a club that has won the national chess league is notable then I guess we disagree on this. / Fred-J 21:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not when there are no sources providing significant coverage and it's but one of many many teams and national leagues. There are literally dozens, if not hundreds of such competitions in many sporting and gaming endeavors. (In fact, there are currently several AFDs for various beauty pageant contestants). Not all competitions are sufficiently notable to have articles. Perhaps one day that will change, and Wikipedia will cover everything under the sun, but that day isn't today. Now if you want to make an article on the FIDE-affiliate in Sweden, that'll probably be more feasible. FrozenPurpleCube 01:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Multiple National Championship wins seem reasonably notable. Strong delete Whoops when I actually read over WP:N it became quite clear this article actually doens't meet WP:N Sethie 21:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although this is an important chess club, a topic is Wikipedia notable (see WP:N) if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The coverage in the sources provided in the article are minimal, not significant. I looked for other sources, but could not find any. Without more coverage in reliable secondary sources, the topic cannot be developed into an article, or at least an article that could be verified. You may want to have the article developed on Swedish Wikipedia using Swedish published sources (if they in fact exist) and then translated into English for the English Wikipedia. Comment to closer I came here in response to this post. -- Jreferee 22:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, Jreferee. -- Fred-J 22:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have sources for the article that are in the Sweedish language, they still count (in my book) so long as an editor vouches for their content. Have you looked at their website for publications about Lunds ASK? If you (or someone) locates them before the close of this AfD, please post a note on my talk page so that I may review my positon. -- Jreferee 16:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I myself would be willing to give any sources you can provide as much examination as I can. I'm not nominating this article because I have some particular bias against Sweden or Chess Clubs, I merely note that it lacks the kinds of notability that the subject of an article should have. Of course, you might have a stronger case if you get a well-developed article on this club on the Swedish Wikipedia instead, since it would be hoped that with more eyes looking at it, there would be a better article. FrozenPurpleCube 16:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, both articles. - Crockspot 23:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - One of the reasons behind notability is to make sure we have enough sources to use to make an article. Can anyone provide sources, such as chess magazines, books, (national) newspaper articles, online newspapers (like The Register or MSNBC), etc? --h2g2bob (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I admit I may be a bit partial on this because I like chess, and play (bad, bad amateur), so you may count this as a weak vote... I don't like the bottom-up approach here, that is I would rather have an article on Chess in Sweden first. Still, for many of the reasons above (references at FIDE and TWIC, international representation, etc.) a list of top clubs within such article would probably point here, so we are not going into too much detail too fast here. - Nabla 13:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first, you shouldn't take commenting here as a vote. The closing admin will not take numbers into account, but rather the substance of the arguments as based upon existing policy and guidelines. If you're just commenting here because you like chess, then perhaps you might wish to read the list of arguments to avoid. That said, you certainly have a worthy idea in that Chess in Sweden would be a reasonably valid article, if appropriately sourced, though given that most of the sources would be in Swedish, I might suggest working on it on the Swedish Wikipedia instead. Which doesn't even have an article on the Sveriges Schackförbund. FrozenPurpleCube 14:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting *is* the point here, the 'vote' is simply a shorthand so that the closing admin may have a quick overall impression of the comments, and serves to unambiguously clarify it, since sometimes very similar arguments are used for and against deletion. That I am honest enough to let clear any bias I may have is no reason to attack me. If you want to talk policy, fine. I point you that many of your reasons to delete are not based on any policy: that you do not understand swedish in order to confirm the article source's is not a reason to delete; that it is the first of its kind is not a reason to delete. On the other hand, winning "just a few" *national* championshipsin a notable sport, like chess, and even being part of international competitions, all of which you admit to be true, typically are reasons enough to inclusion. Finally I did not say it should be included because "I like it", I say it is borderline notable given the titles and the existence verifiable given the references at FIDE and TWIC, and thus it should be kept. - Nabla 15:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how I've attacked you simply by saying that you shouldn't take commenting here as a vote, or referring you to WP:ATA. You yourself described your comments as a weak vote, and that you were potentially biased based on liking chess. I replied with a statement that you shouldn't take your comments as a vote, and that you might want to look at WP:ATA. That's not an attack, that's responding to your own comments. My comments were polite, and not personal attacks, as I offered no commentary on you at all, merely on the substance of your words. If you don't like that, perhaps you might have considered writing your comments a bit differently. But to accuse me of attacking you? I don't see how I have attacked you. Could you be specific in explaining what you found to be an attack? If it's simply because I responded to your comments in a fashion that you found to be critical, I'm sorry if you've taken it as hostile, but that's not an attack on my part. Yes, I know it can be irritating for someone to tell you something you already know, and I apologize if you felt it was irritating, but please don't accuse me of attacking you just because you find something I said to you irritating. FrozenPurpleCube 16:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I suggested the Swedish Wikipedia as a place to go because I feel it would simply offer the most access to people who can review the existing sources and thus produce the best possible article. Once that's been done, I would have no objection to translating a good article over to English. It may be unfortunate, but the fact is, transparent access to all sources in all languages isn't possible at this time. It may lead to some systemic bias, but that doesn't mean the solution is to just accept any claim of "But it's important over here" as valid. If it is, and all the sources are available over there, then the smart thing to do is work on it there. Then you can bring a solid, well-done article into other Wikipedias. Is there something objectionable to that? Am I wrong to say that foreign-language sources are difficult for people who don't speak the language to examine? It doesn't represent a bias against them, I merely acknowledge that it is a problem. Whether or not this should be a policy, I don't know, but recognizing it is something I think important. Especially since in this particular case, the coverage of Chess in the Swedish Wikipedia doesn't even include the main FIDE affiliate having an article. Pardon me for thinking that might be something worth changing. And no, I don't consider simply winning a national championship inherently notable. There are many national and even international championships in numerous competitive endeavors. Not all of them warrant inclusion on Wikipedia, let alone the individual competitors within it. That would potentially create thousands of articles with no more sources beyond lists of winners and the occasional use of the organization's own website. That's not an idea I can support at this time. Thus I stand by using the standard policy at WP:ORG which requires significant coverage in third-party sources. You haven't offered any sources otherwise, nor has anybody else so far. All I've seen are some directories and trivial coverage in winner's lists. If you, or anybody else wants to try it at sv:Lunds ASK, go ahead, you might have more luck convincing folks or just an easier time finding better sources. Of course, given that this is but one team among many that have won national chess championships, I don't think it'd be doing much to address the overall issue. That would be something worth thinking about on its own. FrozenPurpleCube 16:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appologies accepted. Moving on... The notability guideline says that if a subject has multiple, reliable, indepent, non-trivial sources than it is presumed to be notable. It does not say that if failing one of the above then non notability is to be assumed. This subject fails one of the above: non-triviality. Yet, I am confident enough that a club existing for 101 years now (confirmed by FIDE's site), does have those somewhere, so the criteria will be fully filled sometime, so let's let the wiki process carry on. Although, I repeat, I think this is only borderline notable. - Nabla 22:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the question of what to do in cases of borderline notability remains ongoing. Perhaps it will be addressed in the future. FrozenPurpleCube 23:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I don't think we can say anything is confirmed by the FIDE site. All directory entries on it are user-submitted, and I can't see any evidence of fact-checking on it. FrozenPurpleCube 23:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline notability is mostly discussed right here. And it's fine for us to disagree, that's why it is called 'borderline'. Thanks for the FIDE's site info, I didn't knew and I'll try to remember that, still you are not claiming this to be an hoax, right? - Nabla 15:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea whether it's a hoax or not, lacking sources to show otherwise. If I did believe it was a hoax, I'd have used CSD instead, but even if it is true, it's still a question of sources and notability. FrozenPurpleCube 16:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TWIC's scores report span over several years. Certainly not an hoax. - Nabla 16:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Notability" is an idea that many deletionists use as a basis for selecting which articles ought to remain and which are to be deleted, there are no really objective criteria on which to make a decision. However, in this instance I feel the club's acievements are notable! The proposer states ". . . there are no third-party sources that I could find about it. There may be more in Swedish . . ." and perhaps therein lies the real problem with deletion. Keep for improvement!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthana (talk • contribs)
Well, as I suggested, perhaps using the Swedish Wikipedia for that improvement might be a better idea. That way it's more likely folks with greater access to the sources can use them. FrozenPurpleCube 16:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per WP:NOT a directory and WP:N. The sources provided do not give significant coverage beyond directory-style info. The nominator and other delete !votes make strong arguments based on established guidelines, while the "keepers" thus far have not provided more substantial coverage to show evidence of notability, and from which more flesh out articles could be written. Zunaid©® 11:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. James086Talk | Email 00:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Brown (Writer)[edit]

Wes Brown (Writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

21 year old writer, seems to have very little published (article says he has appeared in numerous magazines and journals, but fails to give any evidence of this). Speedy deletion notice removed despite total lack of any verifable evidence of notability. Lurker 16:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no notability, no independent reliable sources. NawlinWiki 17:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Claims notability that cannot be substantiated. Plenty of hits for the football player of the same name, but not much else. Also looks like an autobio judging by the creator's user name; worrying that a so-called writer could come up with something as badly punctuated as this! Adrian M. H. 21:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. JJL 23:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems like an autobio (look at the page history and this!). It's non-notable and not sourced anyway. *Cremepuff222* 21:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 01:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Cole Miller[edit]

Taylor Cole Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete. This is a self-written article by a 21-year-old University of Kansas undergraduate student who has a few photographs published in popular magazines. It's nothing but shameless self-promotion and should be deleted. StudierMalMarburg 16:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentA search of the Popular Photography website, which is linked on the page, reveals no photographers named Taylor Cole Miller. StudierMalMarburg 18:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 00:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs whose titles are composed solely of numbers[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of songs whose titles are composed solely of numbers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. These songs have nothing in common in terms of style, genre or theme. The only thing they have in common is a coincidence of naming. Otto4711 15:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia:No one really cares which is not a policy, but illustrates my point. W1k13rh3nry 22:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Waltontalk 16:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with the same name as song artists[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of songs with the same name as song artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a collection of loosely-associated topics. These songs have nothing in common beyond the coincidence of titling. They are not otherwise associated or associatable by style or theme. Otto4711 15:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteComment. This is a very very cool list. I wish there were a good place to transwiki it. It ought to exist as a web page somewhere, but I have to agree that it doesn't belong in wikipedia. Current, eponymous song redirects to this page. It think there should be a page about eponymous songs, but it should be a description not a list. Was going to vote for weak delete, but looked at arguments from previous afd and was swayed. I'm hesitant to keep sending stuff to afd that has passed before. Capmango 17:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the first AFD closed 31 December 2005. I think there's been long enough between the two AFDs that it's reasonable to reconsider. Otto4711 20:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- Here's [24] the diff showing the changes to the page since it last survived an AfD. The growth itself is interesting! Maybe the page needs more expansion on the eponymus idea. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 18:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting list on a fairly notable topic. "These songs have nothing in common beyond the coincidence of titling"...but that is a notable coincidence.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- It appears that it satisfies the recommendations for a stand-alone list, and isn't as bad as listcruft. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 19:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the standalone list guideline is a guideline. Conforming to a guideline does not excuse violations pf policy. Otto4711 20:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if the policy you're citing is the WP:NOT#DIR part, I think that's meant more in terms of associations that don't have any real meaning. I can't see where WP:NOT#INFO would apply here. Certainly its open to interpretation, but I think the subject can possibly serve some genuine purpose if altered to a category-type layout, with an article entry about eponymous songs. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 15:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that these songs have a similarity of title has no real meaning. Otto4711 16:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If it's kept, get rid of the unnecessary, duplicated, redundant titles (leaving only exceptions like Force III and Force IV). Clarityfiend 20:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from WP:LC "The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category". Just as for Famous Streets, this seems like the perfect solution (I don't suppose anyone has automated the process of converting a list into a category? It'll be a lot of work for someone). What we should end up with is a short, sweet eponymous song article and an eponymous songs category that applies to all the songs in the list. Capmango 20:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not a bad idea... I'll look around at WP:CATP -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 20:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think AWB can add categories to a bunch of pages, if someone who has access to that tool wants to check into that... -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 21:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Wizard. Lugnuts 14:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom - non notable trivia IdreamofJeanie 15:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (Ibaranoff24 04:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete There might be a clear criteria for entry onto to this list but it's still unecyclopedic. A1octopus 20:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Indrian 08:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivial per nom. Eluchil404 18:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete crufty, pointless trivia - G1ggy Talk/Contribs 22:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. List does not offer any commentary on the subject and probably could not. I'm not sure who is looking for this article either. The Filmaker 02:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (with God-knows-what). Thousands of monkeys on thousands of typewriters pounding away until the end of time will never enter "List of songs with the same name as song artists" into a Search field.--Mike18xx 09:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 copyright violation. -- nae'blis 02:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gurudev R D Ranade[edit]

Gurudev R D Ranade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completely unreferenced article about a subject on whom Google finds precious few references, and a quick sample of those found none which are independent and usable. Guy

  • Delete Simply not enough evidence to base an article on, especially considering the figure this man was supposed to be. This would be a poor article even if it was backed up with substantial details from a reliable source. --Tefalstar 15:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Tefalstar[reply]

(Help!) 15:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 15:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be notable. Prominent figure in mysticism, author of books like History of Indian Philosophy : The Creative Period ([25]). Needs wikification, definitely.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I wouldnt expect to find ghits, but I think we need something--this is totally unsourced. The career does sound notable, but there has to be some sort of evidence. I support being flerxible for not contemporary non-Western figures, but there has to be something. DGG 03:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as a copyright violation of this page. So tagged. Lyrl Talk C 01:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 00:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard de Bures[edit]

Richard de Bures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete I'm currently expanding all the stubs on the Grand Masters into articles and I'm afraid Richard de Bures was not one of them. From www.templiers.org, the official translations of Templar records, i quote, "Armand de Périgord, master from 1232 to 1247" and "Guillaume de Sonnac, master from 1247 to 1250". Richard de Bures tenure did not exist and information stating otherwise is likely poorly translated or just incorrect. I need to get rid of this page so the time-line can be spot on and I can get this part of the Crusades area up to scratch. Thanks Tefalstar 14:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Problem is there are a large number of sources out there on the web that do say de Bures was a grand master during this time period. Whether there is some disagreement in this timeline among scholars and historians may well be the case - even Papal succession records get murky from time to time. You may wish to document this apparent problem but given the number of sources that list de Bures it is impossible to support deletion. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fascinating. But the way to deal with a situation like this is to recount the sources on both sides, not to remove one of the interpretations of the evidence. Keep. But if this is still an unsourced stub the next time it comes up here, it will have to go. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Pmanderson, if it remains in such a state it should go. The information on Perigord can fill this space, but de Bures details are almost non-existent, which is peculiar as i can find a lot of info on the other masters in my resources. It's a very weak article and the supposedly official records don't even cite him as a master. Some more peer reaction is needed for disputes like this. --Tefalstar 15:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Tefalstar[reply]
    • NB. My !vote is (and remains) keep. The fundamental problem is that all medieval records are scrappy, and the last years of Outremer are especially so. As far I can tell, it is uncertain that he was Grand Master, but we should have an article that says so, and why: We know when his successor was inaugurated; we know his predecessor was at a battle in which most of the Templars died. But it is not certain, as often, that the predecessor died there, and there is presumably no unquestionable direct evidence of Bures' tenure as Grand Master (rather than, say, vicar.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Data[edit]

What www.templiers.org actually says is that "Some historians mention that Armand de Perigord was killed in the course of the battle of La Forbie, like the Master of the Hospitallers. Others imply that he was captured, and died in captivity in 1247." Please look further than a website list. (And, of course, it's not official, in any sense; they go out of their way to deny that they are a resurgence or neo-Templars. )Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Your point about medieval records is a good one, they are notorious, but i would not have added this for deletion if there wasn't enough doubt shed on de Bures, in comparison to the others, that he was never Grand Master. Also, we cannot take a large number of Templar deaths as read that Perigord died at the battle. Guillaume de Sonnac, a later master, survived a battle where all but 4 other Knights Templar were killed. I stand on the side of the most detailed records, which say he had no tenure. Could we agree that if it is kept, the introduction will include a reference to the historical divide on whether he was ever truly a master?
    Of course it should include the debate; it's probably the most interesting thing about him. Nor am I concluding that Perigord died; www.templiers.com says that historians say so - and I've found some. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point about being in captivity is exactly my point friend, Odo de St Amand was in captivity for years but never replaced as Master. So if Perigord does die in '47, then Sonnac was the next Master.
But if he died in 1244, he would have been replaced, and the site tells us that Sonnac was not elected until 1247. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in response I never said they were an official Templar site, just that the information on th site is from official translations, first from Latin, later from French. I certainly wouldn't trust a Neo-Templar site as far as i could throw them! :P --Tefalstar 16:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Tefalstar[reply]
Good.;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the most balanced thing to do is build the most exhaustive article i can on de Bures, and just comment that it is debated or uncertain whether he was ever actually a Master, because we can't really make an informed decision on which record is right. --Tefalstar 19:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Tefalstar[reply]
    • Then let's withdraw this nomination, since we don't need to delete the article to do that. Thanks; it's been fun. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If he really was one, as Arkyan says, then this should stay - G1ggy Talk/Contribs 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Lozowick[edit]

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

The article fails WP:BIO. It does not establish his notability as a teacher or author. Several books are mentioned, but not named, so it's difficult to establish the notability of the books. Mr. Lozowick seems to have been the subject of only 1 interview instead of multiple interviews from different sources. The details of his life are also hard to verify as the article supplies no inline citations.

  • Delete: notability not established, insufficient references; also, nothing special here, no potential for a good article. Turgidson 21:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, article not sourced or verified. Stoic atarian 22:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 14:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 00:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of miscellaneous elements in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy[edit]

List of miscellaneous elements in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - a mish-mash list of articles that are already in the HHGTTG navtemplate and/or category, or are sections of such articles, or which have little or no connection to HHGTTG beyond being mentioned in the course of a joke sequence. Redundant, crufty and unnecessary. Otto4711 14:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As per nom, the HHGTTG category should be used to serve as a list and some of the items are truly non notable. Plm209(talk to me • contribs) 14:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NOT, indiscriminate/loosely related topics. How does one define what is a "miscellaneous" element? Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no structure to this list. It's entirely redundant to the HHGTTG category. -Chunky Rice 16:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost by definition, a list of 'miscellaneous things' is a list of things that do not belong in any list - including this one, in my opinion! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 17:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete miscellany is not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 17:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Lmblackjack21 10:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Peterkingiron 22:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lists of thsi kind are only useful where there are red links to identify articles that are required. This has none. Peterkingiron 22:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doczilla 06:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Sr13 20:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katie O'Brian[edit]

Katie O'Brian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Prod originally stated 'Does not satisfy WP:BIO'. Although she is a media personality, I would contend that she lacks sufficient notability to warrant an article. CIreland 14:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The radio personality is very local/regional. The artilce is composed mostly of a random fact section in prose, which is frowned upon in any format even in large articles. Fails WP:BIO since being on a radio station does not constitute notability unless it is syndicated or notable to a large audience. Tricky one so more concensus needs to be reached before the AfD is closed. Plm209(talk to me • contribs) 14:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless some sources show up. Present content of article doesn't establish notability beyond being a local; radio personality. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 02:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Marie Carroll[edit]

Anne Marie Carroll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An unsuccessful candidate in the recent election who has done nothing else notable. The only google [26] mentions are related to the election. Valenciano 14:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, just being a local councillor doesnt make her notable; if we had an article on every local politician we'd have way too many articles. Nyttend 14:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Out of the two lines in the article, there is very little information, non-notable individual. --The Sunshine Man 17:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and got 3% of the vote; even in a multiseat constituency, that's sad. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by User:MZMcBride per WP:CSD#G1. Non-admin close. Sigma 7 05:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Gloucestershire Hussars/The Great War[edit]

Royal Gloucestershire Hussars/The Great War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page serves no purpose as it is a repetition of the WW1 section on the main Royal Gloucestershire Hussars page. There is no additional information and they did nothing outside the scope of normal service of any other regiment. No other British regiment has any such similar set-up either. --hydeblake 14:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 14:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fanny Furner[edit]

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

This may be a controversial case, but in my point of view this person fails WP:BIO. Secondary sources given are limited to coverage in a local Australian newspaper, The Manly Daily. While this might formally pass WP:BIO, I feel that coverage in such newspaper of only local or regional importance cannot constitute "substantial" coverage. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 13:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 99% of stuff on Wikipedia is of only 'regional' importance. Does someone in Surinam care who the junior senator for Kansas is? If she formally passes WP:BIO then she formally passes WP:BIO otherwise you're just saying your personal opinion trumps Wikipedia policy and every article here is up for grabs. Nick mallory 14:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Maybe you misunderstood me: My concern is not that every topic should be of "global" importance. But it's a matter of how large the region is. There are so many local newspapers in the world (and have been more in the past) that being covered there does not mean much. I do not consider myself as notable for a Wikipedia article (by far not); but with a bit of work I could certainly show that I have been mentioned in the local newspaper 3-4 times (in the context of a sports event, a local competition, a school theatre play, ...). The same would apply to almost everybody in my family, and possibly to everyone in the village (haven't verified that, of course). And all of them are really not notable for an encyclopedia. I don't know much about Australian geography, but "the local government areas of Manly, Pittwater and Warringah" seems to be rather the lowest category to me. --B. Wolterding 14:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm English but, god help me, I live in Sydney, Australia at the moment and Manly, Pittwater and Warringah are all well known Sydney suburbs. It's a big city. I guess you'd rule out the 'Village Voice' as a source then in future? Nick mallory 15:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure regarding the Village Voice. But for the Manly Daily: It's distributed in 90.000 copies (today), not very impressive; covers local events and sports, among general news, as far as I can see. There's nothing wrong about that. But would everybody covered in that newspaper be automatically notable? Like, for example, Georgia Bainbridge? By the letters of the guidelines, the answer may be yes. By the spirit of the guidelines - no, I honestly don't think so. --B. Wolterding 19:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I hear what you're saying Wolterding but if we're going to argue about the spirit of the guidelines, rather than what they actually say, then AfD is going to have 10,000 articles a day, rather than 100. If you want to change the notability rules, then argue for the rules to be changed, not the freedom to interpret them anyway you want to on an ad hoc basis. There's plenty of articles on wikipedia which don't have any sources at all so maybe they should go first. Nick mallory 02:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep She died decades before info started being put in online info bases, so someone would have to look at microfilm or newspaper archives to check for additional info.By Googling I found one more article in the National Library of Australia in Canberra per [27] entitled "'Fanny Furner JP 1864-1938' - P. Richardson" in Box 21 folder 111 of MS 9140, Papers of Edna Ryan (1904-1997). Perhaps someone there could take a look at said article and add it as a reference. Not everything from the early 1900's has been indexed such that it would show up in a Google search. Since she was apparently an early suffragette I would expect that there would have been more articles than writers of the Wikipedia article had ready access to. Edison 14:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is so full of people writing articles about themselves or some barely-notable contemporary, it's a relief to read about someone who is notable for actions they took long ago. I live across the globe from Oz, but I've heard of Manly. Sources could be expanded, but that's worth a references tag, not an AfD. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 16:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "unsourced" tag has been on the article since October 06. --B. Wolterding 16:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - better sources needed, but they would be available - this is a historical figure of some note, even if local. Orderinchaos 23:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not yet established. She is not in the Australian Dictionary of Biography. Furner wasn't the first female JP in NSW as the first group were appointed in 1921, and at any rate, they were honourary (as all JP's were then). One incidental reference in a local newspaper doesn't yet satisfy it either. The article in the National Library or the State Library looks promising but we don't know what it is yet. There is a lot of information in the article, so where did it come from. It should be sourced and that just might make it notable as per the guidelines. Assize 01:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If she was of some notability in Sydney, the Sydney Morning Herald would have mentioned her at least once. Certainly if she was the first woman to stand for council she should have some coverage. Google News Archive which goes back that far has nothing on her. [28] The article claims that she had many articles in the Manly Daily but fails to cite any. Further, the article claims that there are no copies available of these articles available through the paper or the State Library of NSW. If she was of some note as a leading suffragist or feminist pacesetter, there would be at least some reference in Google Books or Google Scholar. There aren't. The Australian Dictionary of Biography which recently issued a supplement to better cover prominent women doesn't have an article on her. Our sources are a letter to the editor and a letter in the National Library of Australia and her claim to fame is that she stood for a local council once which isn't verified. In any case, being a candidate isn't in itself a claim to fame. Capitalistroadster 03:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, (edit conflict) notable for first female to run in council elections in Manly, and possibly one of the first in Australia. Until more notable women are shown to have done it earlier, we should err on the side of caution and keep this article. John Vandenberg 04:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep essentially because of the likely difficulty of sourcing and the fairly good chance that what she did was notable. i'm not sure I would trust a local paper for the importance of current personalities, but a supplemental evidence for her it's just about enough. DGG 04:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close as obvious disruption. From xyr contributions, it is clear that Merrick3x (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) is acting in bad faith here. This is a bad faith nomination that is attempting to make some sort of point about the actions of Musical Linguist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), by first removing all URLs from citations in the article and then nominating the article for deletion. This is an abuse of AFD, not a genuine attempt to discuss the deletion of the article. Uncle G 15:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitruth[edit]

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

Per WP:BADSITES/Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks. That site actively defames and outs Wikipedians. Wikitruth has alleged transexualism, sexual practices, real names, and other information on real people here. We can't link to this. It outs and hurts people here. Per IAR, DENY, DIGNITY, and the Foundation privacy policy, delete. Also, per this, we cannot endorse, name, or link these places. Admins have stated blocks will be given for doing so. Therefore, Delete. Merrick3x 13:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per this:

I have removed links, in accordance with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Outing_sites_as_attack_sites and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Links_to_attack_site and also Fred Bauder's clarification, and ordinary administrative action against trolling and WP:POINT. I will block the next person who adds them or similar ones. Musical Linguist 18:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per administrators, we will remove this article. Merrick3x 13:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep - Why does this keep coming up? Are people trying to make it look like Wikipedia has something to hide by deleting references to things that criticise it? Ben W Bell talk 13:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, because they 'out' users here. Merrick3x 13:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep; not linking to a website is completely different to deleting an article about the website. This Afd by a SPA is an attempt at wikidrama. John Vandenberg 13:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they google the name, or we endorse it, they will find attacking information. Merrick3x 13:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesnt exist on Wikipedia, it doesnt exist ? Wikipedia does not endorse the subjects of its articles. Grow up. John Vandenberg 13:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Cowardice -- we cannot endorse, name, or link these places. Admins have stated blocks will be given for doing so. Therefore, Delete. Merrick3x 13:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So now a talk page of a policy page is a citeable policy? *Dan T.* 13:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed links, in accordance with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Outing_sites_as_attack_sites and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Links_to_attack_site and also Fred Bauder's clarification, and ordinary administrative action against trolling and WP:POINT. I will block the next person who adds them or similar ones. Musical Linguist 18:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently. Merrick3x 13:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleting this would look very lame indeed. Grow up indeed. The last AfD was a nine nil keep less than two months ago. Nick mallory 13:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NPA has no statute of limitations. Merrick3x 13:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to argue with every poster on here? Nick mallory 13:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia, after all. Merrick3x 13:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can an admin block this sock please; WP:POINT seems appropriate. John Vandenberg 14:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and get rid of the idiotic "badsites" linking policy. See my essay on the subject. (But if the silly policy is to be kept, then deleting this would at least be consistent.) *Dan T.* 13:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that would endanger the well being and personal safety of editors. Merrick3x 13:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As somebody said in the last AfD for this, "It doesn't look good to keep trying to delete something critical of Wikipedia." That holds for all applications of the "no attack site links" policy. *Dan T.* 13:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. They are 'outing' and posting personal information on Wikipedians. That makes them an attack site! Merrick3x 13:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a website, not a carrier battlegroup. Nick mallory 14:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lots of article subjects pose a danger to editors, like the US Army, that does not mean we delete the article. (H) 13:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, consensus CANNOT trump policy. Merrick3x 13:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, how is WP:NPOV as a policy? Also remember that policy is descriptive of our practices, not prescriptive. (H) 14:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can't allow for POV. If 100 Christian Fundamentalists edit warred to say Dinosaurs were made by God on the 6th day, with ID sourcing, we would revert it out as trash. And descriptive per admins is we remove this trash. Merrick3x 14:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem to me that deleting the article would be pushing a POV, not keeping it. (H) 14:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personal privacy is a right, not a POV! Merrick3x 14:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Call a lawyer. (H) 14:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. A few refs to minor websites and one to the Guardian is insufficient to establish notability.--MONGO 14:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You understand. Speedy is now invalidated. Merrick3x 14:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No hurry, I don't think this was going to be speedied anyways. (H) 14:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a sockpuppet troll making a WP:POINT who started this AfD (which certainly seems likely), you seem to be taking the bait anyway... I guess you have no choice, since if you voted to keep this while continuing to campaign against linking to other allegedly "BADSITES", it would seem hypocritical. *Dan T.* 14:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Odd...my vote to delete seems to have no mention of anything other than it's lack of notability. I looked over that website and what I saw were a number of egregious attacks, but NOT the kind of ongoing persistant efforts to try and figure out the real life identities of our contributors as is done on WR. Can someone PLEASE explain to Mr. Dtobias that the issue is websites that actively try to "out" our editors...not ones that are simply mirroring content from other places and adding stupid nonsense. WikiTruth is an obvious parody site (and not notable to boot)...WR makes no such distinction.--MONGO 15:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I campaigned for no such thing. I am assuming good faith with the nom, so I don't think I am taking any bait. (H) 14:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was replying to MONGO, not you... I apologize if it was unclear. *Dan T.* 14:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, my mistake. (H) 14:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mongo. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 14:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is within free speech that another website may criticize another website. It does not provide any extreme attacks on any individual and it is notable because the website has been featured in several prominent pieces. I don't agree with what they say as much as any Wikipedia editor but we cannot let our personal beliefs interfere with following acceptable policy. Plm209(talk to me • contribs) 14:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Fourth nomination. Nothing new to see here, move along. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, per first four nominations, per sources, etc etc. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem as I see it (I could be wrong) is that its not a hate site. It addresses many of the concerns that many editors share openly in talk everyday (ad infinitum). Wikitruth just does it in the sneaky, "lets write about miss on myspace" type of way. But unlike myspace 'miss' has no way of putting her point accross of getting it stopped. We are all here to make wikipedia better - they fail in their attempts. Deleting the article wouldn't make them go away. NPOV often means that we discuss in articles conflicting points of view. A NPOV would say that if Wikipedia is list so should Wikitruth.

Concerns have been raised about there leaking of private ICQ# - but I cant see how anything else they have leaked is concern. The Internet has been active 15 years and the waybackwhen machine document most of them, everything they say they have discovered was in the public domain anyway. but not the ICQ# that is probably a legal matter. Mike33 14:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hilarious SchmuckyTheCat
  • Comment I'm not going to vote on this because my personal deletionist views would eliminate an article on a website with a few Real PressTM cites that is going to evaporate and be forgotten six months after someone quits paying the bills for it. That's way out of step with the prevailing opinion in AfD. But this nomination is in bad faith; User:Merrick3x seems to have been created specifically to push this AfD. Mangoe 14:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:NN.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 14:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Congratulations to User:Merrick3x, for bringing the outing material at Wikitruth to the attention of more editors. How much are they paying you to advertise for them? (Please note that the preceding was an example of irony; I strongly suspect that Marrick3x doesn't actually intend to drive traffic to Wikitruth via an unlikely-to-succeed, likely-tp-generate-DRAMA! AfD. All the same, that's the easily forseeable effect.) -GTBacchus(talk) 14:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Mangoe said. Johnleemk | Talk 14:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 00:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs titled as acronyms or initialisms[edit]

List of songs titled as acronyms or initialisms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - as with many other "list of songs titled..." lists, this is a collection of loosely-associated items. The songs on this list have nothing in common beyond a coincidence of naming. They are not similar in style or theme. Otto4711 13:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- if a higher percentage of the songs were bluelinks, it might be worthwhile, but not as it currently stands.--SarekOfVulcan 14:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am beginning to wonder if I write a short essay about lists of song titles with arbitrary elements in their names, and just link to that each time one pops up on AfD. There's a veritable plethora of them out there. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not appropriate for an encyclopedia, possibly a violation of WP:NOR Rackabello 22:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR and because Wikipedia:No one really cares W1k13rh3nry 22:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per WP:UNENC. Songs have nothing in common other than a quirk of title. A1octopus 20:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only pointless, but also poorly constructed - even if this were useful information, combining acronyms and pseudoacronyms together makes no sense. Aspirex 06:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Babajobu 04:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music[edit]

This is already linked in the relevant articles and does not warrent it's own. Alexa 300,000+ ∴ here…♠ 23:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

obviously i was wrong. feel free to close unanimous keep. i agree -- i expect people to know it, probably some repressed shame from ishkur's pictures of my raver days. keep it up. ∴ here…♠ 04:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - i'd argue that the site is rather notable in the online electronic dance music scene, especially when it comes to discussion on music genres --MilkMiruku 00:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems notable enough, 80K webhits. —This user has left wikipedia 01:34 2006-02-02
  • keep this site is indeed really known in all electronic genres and people with different interests I spoke with in the past knew this site (from experimantel 50s weirdness to modern jazzy music or dance music) --LimoWreck 13:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable resource in the definition and research of electronic music as a whole, as well as being pretty hilarious. Deleting this article would be a mistake. //User:DJRaveN4x
  • Keep -Notable across the industry. It's niche, but it rises above nn Ronabop 02:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Sr13 01:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda Classic[edit]

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

Fails WP:OR, WP:RS --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 13:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You should be searching for Zelda Classic within quotes (112,000) results, without the quotes pages calling Zelda a classic would appear. More importantly the article doesn't have any references (3 external links don't really count), people who patrol AFDs do check the article and simply stating it has references won't work. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 00:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: also, google show IGN article as result of "Zelda Classic" which is not related to this article. Please reveiw your position. Carlosguitar 12:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 23:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eccpasian[edit]

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

A constructed language with allegedly 10 speakers that makes no attempt to assert notability. No references of any kind. Were this a corp or person, it would be clear CSD A7. Only three ghits [29], all of them WP mirrors. Contested prod. Delete Aagtbdfoua 12:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 20:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not one independent Ghit, everything points back to this page. Orderinchaos 23:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, no assertion of notability (and seems to fall into a loophole in CSD A7), and a pile of original research on top of it. --Wingsandsword 03:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to BJAODN. John Vandenberg 04:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This "language" is basically Serbian grammar and standard forms with some bastardised random other thrown in (mornos? evnos?). Several of the letters are Serbian, one or two are Greek, and still others have no clear derivation and could not be reproduced in Unicode. With clearly no references independent of *this article* let alone the subject, smells like something thought up in school one day to me, and most probably complete bollocks. Zivko85 16:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm going to create a language that just involves grunting and pointing at things. ~ Infrangible 01:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Idle comment At least it will most likely have more than 10 speakers, and even has border-crossing potential. :) Orderinchaos 21:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable conlang. Lankiveil 05:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete nn. JJL 23:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 06:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sardar Nasir Rehman[edit]

Sardar Nasir Rehman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is nothing to show this person's notability; the article has been tagged with unsourced and NPOV since January and about the only thing that has happened to it at all is somebody from the same IP coming in to remove the tags at regular intervals. I am as eager as anybody else to include more non-US people in Wikipedia, but unless some real claims to notability (not just creating the Karlal Wikipedia page) and sources appear, I think it needs to be deleted. Bonadea 12:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No WP:RS. Some of it is written in 1st person and appears to be WP:AUTO and WP:COI. --Evb-wiki 12:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Personally, I support accepting a considerable relaxation in our formal standards for people for whom normal sourcing is difficult, especially from non-US places, but there has to be something. this is totally lacking, and there is no sign it will ever be otherwise. DGG 04:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 17:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annemarie[edit]

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

Non-notable musician that doesn't quite satisfy WP:CSD#A7 CIreland 12:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Bold Leap Forward[edit]

A Bold Leap Forward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. Show has been "in development" for five years. No indication that it will be moving forward any time soon. Article is "sourced" by a blog interview from someone the article says is no longer connected to the hypothetical project and a petition site. Should the show actually go into production, no prejudice to the article's being recreated. Otto4711 12:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters frozen in cryogenic freeze[edit]

Trivia, grouping of unrelated characters, common trope in science fiction, WP:NOT indiscriminate. >Radiant< 11:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per nom. There are pointless lists and then there's this list ... --Plumbago 13:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is an article? BH (T|C) 02:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A trivial list; WP:NOT applies here. Acalamari 18:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DreamGuy 20:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retool There is a difference between cryogenics in reality (which is the freezing of a dead person) and in fiction (where a living person is somehow frozen into "suspended animation" to be awakened later). In science fiction, it's the opposite of time travel, since it's a plot device to transport a character from the past to the present, or from present to future. Nor is the concept of the sleeping character a novel one -- Rip Van Winkle and Bellamy's "Looking Backward" used the idea before cryogenics came along. I agree that this doesn't really merit a separate list, but an article about the fictional use of suspended animation, cryogenics, etc. would be worthwhile, and the compilation of examples is a good start. Mandsford 23:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. W.marsh 19:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murloc[edit]

Murloc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Gamecruft trivial nonsense - The article suffers a complete lack of real world attribution or context, there are no ex-universe references or mention - should be redirected at a very minimum - Tiswas(t) 13:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A fine article that is not nonsense. If that's nonsense, then pikachu's nonsense too! (It kinda is) no offense. RuneWiki777 17:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - You are correct in that the article is not nonsense - it was disingenuous of me to state as much. It's relatively well written fancruft with a complete lack of real world attribution or context, and no ex-universe references or mention - Tiswas(t) 09:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wow, I must have missed something because I see plenty of references to the games themselves and to the Blizzard website. Maybe now that I've pared it down a bit, you'll have an easier time finding them? - User:Awakeandalive1
  • Those are all in-universe mentions. Linking to the game manual itself would not add any real world attribution - Tiswas(t) 17:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep major element in a very very very notable game. The fact that it scores 8 current Google news hits (admittedly all minor mentions) suggests that an article should be possible. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The gnews hits are trivial mentions of a related topic. They are not mentions of the subject. "Murloc suit" would not warrant an article on the strength of the news hits, and neither should its derivative (or precursor). - Tiswas(t) 09:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's true, and I did note that. None of them on their own are enough to carry an article, but they do show that the murlocs are an iconic element of the game with some amount of media recognition. The real sourcing for this should come from the World of Warcraft guides, of which there are quite a few, including a half-dozen or so from BradyGames alone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the essence of fancruft - There is no dispute as to the accuracy of the article - The dispute is whether there is any notability to of the subject matter - Is there any attribution of this notability outside of the WoW universe - Tiswas(t) 17:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Integral part of the (admittedly fictional) universe. It seems that nearly every Warcraft article written (with the exception of perhaps the "Main Article") is nominated for deletion per cruft at one point or another. The various Races in the Warcraft universe have survived AfDs and this one should be no exception. CredoFromStart talk 12:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Want to read a very interesting AfD directly related to this one? check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft character articles. This AfD a)had no consensus and b) doesn't necessarily apply here because of the fact that that it covered multiple articles including but not limited to the Murlocs one. However, it does provide a lot of insight into why the article exists and the response it's likely to generate if it's deleted. Also, were major contributors or the Wikiproject notified of the AfD? (see The AfD Guidelines).
CredoFromStart talk 12:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Entirely my mistake. I've been through the non-spa, non-anon editors and notified them. Hopefuly, that will reduce the number of I like it votes and generaly Fanwankery, and allow at least a chance for consensus - Tiswas(t) 14:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Firstly, giving pejorative terms (like "nonsense" and "fancruft") for the reason for deletion is bad form, you might as well say "delete this article because it sucks". Secondly, the assertion that there are absolutely no ex-universe references is false, as it discusses the fangame Murloc RPG which had some popularity. I wouldn't object to the non-player races of Warcraft being merged into a single article, and this article could be cleaned up, but I think that deletion would be a mistake. - Atamasama 16:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As such, I have retracted the terms. They are not the reason for the nomination, but a summary of the reasons - that is, non-notability, no real world context, and a lack o attribution and not encyclopaedic - Tiswas(t) 16:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would say that the article holds up well enough when looking at the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) guideline. It takes an out-of-universe perspective (for the most part, it could be cleaned up a little), it is well-written, it cites its sources, and is notable within the work of fiction it comes from. I see nothing stating that every minor character article must have multiple sources, in fact the Noonien Soong article being shown as a "high quality" example has only one reference aside from the Star Trek Wiki link. This article does not deserve deletion, and is long enough to warrant a seperate article from World of Warcraft. - Atamasama 18:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I would support either decision; on the one hand, it is mostly well-written and -formatted. Maybe it could use some clean-up & sources, but other than that, it's not too bad. On the other hand, Murlocs aren't exactly the most important characters in the Warcraft universe...if there's a page that lists (and briefly describes) the various mobs found in the Warcraft games, then maybe the more key parts of this article should be placed there, and this should redirect to that page. -Rhrad 17:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1) Unless you're going to delete all the other Warcraft-universe race pages, then this choice of deletion seems arbitrary. 2) While i see PLENTY of material in there which is NOT written as though it were in the game universe, I do think that this page needs some editing (eg: is there really a need for the extensive catalogue of unique Murlocs?). Instead of just making a broad, evidently-uninformed proclamation and deleting the whole page, why doesn't somebody go in and edit it? It even references the Blizzard website! -Awakeandalive1 14:00, 8 June 2007 (EST)
  • Comment - Other stuff existing is not a valid reason to keep this one article. The reference to the blizzard site doesn't confer any value, except that of accuracy. I agree that a redirect to a meta article would be a good compromise, rather than a delete.- Tiswas(t) 17:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "other stuff existing" point is more of a statement. The choice of this article simply seems arbitrary. I hope that you'll direct the same attention to the other related articles if you're going to lobby so hard for this one to be removed. Awakeandalive1, 14:28, 11 June 2007 (EST)
I'm not so much lobbying to see it removed, but to see that reasons given in this AfD are robust. The choice is neither arbitrary nor calculated - I can across the article in isolation, and am giving it the dues considereation that any article deserves. - Tiswas(t) 09:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Murlocs to Warcraft are like Koopa Troopas to Mario. They are both notable enemies that have appeared in many games in their universe. Since each game in the series is notable, it wouldn't be hard to suggest that a recurring enemy is notable too.--Kylohk 19:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable race from notable video game Cyclone49 03:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm confused - what makes them notable?- Tiswas(t) 09:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something is noteable when lots of people know about it. For instance Lord of the Rings is noteable while something such as Dogs don't tell Jokes isn't. RuneWiki777 17:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - By that logic, the login sequence for WoW would be considered notable, in that every player knows about it. Possibly more so than Murlocs. - Tiswas(t) 16:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Murlocs are notable for a variety of reasons. They are fairly ubiquitous within the game world; I doubt that any player can advance very far without encountering them, they seem to be just about everywhere. They are very distinctive, in that they look, sound, move, and act in a unique way unlike other species of monster. They also have distinctive dwellings where ever they appear, special primitive huts and tents unique to them at their spawn points (you can always tell murlocs are nearby when you see their villages). Even Blizzard has considered them notable, offering a murloc pet as a special reward for Blizzcon attendees one year, and a different pet for European customers who purchased the collector's edition of the Burning Crusade expansion. They have as solid a presence in the game as any of the playable races. -Atamasama 16:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But are Murloc's notable outside of the game world? Are there multiple, independent, non-trivial mentions of murlocs from third party reliable sources? Are there any press articles, news stories, or published research for example? What makes this article more than gamecruft? - Tiswas(t) 17:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not a requirement for an article's existence. The fact that this is a notable topic in the largest MMORPG in existence is enough. Again, you continue to use pejorative terms, it seems as if your reason for deletion is simply "I don't like it". Notability is a subjective term. -Atamasama 02:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is indeed subjective, but it does have some fairly basic, minimal requirements - that of multiple, independent, non-trivial mentions from independent, third party, reliable sources. A good example would be a news article (even a byline in a niche publication), possibly title "Murlocs, the Scource of Azeroth". Not a fansite, or game community article that mentions Murlocs in passing. I neither like it or dislike it - I'm focusing on the quality of the article, the notability of the subject matter, and established Wikipedia guidelines and policy, and have stated as much as to back of my nomination for deletion (or, rather, merge and redirect). Continuing to focus on the inferential pejorative nature of the cruft suffix is counterproductive. - Tiswas(t) 09:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't worry everybody! I have a back-up just in case it is deleted. RuneWiki777
  • You could just refer to the game manual instead. If you have to keep the article for reference, it means that the article contains original research. - Tiswas(t) 09:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep regrettably, the Pokemon precedent applies. JJL 23:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The pokemon precedent is an essay, and not a valid test. Two wrongs do not make a right, and all that. - Tiswas(t) 09:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Murlocs. Murlocs are probably the most hated mobs in the game. In fact, I'm sure if you interviewed 100 people that played they would probably agree to be murlocs. Blizzard has capitalized on this by actually promoting events giving out Murloc pets, and many of the featured fan art has contained murlocs. Murlocs to me, are the Mickey Mouse of WoW. Murlocs are still widely joked about within the game, and who can forget "Rawgrlgrlgrlgrlgrrgle!!!!" Gah! That sound still haunts me. "But are Murloc's notable outside of the game world"? Yes and no. There are plenty of sites, even an fan made RPG about them. Were they mentioned on the news? No. Should this be considered a stub from the World of Warcraft? Yes. I'd rather this not be deleted myself.Anywho, it's a vote so it's not a matter of whether or not the people nominated it for deletion have never played the game, and wouldn't get it. /shrug

Fr0 02:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • My Tauren Shaman main char might disagree with you on that. - Tiswas(t) 09:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, considering above comments, it seems to be notable enough for me. The article has good references, so I can't think of any reason to delete it. *Cremepuff222* 20:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 03:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Arab world-US coalition against Iran[edit]

2007 Arab world-US coalition against Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Tittle is bias, unencyclopedic, information is relevant but needs to be integrated as part of another article dealing with the Iran crisis Doge120 11:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete strongly POV, probably unsalvagable in anything resmbling its current form Lurker 11:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, deletion seems to be the best option. Doge120 12:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oink.me.uk[edit]

Oink.me.uk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod. Rationale: "Fails WP:WEB; no reliable sources to demonstrate notability. May qualify for speedy per CSD A7 - unremarkable web content." The article has been cleaned up and expanded, but the sources are all self-published (blog posts and forum posts). --Muchness 11:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB big time. --Evb-wiki 12:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I removed most of the blog citations and added one or two slightly better ones. I'm looking for a better source than the passing reference in the Wired blog for the "one of the most popular" statement. It's true, but difficult to verify. There is a sort of "don't talk about it" culture for good torrent trackers. I imagine that this is the same problem that the editors of the Demonoid and isoHunt articles faced, both of which were flagged for notability early in the article's writing (in last December and June respectively).--Smtomak 16:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I'm afraid I can't do any better with the references than I already have. I spent a over an hour googling and despite hundreds of thousands of hits, there's nothing more reliable than blogs, message boards and that zeropaid.com site. I did a few LexisNexis searches just in case, and of course got no results. I imagine the OiNK phenomenon will see some real press eventually, but it seems not yet. It would be a shame for the article to get canned considering the (paradoxically concurrent) noteriety of OiNK and difficulty of getting info about it, but I don't know if that's enough to meet WP:WEB --Smtomak 16:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Just heard about this site today and I trusted Wikipedia to tell me what the hell is it about. Psychomelodic User:Psychomelodic/me 19:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong DeleteWay to spill the beans
  • Strong Keep I am a member of the site and am constantly asked to be invited, often for financial reward. This is a very desirable website to have access to. A google search gives endless chatrooms full of people begging for a invitation. I know we can't cite chatrooms, but this is a time for that thing we often hate using on wikipedia, common sense. This article needs work and expansion, but it is so notable amongst the web community it deserves a spot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tefalstar (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - There's lots of other BitTorrent trackers on Wikipedia including other private ones like Demonoid. This happens to be the largest music tracker in the world and has more seeders that the pirate bay and mininova combined. I'd say that's notable and worth a wiki entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.147.152.53 (talk • contribs)
Comment Demonoid isn't private (weekly open sign-ups), and unless you have a source for your other statement ("more seeders"), then I'm just going to laugh. -Paine 15:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per WP:WEB and WP:OR, plus I'm not too sure they're happy about even being here ;). -Paine 14:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Also Alternate Previously Deleted, bringing total times previously deleted to 3 (this being the nom for a 4th). I recommend delete and protect both articles from recreation. -Paine 14:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Definitely don't protect from creating. Re-deleting the page every six months isn't a big deal, if it comes to that. Even if OiNK is deemed not notable today, there's no saying it won't get mentioned by a reputable source in the near future. --Smtomak 06:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - One of the largest/most active music dedicated torrent sites. Perhaps a merger into a larger torrent tracker list, if not keeping this article? --IceflamePhoenix 14:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable bittorrent web site. The "sources" in the article are garbage. This fails WP:WEB spectacularly. —ptk✰fgs 19:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete not notable private bittorrent tracker. wikipedia does not benefit from this page Supersonic^ 20:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - At first sight Alexa readings[30] indicate the site is possibly notable enough, but there simply aren't any verifiable secondary sources to confirm. Try Google News[31] - no hits whatsoever. Wikipedia is not a place for original research nor a directory. Therefore, delete according to WP:VERIFY and WP:WEB. If, in the future, the website becomes notable due to coverage in verifiable sources then it can be recreated (see further). --Javit 20:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Fails everything. 70.189.73.114 14:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm a member of the site, but I don't believe it's notable enough for an article; the number of active users is relatively small compared with other bittorrent sites. Oink HAS been mentioned in the Guardian[1], although in keeping with the 'secrecy', the site isn't actually named in the article (hence it can't be used as a source, and it's only a fluff piece anyway). smigs 17:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:WEB.
  • Delete - Fails WP:WEB Indrian 08:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I say delete just because no one on OiNK wants the attention, but I have to laugh at those of you saying this is a non-notable torrent tracker. Whether or not there are solid references does not detract from the fact that OiNK is THE most notable private music tracker. Period. Perhaps stick to a topic you are familiar with or at least mention WP:WEB and spare the bias.65.122.125.226 16:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. For what it's worth, I have my doubts about this being bigger than The Pirate Bay as claimed--for one thing, TPB has an Alexa rank more than ten times better. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe it's larger in terms of number of torrents and number of seeds, not number of visits. Smtomak 01:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 00:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of dog cop episodes[edit]

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

Non-notable, unverifiable TV show. Was prodded as being a possible hoax (could find no evidence of its existence). The author has since removed the prod tag and explained the show has not been offered to any TV networks, so it likely fails WP:V, WP:FICT and WP:CRYSTAL. ~Matticus TC 10:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per nom. --Plumbago 13:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable, probably non existant. Arkyan &#149; <suptalk) 15:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, without prejudice if any sources can be found or if the show appears on TV PGWG 15:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in all likelihood, either an outright hoax or a something-I'm-planning-and-might-do-someday sort of thing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE AND INFORM THE WRITER THAT CAPS IS COOL! (just kidding about the caps) Whsitchy 20:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:MADEUP may also apply. Euryalus 21:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N Orderinchaos 23:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear god, not another one! Delete and check for sockpuppetry Not a day goes by that we don't have a hoax cartoon show in AfD. DarkAudit 00:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE PER NOM. IF THIS DOES NOT EXIST IT SHOULD NOT BE ON WIKIPEDIA. --Charlene 13:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I very much doubt that WP:RS can be found for this. In fact, I'll purchase a hat for the purpose of eating it, should I turn out to be wrong. Lankiveil 05:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 13:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magical items and weapons in Power Rangers[edit]

Magical items and weapons in Power Rangers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another extremely crufty page that I was unfortunate to deal with. There's nothing in here that cannot be covered by other articles (character or series articles) or does not really need to be covered at all.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the article is kinda stupid, but it should still be kept. The article is kinda like an article listing the places in a show/cartoon. RuneWiki777 17:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And at least the article is noteable

  • Speedy Delete - Poorly written, essentially just plot reiteration and a weakly written list. Massive amounts of cruft, no encyclopedia. Floria L 18:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, no sources, see WP:NFT. NawlinWiki 17:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frisvee[edit]

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

Seems to be a newly-invented sport with no references to verify it. Was originally prod tagged as WP:NFT material, and while the article has been improved upon since then it remains unreferenced. A Google search for "Frisvee" returns just 53 unique results, the vast majority of which appear to be typos for "Frisbee". The only source I could find was a blog post at http://frisvee.com/?q=node/1 which was created by a user with the same handle as the creator of the article here on Wikipedia, so it's neither independent nor reliable. As much as I like the sound of it (it does seem like fun!), sadly I can't see it satisfying WP:V. ~Matticus TC 09:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 13:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Pig[edit]

Blue_Pig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I would actually be in favour of keeping this article, as I would Cross Keys (Killingholme). However, since that article has also been nominated for deletion, this one must also be removed if the former is. Either that or the category of 'Public houses in Lincolnshire' must be deleted. TomGreen 14:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep, This article is about a 16th century pub with unique properties such as the beehive. Unlike the nom-quoted Cross Keys (Killingholme), it mustn't be deleted, but it does badly need sourcing and references. The subject matter is most definitely notable. --Javit 10:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since that article has also been nominated for deletion, this one must also be removed if the former is alone makes the nomination pointless- articles should be kept or deelted on their merits Lurker 11:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as this is not a proper nomination, but purposeful disruption to make a point. DarkAudit 12:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or refactor and move to Beehive (public house) - this article ls a coatrack. 81.104.175.145 04:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Desperately needs cleanup. The Beehive stuff needs to be split. No concrete assertion of notability. Morgan Wick 06:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7 (no indication of notability), g1 (nonsense), no sources. NawlinWiki 17:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bollock conkers[edit]

Bollock_conkers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article was nominated for deletion by 212.85.19.16 (talk · contribs), who gave no rationale, and the nomination completed by a 'bot. Uncle G 11:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article was written after having witnessed the sport in Wales. It is a clear pointer to Societies current obsession with self hurting for the entertainment of the public. It is a game that is directly derived from television programmes such as Jack Ass and the like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxb80 (talk • contribs) 2007-06-05 18:10:34
  • This article seems particularly pertinent in the UK, as there is in fact a Welsh version of the US show Jackass called Dirty Sanchez. Dirty Sanchez (television_series) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.240.30 (talk • contribs) 2007-06-05 22:10:46
  • Delete. No evidence that this actually exists, beyond the above unsigned comment that it was witnessed by one of the authors - ie original research. Versions of this have been written up and speedied or AfD'd before, I believe. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 15:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. W.marsh 19:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do It[edit]

Do_It (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

In God's Hands was just announced. Of course, Do It is uncomfirmed. Because neither Nelly nor her label has been quoted as saying this. This is graffiti, albeit, benevolent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Insaneace1 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I agree. Jonwood2 20:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as spam. Sr13 15:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-Lab[edit]

E-Lab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This appears to be a pre-production company who has come to wikipedia to help establish a name for itself. Good luck to their efforts, but it doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability, at least as written. — Mike Gogulski ↗C•@•T↗ 00:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per WP:SPAM. Also, there are no assertions of notability or third party references. Tagged speedy. --Javit 10:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. I've been advised not to do this, but the addition of references by User:Alansohn with the help of User:Uncle G justifies this article's existence beyond a reasonable doubt. YechielMan 06:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hallmark holiday[edit]

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

Article cannot ever be more than a dicdef and maybe a highly subjective list of holidays that would probably just be OR. In fact, that's all it's been since the article's creation. Colindownes 06:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the concept is subjective does not make it undocumentable. A dicdef would likely not include an examination of which holidays are considered HH and why. -- Akb4 21:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article was encyclopedic previously, but one or more editors have stripped it of the bulk of its content, including sourced details, references, and entries linked to other holiday articles that mention "Hallmark holiday." I think that the main problem with the article was that while the term is used in two different ways--both to (gently) disparage a holiday that appears to have been created for commercial purposes and to (pehaps jocularly) decry the commercialization of traditional holidays--the intro was written as if only the first meaning was intended (and not gently). This gave the impression that the term was being applied to holidays such as Christmas or Easter in the same way that it was to Boss' Day or Sweetest Day.--Hjal 07:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article has never, in its entire history, included references. It has been tagged for lacking references since October 2006. As far as I can determine, I am the only editor to have added any citations at all to the article. Those citations were not sources for the current or prior article content, but further reading and potential sources for cleanup. Uncle G 11:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I had remembered the References section and forgotten that there was nothing there but the template. However, the holidays listed did have at least some references in their own articles.--Hjal 04:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article does need some expansion, but this article can be more than just a dic def - it can discuss what holidays are considered "Hallmark" and can incorporate sources on these. There are sources on invented holidays (such as the sources given in "Further Reading"). I have been meaning to add back the list of Hallmark holidays with citations, I just haven't done the research yet. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 17:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added citations for material that could be potentially used for cleanup back in August 2006. Other sources exist (including one, ISBN 0805847790, that carefully explains that Mother's Day (United States) is not a Hallmark holiday). Yes, the list of holidays was wrong. That's what happens when editors don't use sources. But deletion of the article is not the cure for that. Nor is deletion the cure for "no-one has fixed this since the article's creation". The cure for that is editors taking the cited sources, and the many others that can be found on this subject, and actually cleaning the article up themselves. AFD is not cleanup. {{sofixit}} applies. Uncle G 11:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Every article is always and forever a work in progress. This is a highly notable concept, and the sources cited now by Uncle G are more than adequate to establish that fact. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There are hundreds of references to the term, which does NOT mean a holiday created by Hallmark, but more accurately a generic term for a seemingly manufactured synthetic holiday. {http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&tab=wn&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22hallmark+holiday%22 A Google News Archive] search pulled up 834 references to "Hallmark Holiday", and a few have already been added, including for both Mothers' and Fathers' Day. Alansohn 17:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep noteworthy concept Rackabello 22:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with above that Deletion != Cleanup. -- Akb4 21:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was KEEP but reduce to a stub so that it may be rewritten in the future. Herostratus 12:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson Valley English[edit]

Hudson Valley English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is no evidence this region has an accent specific to it. Obviously all people have accents, but whether these people are a subset of another kind of accent, an accent in themselves (as this article claims), or there are many accents in this reason needs to be proven. Having been born in and spent most of my life in this region, I can testify everything in the article is false. Шизомби 13:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; I have seen descriptions of US regional accents/dialects that put that area in its own category. Ex. "Along the Hudson river valley, a second dialect is differentiated, which extends into extreme northeastern Pennsylvania and most of North Jersey; this is notable for its heavy Dutch influence."[32] Squidfryerchef 03:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An anonymously written article? No thanks. It also doesn't even make it clear whether it's the whole Hudson river valley for which this suspicious claim is being advanced or just part of it. Шизомби 03:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That could almost be an argument for "keep". The link to the dialect map says that the Hudson accent is similar to the NYC accent because of the Dutch influence. But, we all know the NYC accent is heavily influenced by Irish, Italian, and Yiddish, where the capital area's accent wouldn't be. The other link that says "below Albany", they probably still mean upstate, not the NYC metro area. So, the article seems to be describing something that exists in the world; if we feel parts of it are WP:OR, we can put up a pastel box for that. Squidfryerchef 12:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Almost" "probably" "seems" "if"? You made your argument for delete. Here's one of the other problems: the accent, whatever it might be called, whatever regions it might include, is not similar to NYC at all. Somebody is going to have to do some real research on this at some point. This article by its name and content points people in the wrong direction from the get-go. Шизомби 13:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I made an argument for "Keep". Now I don't understand why the "Hudson Valley" accent being different from the NYC accent is problematic. Are you arguing that the name "Hudson Valley" is wrong because NYC is, at least geologically, part of the Hudson Valley? Squidfryerchef 15:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added one to Talk:Upstate New York as well. Let's let the hive brain sort this out. Squidfryerchef 15:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No doubt the people living in the Hudson Valley speak English with some type of accent. But in the absence of reliable sources showing that the variety of English spoken there has been identified as a distinct dialect, the article is worthless. —Angr 17:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite. In fact Labov's paper in this month's issue of Language deals with the dialect of the Albany area as one of his key data sources for a sophisticated dialectological argument; Dinkin & Labov (2007) extend the pattern found in Albany to at least some speakers in Schenectady; and Labov cites Kurath (1949) on the Hudson Valley as a dialect area more generally. However, virtually nothing in the article as it stands is accurate and verifiable as a description of the Hudson Valley dialect, and it needs to be rewritten. AJD 18:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then wouldn't it make more sense to delete this article without prejudice toward it being rewritten based on those sources? Because unless you rewrite it yourself, saying "keep but rewrite" will result in it being kept but never rewritten. (If you do rewrite it yourself based on those sources before this AFD is over, let me know and I'll change my !vote.) —Angr 19:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think so... I mean, an article is deleted based on whether its topic is worthy of being in Wikipedia, not whether the treatment of the topic is correct as it stands. I'd be happy to rewrite it, though I don't have time to at the moment—I am, in actual fact, going to Upstate New York for a few days to do dialectological research(!). But I may have time to at least replace this page with a stub before I go. AJD 20:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not at all. An article is deleted if the article isn't good enough. Not every deleted page gets SALTed, so if a bad article on a good topic gets deleted, a new article can be written later under the same name. —Angr 20:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with AJD. Angr has some nice finds, but they work against "Hudson Valley English" as a dialect, finding multiple accents in the region as I suggested in my nom. In part to retain this article, "Hudson Valley English" - that very term - must be one that is actually used by people who study accents. Шизомби 15:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Huh? AJD is the one with the "nice finds", not me. —Angr 19:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I got you two reversed in my post, I agree with Angr, AJD had nice finds. Шизомби 01:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The term "Hudson Valley English" is used by Labov, the principal scholar of American English accents—if not in the article of his that I cite, at least he uses it in a grant proposal he's currently working on. I don't think the cites I provided suggest multiple accents in the region, either. I haven't read Kurath (1949) yet, but the impression I get from Labov's paper is that Kurath characterizes the Hudson Valley as a signle dialect region; and the only modern published dialectological research on Hudson Valley cities (Labov's ANAE research on Albany and Dinkin & Labov 2007 on Schenectady) groups them together. AJD 02:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Asserts no notability. Sr13 15:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I_Want_that_Toy[edit]

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

Unremarkable Fictional Entity — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeCollege (talk • contribs) 2007/06/06 16:38:49

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 06:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instituto Cultural Oaxaca[edit]

Instituto Cultural Oaxaca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

blatant commercial advertising Adam5532 00:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC) I am associated with another Spanish school, and certainly I would love the exposure of Wikipedia, but feel that an article like this is blatant advertising, and none of us should do it. There are about 60 schools in Guatemala and many in Mexico with similar programs. An article on Spanish study abroad, with school links might be appropriate, but a page promoting one school in the guise of an objective article I believe is inappropriate and doesn't follow the Wikipedia guidelines. Adam5532 00:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no attempt to meet WP:N Lyrl Talk C 01:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per lack of notability, as said above. ♠Tom@sBat 21:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Herostratus 12:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Lear[edit]

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

Non-notability. Limited objective evidence of claims. Bregence 15:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Short of being the son of someone famous and being a complete nut, I don't see anything notable about him. The sources given on the page are not what I would consider reliable, and I am unable to find reliable ones in my own search. For anyone checking out the sources, please note that the "Project Camelot" reference is not to the Project Camelot, just to a website a couple of people started. Someguy1221 06:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. This was a biography of a living person that cited a web log as its purported source. The web log in turn cited a prior Wikipedia article as its source. The biography made borderline contentious claims about the professionalism of the subject, and I was almost at the point of speedily deleting it on that ground alone. Then I read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Willis. The parade of sock-puppets there matches the parade of sock-puppets commenting on the web log. This is just a re-hash of content that we've deleted several times before, and just plain hoax vandalism that is obviously coming from a single person. Let's not waste time on this. Uncle G 12:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Willis (broadcaster)[edit]

Steve Willis (broadcaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The subject of this article is simply non-notable. The current content of the page provides no information to support notability beyond a few jobs the subject has held in notable establishments. The article even notes that the subject has apparently "dropped off the radar". I have nominated this for an AfD as the subject was previously the subject of an article that was deleted (for non-notability). In that AfD there was strong evidence that the subject himself was interfering in the AfD process through sockpuppets. Plumbago 08:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The account used to create this article, Werewolph, is more or less a single-purpose account used only to edit this article. Two other pages, relating to another Steve Willis have also been edited. --Plumbago 09:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 19:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yehuda HaKohen[edit]

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

Yehuda HaKohen is described in the article as a political activist. He is not a noteworthy activist, he has not even been mentioned by the media (except for the fringe news website of Arutz Sheva, which mentioned his name a couple of times). His Google presence is almost exclusively due to Wikipedia and its forks (note that there are other unrelated people with the same name that appear in the Google search). Naturally, this article does not reference any reliable sources. Its only references are to the said Arutz Sheva website, most of which don't even mention HaKohen, and to his movement's website. See also Elie Yossef below. Doron 09:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Speedy Keep: Arutz Sheva is of course not a fringe website like mistakingly claimed by Doron, but actually a large news station serving a large % of people in Israel, mainly the religious population which is relatively very large. Since the article is full of references and seems well written, and since there is an article on Magshimey Herut and of course Arutz Sheva which this person seems to be a leader and spokesperson, then there are no grounds for deletion. Amoruso 14:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just to remind you all that Arutz Sheva was a pirate radio and ten of its operators were convicted. Besides that, no prominent Israeli journalist is associated with Arutz Sheva. Essentially, despite what Amoruso writes above, the Arutz Sheva website has no credentials whatsoever. And this is an article about a political activist who hasn't been mentioned by any news agency except for Arutz Sheva, so how can he be notable enough to warrant an article?--Doron 15:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Credentials ? Please don't insert your political opinions about Arutz Sheva into the discussion. The fact that Arutz Sheva belongs to the right wing sector, and religious sector of society doesn't make it illegal. As far as for piracy, this was a complex legal issue concerning Tender Law and Frequency allocation. Many of Israel's parliament and legal advisors were against closing it down at the time. Freedom of speech is one of the most important pillars of democracies and of Israel in specific, and this station serves hundreds of thoudsands of people. It has a legitimate base, it has very prominent broadcasters and public figures, which Doron might not be aware with his own original experience, and the fact this person is notable related as explained above of course makes void this request for delete. Amoruso 15:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep multiple sources are provided to establish notability. I haven't seen anywhere in Wikipedia policy a requirement that a source must include a country's prominent journalists. Alansohn 16:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nor have i seen a requirement that only legally operated sources count. WP is neutral about such things. I have a strong dislike for nomination of sources where it appears the political point of view may be relevant in the nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 04:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there was an article about a leftist political activist who's only mentioned in Indymedia, I'd think the same thing. I know several leftist political activists who had much more exposure on mainstream Israeli media and still I don't think they deserve an article. There's nothing about this person that makes him noteworthy, activists like him are a dozen a dime.--Doron 10:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - HaKohen is non-notable in terms of Israeli politics or current affairs. I have never heard his name mentioned apart from on here despite being pretty ofé with Israeli politics. This article and other related ones (e.g. Zionist Freedom Alliance and Magshimey Herut) are far too detailed and I strongly suspect are being written by an insider (thus WP:COI). Number 57 11:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He is a radio-speaker. Alithien 20:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Although I probably disagree with ZFA on many issues, I acknowledge that Yehuda HaKohen is well known among college students in the United States where ZFA organizes Zionist programs. I also think that because HaKohen's message adds a new element to the current debate on the Arab-Israeli conflict (the notion of Jewish rights as a leftwing political cause), it is important that WP include HaKohen's entry. It is also possible that HaKohen is more notale in the United States than in Israel--Divina SJ 05:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If he is well known in colleges in the USA, it should be written in the article and sourced... Alithien 10:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn, sufficient sources are provided to establish notability per WP:BIO guidelines. RFerreira 06:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was a weakish keep. Daniel 04:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elie Yossef[edit]

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

Elie Yossef is described in the article as a political activist. He is not a noteworthy activist, he has not even been mentioned by the media (except for the fringe news website of Arutz Sheva, which mentioned his name a couple of times). His Google presence is almost exclusively due to Wikipedia and its forks. Naturally, this article does not reference any reliable sources. Its only references are to the said Arutz Sheva website and to a real estate agency owned by the subject of the article. Doron 08:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Speedy Keep: Article seems to be very well written, refernced and edited. Arutz Sheva is of course not a fringe website like mistakingly claimed by Doron, but actually a large news station serving a large % of people in Israel, mainly the religious population which is relatively very large. Since the article is full of references and seems well written, and since there is an article on Magshimey Herut and of course Arutz Sheva which this person seems to be a leader and spokesperson, then there are no grounds for deletion. Amoruso 14:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: Just to remind you all that Arutz Sheva was a pirate radio and ten of its operators were convicted. Besides that, no prominent Israeli journalist is associated with Arutz Sheva. Essentially, despite what Amoruso writes above, the Arutz Sheva website has no credentials whatsoever. And this is an article about a political activist who hasn't been mentioned by any news agency except for Arutz Sheva, so how can he be notable enough to warrant an article?--Doron 15:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note2:Credentials ? Please don't insert your political opinions about Arutz Sheva into the discussion. The fact that Arutz Sheva belongs to the right wing sector, and religious sector of society doesn't make it illegal. As far as for piracy, this was a complex legal issue concerning Tender Law and Frequency allocation. Many of Israel's parliament and legal advisors were against closing it down at the time. Freedom of speech is one of the most important pillars of democracies and of Israel in specific, and this station serves hundreds of thoudsands of people. It has a legitimate base, it has very prominent broadcasters and public figures, which Doron might not be aware with his own original experience, and the fact this person is notable related as explained above of course makes void this request for delete. Amoruso 15:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. The (misleadingly formatted) sources are all ads for his real estate agency or from Arutz Sheva. If he's one network's pet activist, he's not notable, he's entertainment. (The references are external links, formatted with sup to look like footnotes.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have a strong dislike for nomination of sources where it appears the political point of view may be relevant in the nomination. WP is neutral in such matters — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 04:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there was an article about a leftist political activist who's only mentioned in Indymedia, I'd think the same thing. I know several leftist political activists who had much more exposure on mainstream Israeli media and still I don't think they deserve an article. There's nothing about this person that makes him noteworthy, activists like him are a dozen a dime.--Doron 10:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Yosef is non-notable in terms of Israeli politics or current affairs. I have never heard his name mentioned apart from on here despite being pretty ofé with Israeli politics. This article and other related ones (e.g. Zionist Freedom Alliance and Magshimey Herut) are far too detailed and I strongly suspect are being written by an insider (thus WP:COI). Number 57 11:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After reading, I stil don't see what he does exactly ? Alithien 20:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yossef has been well known in rightwing activist circles for years. And many Israeli young adults know him because he spoke at hundreds of high schools in 2002 about the Jonathan Pollard issue. Many Israelis see him as being the person most responsible for publicizing Pollard's situation amomg the Israeli youth. I'm also pretty sure that Yossef ran for Knesset in the last elections but was unsuccessful.--Naama 22:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have proof of this from a reliable source, add it to the article and I'll vote "keep" myself, otherwise what you are saying is original research and has no weight.--Doron 04:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

??? For what party ? If you are right, it would already written in the article he is member of a party, no ? Alithien 21:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. A rewrite may be in order, but he seems notable from the article. - G1ggy Talk/Contribs 22:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have worked to improve the article by elaborating on Yossef's activities for Jonathan Pollard and adding information about his run for Knesset. I probably should have included these things before. My bad--Benny K 07:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs a cleanup tag and a mop and a broom, not an AfD.--Mike18xx 09:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Westra[edit]

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

There are no non-trivial WP:ATT sources, fails notability requirements, totally fails verifiability. Tmtoulouse 08:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete no assertion of notability; promotional Tom Harrison Talk 14:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Article has only been edited by one person, who has done virtually no other edits. This editor has, so far, seemed to spend far more effort arguing Wikipedia policy than searching out references. The content is just marketing spam. Bhimaji 15:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I really don't know what to do. I tried to create an article as a new user and have been shut down, so I tried to argue my position and have been shut down for arguing. This is my first time trying to really add something to wikipedia and some people don't even want to give me a chance. I'm just afraid this article will be deleted before there is any opportunity for others and myself to improve it.Jellybean333 16:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a Chance

I'm not asking for a lot, but if anyone reads this, please help me keep this article alive. If you can add to the article and also vote for it to stay for alive that would be great. I am a new user to wikipedia and have just created this article in the last few days. I want an opportunity to improve the article and allow others to as well, but for some reason some people just want the page deleted- who knows! I've promised to edit and research, and I know with some time others will add to the page as well, but the article is not getting the opportunity! Thanks for any help (especially sources and research).Jellybean333 16:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userify/Delete Let Jelly work on it in their space. -- Ben 16:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Help Him/Her - I'm willing to help out on this project. I don't know a lot about the author, but I'm interested in the authors subject of writing. If the article is not deleted, I will help out on it. I see some big problems with the article, but I want to draw attention to one thing from the AFD page:
"Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD."

Let's all play nice!! 128.187.0.164 17:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nonnotable and self-promotional, insufficient reliable sources. NawlinWiki 17:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 566 G-hits. Jelly should determine whether the subject of the article meets WP:BIO. We don't mean to bite, but we're always suspicious of people who come in and immediately create glowing new articles on less-than-marginally important people or companies that often read as though they were written by their subject. Morgan Wick 18:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I do not see how this material can be turned into an article about a notable author, unless there prove to be substantial media references to his books. DGG 04:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify/Delete Keeping to WP:Bite, I created a copy in Jell's workspace and suggested he work on it there. I tried to source the article, but all my favorite sources (like the NY Times), came up with nothing. Google seems to refer to a bunch of self-help sites.--Work permit 04:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Any possible merge proposal should be done editorially. Daniel 04:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electrosmog[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. AFD tag was placed on article by User:82.10.214.10 with the edit summary: "This is a very poor excuse for an article. If this term deserves any recognition, it should be in the wikitionary. also WP:NOR etc" Personally, I'm going for keep unless someone gives me a more compelling reason, the article seems to be well cited. Someguy1221 08:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This idea is pure quackery of course, but it has been in the news and a proper article on Wikipedia, pointing out why it's bollocks is better than ignoring it completely. Nick mallory 09:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, as far as I can see, there is nothing bollocks about the term "Electrosmog". It is merely a word used to define Electromagnetic Radiation -- However, the association with ES is tenious at best, and this should be reflected as necessary. Topazg 09:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It should be in the wiktionary, if anywhere. The whole article states that the term is essentially meaningless (and if it doesn't then it's been vandalised). The showing it's bollocks can go in the electrosensitivity page. Maybe replace with a redirect? 128.243.220.21 14:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term itself isn't meaningless - the phenomena is. The fact that there have been tests to prove it wrong only gives more of a reason to keep it around. fuzzy510 00:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we make it clearer then that it quackary that is ruining the lives of sufferers, who should have their symptoms properly diagnosed, and is making large amounts of money for the greedy and rich woo industry? Right at the top I think :) It's also an horrible word, I hope it never gets into the OED

82.10.214.10 09:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The article already makes clear that the scientific consensus is that all alleged health effects are placebo or completely unfounded. If you can find a reliable source describing the negative health effects of believing in this junk instead of seeing a doctor, then we can work that in. Someguy1221 00:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see this as an unnecessarily pejorative buzzword, designed purely to make Electromagnetic Radiation appear dangerous and or harmful. I think neither the word nor the article should exist. Topazg 10:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up - Actually, as Electrosmog appears to be nothing other than a buzzword to Electromagnetic Radiation, perhaps it should just be a redirect to Electromagnetic_radiation?
  • Comment Article is POV. I am a little suspicious when people rabidly attack a position such as this. True science aims to keep an open mind, not to make people look ridiculous for being concerned about something. ~ Infrangible 02:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This should be covered in the electromagnetic radiation page, it only warrants a brief statement regarding its lack of scientific evidence anyway. --Wesman83 15:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge to any article with similar content. I can attest that 'Elektrosmog'', in German-speaking countries, is a household word for the purported negative effects of ubiquitous EM radiation. The term seems to be less popular in English, but the subject matter - fear of EM radiation - is real and merits an article somewhere. Sandstein 19:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per fuzzy510. - G1ggy Talk/Contribs 22:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. This doesn't rule out a merge but consensus is unclear from this AFD. W.marsh 13:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless electronic devices and health[edit]

Wireless electronic devices and health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am completing a nomination begun by an anonymous user. I have no opinion. Someguy1221 08:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with the article above? They deal with exactly the same issue. More people would search for 'electrosmog' perhaps, though this is the more detailed article. Nick mallory 09:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Nick, I don't see which article that this should be merged with - am I missing something? Unless there is a more suitable place for it to go, I see no reason why this article should be deleted - it is now fairly well referenced and seems to be reasonably balanced between both sides of the argument. Topazg 09:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the AfD directly above this one on 'Electrosmog'. It's exactly the same thing. My point was that 'electrosmog' was a more likely search term as it's the name given to it by the loonies who believe in it. Nick mallory 10:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this page with electrosensitivity, or just delete. It doesn't stand on its own.

Wikipedia should be an encyclopaedia that contains truth, and whether you define truth as facts or "by consensus" then this article fails. If we have all this stuff in one place it's easier to keep an eye on it. Also see WP:FRINGE, WP:NOR, WPNPOV etc 128.243.220.21 14:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Wikipedia is not the arbiter of truth. It is meant to be a collection of information on notable topics. If said topic happens to be a giant load of bollocks, make that clear in the article (I believe this article already does that), but so long as this particular bollocks is notable, its scientific status is no reason to delete it. Someguy1221 15:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You agree it should contain truth though, and state when articles aren't true or are faith/belief? :) This article is covered perfectly well elsewhere. Redirect to electrosensitivity, or delete
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because something is "true" does not make it encyclopedic. Of course we should have the truth, but we shouldn't have everything that's true, or we'd have an article about me. (I'm mostly talking about the IP above tho.) Morgan Wick 18:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think he meant that things in an encyclopaedia should be true. My vote is delete the lot, or at least collect all the rubbish into one place. 82.10.214.10 23:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - To my mind this is a pretty good title, if we're going to discuss merging I'd make this the merged title and redirect the others here. 'Electrosmog' is not really encyclopaedic language is it! And 'Electrosensitivity' is not something I'd search for. Maybe 'Health risks of radio emissions' would be a good alternative? Whatever, I don't think this article should just be dumped, though it does need some wikification, cleanup and copy editing - but those are not really deletion criteria.--Chris Jefferies 20:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I too consider it a reasonable subject for an article, and a good choice of title. It of course needs sources, but I think it's a usable start. The truth amount what injures health is nto relevant--prociding documentation and a balance of iew is what's relevant. DGG 04:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Electrical sensitivity and Redirect this title - Overlapping topics, this should exist as a sub-section in that article, which is a notable, documented concept. This article merely describes a variation on the theme. -- Kesh 04:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I heavily disagree that this merges with Electrical Sensitivity. ES is a very specific and controversial topic, whereas Wireless Electronic Devices and Health is aimed at any literature examining health effects (such as significant EEG responses and suchlike) outside the normal realm of ES provocation studies. Having said that, I think it also highlights the need to shift the over-focus of this article on ES generally to a wider remit. Topazg 10:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete JoshuaZ 01:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meshel, Ash and Kip with Luttsy[edit]

Meshel, Ash and Kip with Luttsy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non-notable radio show. A PROD tag was contested with no reason provided. The station is clearly notable but this does not necessarily cascade down to the programs. The article is written in the form of a promotional piece and is unsourced. Mattinbgn/ talk 08:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 08:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, better than Dan and Ken, but the present article has no RS. I suspect that a few of the hosts are notable enough to meet WP:BIO. John Vandenberg 08:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree about some of the hosts, in particular Meshel Laurie being notable. I will pre-empt that sourcing the bio section of the article does not establish notability for the show. Sources establishing notability for the show need to be about the show and not the hosts as individuals. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 08:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I agree wholewheartedly, this is a show with four personalities - finding one source for each of them should be a cakewalk, but that won't establish notability of their show in any way.Garrie 04:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The show is non-notable, independently of the notability of some of the people on it. Orderinchaos 09:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NN show, and reads as WP:SPAM to boot. The only really notable one of the lot is Luttsy, who made news for getting the crap pounded out of him while harassing a girl on the street, and I'd not heard of him or his show before that, and I live here in Brisbane where they're apparently "popular". Lankiveil 13:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and ors as WP:VSCA. Thewinchester (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Meshel Laurie/ No coverage on Google News or Google News Archive. Capitalistroadster 04:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficient sources at this stage... I'm suprised thought that there isn't press from the Courier-Mail or whatever the brisbane version of the SMH is.Garrie 04:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, and no decent sources. *Cremepuff222* 20:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 17:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipsed by Sanity[edit]

Eclipsed by Sanity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another one of those myspace bands looking for a wikipedia article. A quick google search provided no sources apart from myspace and youtube. Article does not assert how they are notable, fails WP:BAND RazorICE 07:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of Notability, no reliable sources. Cricket02 16:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete and redirect to book. —Ocatecir Talk 04:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Valone[edit]

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

Non-notable person; president of a non-notable society, and author of a number of non/borderline notable books and articles JulesH 07:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on my reasoning above:

  • Being the author of Harnessing the Wheelwork of Nature: Tesla's Science of Energy (a book for which only two revies could be found, one of them extremely short, the other in a magazine of dubious reliability) or a number of other less-notable books does not make somebody notable.
  • Being educated does not make him notable.
  • Being employed as a patent examiner does not make him notable.
  • Being president of a society that is only ever discussed in sources like "American Antigravity" does not make him notable.
  • Having been interviewed for a TV program does not make him notable, unless that program is substantially about him.
  • Being a member of professional societies does not make him notable.
  • Having published a number of articles in dubious sources like "TESLA: Journal of Modern Science" (for which title the only two hits google has are related to Valone) does not make him notable.

In short, I don't think this person is actually important. I think this is mostly the self promotion of a fringe scientist whose views are not widely supported by mainstream science. JulesH 07:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Slightly arguing against myself here, but this publication not currently mentioned on the article about him should be taken into account: "New Physics" Patents T Valone - Science, 1999 JulesH 07:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even though per the article he has a "PhD in General Engineering from Kennedy-Western University (2003) (an online, non-accredited organization)." Edison 15:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, but merge the article for the book in. I do not see why two articles can possibly be justified in a borderline situation like this. Better the person than the book, for there is at least the chance he may write further books.DGG 04:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • conditional delete This is not to judge the subject, but it seems the entry as it stands isn't notable. Merging this entry with a book does not solve the problem.As has been stated above, what might make the subject notable is his controversial stint at the patent office (firing/rehiring). I'll change my vote to a weak keep if someone adds this in. Onebit202 17:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Ocatecir Talk 04:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Lint[edit]

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

"Jeff Lint" doesn't exist; he's a creation of Steve Aylett, but the article is written as if he were real. He was also listed in the trivia of the film article for Patton as having written a script, which is how I stumbled upon "him". My first inclination was to speedy it, but now I think it's better to delete it as nn. Clarityfiend 07:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - could be improved, but I doubt it's notable enough. GoldengloveContribs ·Talk 08:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy D - per CSD A7 - fiction or not, there's nothing claiming, let alone establishing, any notability. - Tiswas(t) 09:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable fictional character. NawlinWiki 17:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Move to LINT (novel) - book has enjoyed considerable cult success in UK, if not elsewhere. Article obviously needs a lot of work (I very quickly tidied it up). Terwilliger 22:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete JoshuaZ 02:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Willis (personal trainer)[edit]

Steve Willis (personal trainer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Mostly a procedural listing. 82.37.177.149 (talk · contribs) started and concluded the Afd process, but skipped step two. A narrow Google News Archive search turns up zip. John Vandenberg 16:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable Television personality. At least as notable as some game show contestants that have been kept. Needs better sourcing though. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 20:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article contains at least one piece of information which does not meet WP:V (the commando history), and realisticly he's not appeared in anything else but a single season of the show. If he'd been a longer term participant and all the information was verified by WP:RS, then you could swing me to a keep easily. Thewinchester (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the personalities themselves should be equally notable to the winners of the show.Garrie 04:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article does not meet notability criteria, he appeared in one series, on these grounds maybe we list every game show contestant! I checked with list of Australia-related deletions and the general consensus there is to delete also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.177.149 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per WP:BIO Orderinchaos 02:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vasilis Christidis[edit]

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

BLP nightmare. Punkmorten 07:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The notability criteria are in many cases optional, not compulsory. I don't see how we can write a NPOV article about this fellow. YechielMan 07:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Is any of this information even true? There are no references here, and this reads a bit like an attack page. Charlie 07:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless rewritten with statements cited inline to reliable sources. cab 09:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletions. cab 09:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme some time I will add the sources. user:Panosfidis

  • Speedy Delete this is nothing but an attack page, sourced or not. DarkAudit 12:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK here you go. If you search for "Vasilis Christidis" in Greek you get 15.200 results. [[34]] If you search for "Vasilis Christidis prison " in Greek you get 15.200 results. If you search for "Vasilis Christidis prison" in Greek you get another 91 results [[35]]. Are they relisable? Yes. Most of them are pages of big TV channels like Antenna and big newspapers like kathimerini also the Greek radio and many Greek blogs where the name "television-croock" is dominant. OK maybe it needs a bit of cleanup but it certainly NOT for deletion. user:Panosfidis

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

The result was delete. Sr13 00:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of tabla musicians[edit]

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

Despite the intro's claim that it's a list of notable tabla musicians, this page looks like a list mainly of non-notable musicians, plus some vandals' and random people's names. Even if the page did follow WP:OR and WP:RS, it still wouldn't be encyclopedic, since it's just a list of people's names. If any of the people in question have Wikipedia articles, they can be added to a Category:Tabla musicians. This list is just begging for vandal/vanity edits and should be deleted. Quuxplusone 07:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete JoshuaZ 02:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generations Linux[edit]

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

Non-notable Linux distribution. Probably dead. The idea seems to have been to do a live CD...too bad that they did it more than 2 years too late; obviously going nowhere. Chealer 06:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete both a7, no assertion of notability for either, no sources. NawlinWiki 17:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LIFE Why We Exist...[edit]

LIFE Why We Exist... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page apparently created by author; the other major contributor has written about little else. Does not seem notable; a search for the book did not turn up much. I am also nominating this page about the author, created by the co-author of the above article: Martin_G._Walker. Nath 05:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete apparent WP:COI for self-published book. Article contains inappropriate level of detail, and no criticism of book.
  • Delete the only hits I got on google (I spent too much time sifting through them) were unreliable or self published sources, wikipedia articles, places to buy the book, and one dead link. Someguy1221 07:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-Noteable Book,Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 13:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Ocatecir Talk 04:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Composer: Editor for NCL Documents[edit]

Composer: Editor for NCL Documents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vanity page for a non-notable master's degree project Steve (Stephen) talk 04:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete, csd a7. No assertion of notability. - Bobet 11:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide Blonde (band)[edit]

Suicide Blonde (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No notability asserted Frog47 04:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Unsourced and no assertion of notability—arf! 06:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - An advert for a non-notable band. ~ SEEnoEVIL punch the keys 06:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Tyrenius 01:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Yeung[edit]

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

Non-notable biography - does not meet the requirements for WP:Notability. No major award or press coverage - article fails to assert notability. Ozgod 04:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There are 600 Google hits for all the different people named "Priscilla Yeung" combined. There really aren't enough sources to write a good article about her - that's one of the reasons we use the notability principle. YechielMan 04:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Subject does not look notable from what I can see, but I don't know everything (and neither does the Google) -- we should just tag the article with notability for now, and give the author a chance to establish it. Capmango 14:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No GNews archive hits.[36] The Wikipedia article is the sole hit anywhere for the Chinese name [37]. Google Books search gets two art gallery brochures (!?!??!) from Or Gallery and Grunt Gallery. [38] Also suspect WP:COI. cab 08:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that any time that WP:N is the only reason an article is being sent to afd, and the article appears to be written in good faith by someone who is just not clear that notability needs to be asserted, we should start with a notability tag, not go straight to afd. Capmango 14:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I'm inclined to agree with Capmango for the most part, I don't think there's much that could be added to this article to establish notability: she's had two shows of minimal note and that's it. I think tagging it as non-notable would merely result in it sitting there untouched for months. Freshacconci 17:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable "artist". BH (T|C) 02:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just wanted to note that I have no doubt that Ms. Yeung is a legitimate artist. She's just not notable yet. Freshacconci 02:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Peacent 02:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheung Kwai Yeung[edit]

Cheung Kwai Yeung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable biography - WP:COI - originator of article is Kycheung. Article does not assert importance or notable - does not meet requirements for WP:Notability. Ozgod 04:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETED Because 1) Policy always matters more than process. 2) BLP policy concerns trump DRV votes and opinions. When DRV consensus determines that BLP "concerns were justified" - that's fine, the correct course of action is then clear. Per that non-negotiable policy, the BLP offending material gets immediately removed NOT ever restored. Consensus cannot decide to keep violating material, and what some people 'want' here is wholly irrelevant. This relisting violates policy, and is quite unacceptable. Feel free to create a redirect.-Docg 10:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NB - I undeleted to allow a merge/redirect which meets the BLP concerns and seems to be an effective compromise. --Docg 01:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Kach[edit]

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

This person is a criminal victim, the subject of substantial press coverage, originally speedy deleted under BLP. DRV determined that, while BLP concerns were justified, speedy deletion was inappropriate. Some commenters wish the outright deletion of this content, some would prefer to see a merging and redirection to a new article on the event of the crime, and some believe the biography, as long as it is rigorously-sourced, should remain. My preference is weakly for deletion, pending other opinions. Xoloz 03:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This nomination makes no sense. If the BLP concerns are justified, the article should not be restored. Please close this nomination and delete immediately. --Tony Sidaway 03:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP concerns can exist validly without insisting that something be deleted, Tony. You can fix BLP concerns with rigorous sourcing, sometimes. Xoloz 04:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification. --Tony Sidaway 04:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete immediately ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This appears to be an account of a current event of little lasting significance except to the families and the perpetrators. The newspapers themselves do a reasonable job of covering this. The source material could be of use in the article on Kidnapping, but this level of obsessive detail is unlikely to be of much use there. I fear that Wikipedians who worked on this have allowed their decisions to be modelled on those of the newspapers and television news. Unlike them, we're not here to sell newspapers or toothpaste so we don't need this kind of lurid story. Why? Because it isn't what an encyclopedia does, and there is, yes, a real chance that keeping this story could impact the lives of the people involved in it. But that latter concern isn't primary here, really, it more what keeping stories like this is doing to Wikipedia. So on those grounds, delete. --Tony Sidaway 04:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In its current state, the article reads as a rehash of newspaper reports, not an encyclopedic entry. Further, I don't see any notability for the subject outside of her kidnapping. An article about the kidnapping itself might be warranted, but the current article doesn't even cover that in an encyclopedic manner. This needs a total rewrite, or deletion. -- Kesh 05:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - subject has zero notability outside of the event in question; no objection to writing an article about the event, though. --Haemo 06:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete This list as it stands is unsourced original research. This deletion occurs with no prejudice against sourced recreation. A category may also make sense. JoshuaZ 02:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous streets[edit]

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

WP:NOR; Highly subjective title and list. Original Research needs to be used to decide when a street considered famous enough to be added to this list. The list includes "major city streets that have some celebrity or historic value". Every major city street in the world has some degree of historic value, unless it was recently built, so more original research needs to be used to decide if a street has enough historic value for this list.Masaruemoto 03:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unmaintainable, POV, poorly defined, OR, etc. Resolute 03:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and give the nominator a barnstar! This is exactly the kind of article that AFD was designed to get rid of. YechielMan 04:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepKeep useful information, and easy to decide if a street should be included: does the street itself have a wikipedia entry (that doesn't count as OR). The page has been around for a year and lots of folks have put work in to it, so it is maintainable. Certainly more maintainable, useful, and notable than List of fictional restaurants. Capmango 06:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment With all due respect, I urge you to check out WP:AADD. It may not be a policy or guideline yet, but I think these discussions would go much better if it were followed. Specifically, see WP:USEFUL, WP:EFFORT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also, whether or not a street has an article in Wikipedia is not the best way to decide if it should be included, in my opinion. This is because Wikipedia articles are constantly in flux, and Wikipedia itself, as an "anyone can edit" wiki, is not a reliable source. Charlie 07:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted. Let me try to state this better in light of all that: I think for a hyperlinked encyclopedia which contains entries on famous streets, it makes sense for such an encyclopaedia to include a page that shows what all those streets are. Probably a category is the better wikipedia way to handle this, rather than an entry. So my suggestion is now convert to category, also possibly Transwiki to WikiTravel. Capmango 14:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And just to also clarify, since my points about usefulness and effort seem to have been misconstrued: my point about usefulness was not that it was generally useful information, but that it was a useful organizational tool within wikipedia, so WP:USEFUL is not applicable to what I was trying to say, and my point about it being around for a year with people working on it was not a WP:EFFORT argument, it was a response to the assertion that the page was unmaintainable. If it's been maintained successfully for a year, then it appears to me to be maintainable. Guilty as charged on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, though. Capmango 17:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my opinion back to keep, after seeing geography argument. The streets should also be put in a category, but the geographical organization would be lost in a category, and its useful for an encyclopedia to have a geographically-organized list. But remove the streets that don't have entries. Capmango 14:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a shame, because the article is quite well crafted, but I think that the inclusion criteria are not succinct enough, or well-defined enough, to keep this list. As the nominator pointed out, it does not specify what counts as "celebrity or historic value." If no independent source asserts these qualities, then their assertion by editors of the list, logically necessary as a prerequisite for inclusion in the list, must constitue original research. (Sorry if that came out muddled - getting tired.) Charlie 07:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the items in the list are all notable and have a common link. Sure, perhaps "famous" is subjective, but aside from numbers and dates, everything's subjective. Useight 15:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if kept, I have no strong opinion whether it is, it ought to be renamed to remove "famous", which I'll assume is meant as a synonym of "notable" in WP parlance, which is implied. Carlossuarez46 17:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hmm... this may be better as a category, as Capmango suggests. Something to consider. Charlie-talk to me-about what I've done 18:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there were text here explaining each street's notability, then I would vote the other way. But as it is, this is just a list with no redeeming qualities which can't be covered by a category. Note that I normally say that lists and categories are not the same thing, but in this case, they are. Corvus cornix 21:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Categorize As most of its subjects have articles, it seems to be a novel topic. If you believe criteria is vague, then nominate the offending street for deletion. If this is deleted, then create a Category:Streets, as this is an interesting topic. Reywas92TalkReview me 21:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, that already exists! I suppose it can be deleted then. Reywas92TalkReview me 21:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - And move to "List of Notable Streets" We already have criteria for notability on Wikipedia, so that should be sufficiently NPOV/specific. There is already a category for streets, but this list is structured (organized geographically) and qualifies as serving an informational purpose per WP:LIST. -Chunky Rice 21:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without commentary this is just listcruft. Corvus cornix 01:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not familiar with that requirement. It's not at WP:LIST. I mean take a look at List of Presidents of the United States. Lead in specifying criteria, structured list (chronologically). No commentary. Or is that also listcruft? Somehow it got Featured List status. -Chunky Rice 01:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as way too subjective. Many streets I consider famous are missing. BH (T|C) 02:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment wouldn't any famous street have an article, or be a candidate to have an article that wouldn't get deleted too easily, and thus appear in Category:Streets? 132.205.44.134 03:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chunky Rice; having organised lists to supplement the category system is a good thing. The finer details of the inclusion criteria is an content decision that can be discussed on the talk page. John Vandenberg 03:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete strongly per nom. I second the barnstar. If only this mentality could be moved to the Category:Lists of songs. Hint hint. Sleep On It 11:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Improve-- I agree that there should be some commentary and not just a list of streets; not everyone knows why London's Abbey Road is famous, nor even that it's in London, for instance. I like the concept. It's not really subjective; clearly, the fact that most of these streets have their own Wikipedia articles shows that their famous. Everybody should learn the significance of Madison Avenue, Wall Street, Broadway, etc. in New York, and Downing Street, Carnaby St., Fleet St., etc. in London. Moreover, if Chundrigar Road in Karachi is well-known in Pakistan, then I'm interested in finding out more about it. I'm not sure of the significance of some of the entries, like Dickson St. in Fayetteville, Ark., but celebrity is generally not a matter of one person's personal opinion. Hard to maintain? I doubt it. I think the Champs Elysees will still be famous tomorrow. Mandsford 22:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are some that might be limited in their celebrity

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — It may be more appropriate to have this discussion on a relevant talk page to come to a consensus on the existence of each list and the information that should populate each page. WP:EPISODE gives some good examples... — Scientizzle 00:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ed, Edd n Eddy Season 1 episodes[edit]

List of Ed, Edd n Eddy Season 1 episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is merely a duplication of material that already exists in List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes. Having duplicate articles will cause them to diverge as different editors edit each one. This article seems to exist only to justify the existence of a template. -- Elaich talk 14:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons.:

List of Ed, Edd n Eddy Season 2 episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Ed, Edd n Eddy Season 3 episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Ed, Edd n Eddy Season 4 episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Ed, Edd n Eddy Season 5 episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Ed, Edd n Eddy Season 6 episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Ed, Edd n Eddy seasonal episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete. Repeat Information — Taggard (Complain) 03:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the articles for individual seasons, and essentially delete the general article by turning it into a bare-bones list. I say this because the article is 55 KB long, and the chart makes it look longer, and it will continue to expand as new episodes are televised. See Wikipedia:Article size. YechielMan 04:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We should keep one or the other, not both. I made the comment on the original article's talk page that the tables were the problem. I resisted the tables long ago, but others insisted, so I recanted. Wikitables do not lend themselves well to this kind of page. The only problem with the articles for each season is that it adds one more click to see the article one wishes to see. If the Wikitable was gone and the original article reduced to summary form, it would be much shorter. If the Wikitables remain, then the season by season is the way to go. My concern is that these articles will begin to diverge as time passes. It is still up in the air as to how many new episodes will air, but we must plan for it. -- Elaich talk 05:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no right or wrong answer to this; it's a judgment call. The trade-off is, for people like me, whose browsers have no trouble downloading long pages, it's more convenient to keep everything on a single page. For people who use dial-up, a split format will be more user-friendly. YechielMan 05:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the original article remains, it must be trimmed somehow. Wick'd was right in stating it's too long. It's hard to find what you are looking for. -- Elaich talk 06:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as repeat information. Useight 06:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem is these tables are pretty cluttered. The images do not help. Look at the List of Frasier episodes, they fit 11 seasons into very attractive tables and only 21K for the whole thing. Go back to one article with simpler tables and no images. Capmango 06:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment List of Frasier episodes is clean because there are separate articles for each episode, which are linked to.
  • Keep all and make the main page for "list of all" link to each of these, in sequence. Wikipedia is for everyone, even people with 56k modems. --Haemo 06:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restructure the larger list as per Haemo. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete just a duplication. not needed. RuneWiki777 17:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - nominator has it backward. The by-season episode lists should stay and the overall list should be deleted in favor of links to the seasonal articles through the main Ed, Edd n Eddy article. Otto4711 17:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all bare bones the non-season specific one. Whsitchy 20:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep delete List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes if necessary, per statements above - G1ggy Talk/Contribs 22:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and replace duplicate content on the main List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes with links to the season lists. The main list is 59K long, so splitting the content is reasonable. DHowell 02:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I fail to see why EE&E is any more special than scores of other shows that have all of their seasons combined into a single list-of-episodes article.--Mike18xx 09:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Ocatecir Talk 04:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Goodwin[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, seems to be just another small town mayor, even if he served a long time (and the article doesn't say whether he did or not) that alone isn't reason enough for an article. The article doesn't imply he was the longest serving Illinois mayor and if I remember correctly from recent Chicago Tribune articles the longest serving Illinois mayor just died. OK, the AP will do, even if it is via FOX News: [40] Also, Rootsweb.com doesn't strike me as a reliable source anyway. All in all this subject does not merit encyclopedic inclusion. IvoShandor 02:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETED per Crotalus WP:BLP -Docg 10:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of drug smugglers[edit]

List has been in cleanup state and without sources for two years. POV magnet and unmainatable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; unmaintainable, ill-defined, currently unsourced (and therefore actually violates WP:BLP, unlike some of the other stuff discussed under that rubric), violates Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. *** Crotalus *** 02:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete indiscriminate list with no defined criteria for inclusion. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Useight 06:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. As often happens for block nominations some made arguments to keep some but not others or delete some but not others. This makes a determination of consensus more difficult. For at least two of the lists (the Jewish list and the Christian list) strong arguments were made for keeping. However, I recommend that anyone in favor of keeping any of these lists helps clean them up and give them better sourcing so that we do not need to go back to AfD again. JoshuaZ 02:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Humanist Nobel laureates[edit]

List of Humanist Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nobel Prize winners are notable for winning the prize, and not for their religious or political beliefs and not for their ethnicity unless, in the case of the Nobel Peace Prize or Literature Prize, the people reflect their religious/political beliefs/ethnicity in the works that won them the prize. However, this applies to only a handful of winners, and certainly not to the ones included in this scope. Most importantly, the only sub-division of Nobel Prize winners actually supported by the Swedes has been the division by nationality. Bulldog123 02:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons outlined above:

List of Christian Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) List of Jewish Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) List of Hindu Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) List of Muslim Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  • Question Are we bound to divide them only as the prize committees do? Can we use other sources? This does need sources tho, and the one nom. should probably be retitled list of non-religious. DGG 02:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, but there are barely any sources that write of intersections like this. And I don't believe we should divide them like this, if division is necessary at all, which I feel it isn't. There should be some sort of intrinsic connections, wikipedia-article-worthy for divisions like this. Bulldog123 02:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Irrelevant intersection.. Resolute 03:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial, and probably biased intersection. --Haemo 06:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The phrase "clearly or very probably" in the first sentence indicates the speculative nature of the exercise. StAnselm 07:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My "Delete" vote applied to the humanist page only. With "Jewish" Nobel laurates it is also an ethmic/cultural designation, and so should be considered separately. StAnselm 07:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all with the possible exception of Jewish Laureates (not that I'd fight too hard to keep that). "Humanist" makes me think of Erasmus or Petrarch anyway. --Folantin 07:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 13:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm inclined to delete because the pages are subject to vandalism and are high maintenance. Still, the information may have an historical context that is being overlooked, an example is Otto Heinrich Warburg, who is on the list of Jewish Laureates, and isn't Jewish by the way, (but his father, another well known German scientist, was), was a Nobel laureate who lived and worked in Germany during WWII. The list might actually serve a purpose, if it was referenced (and therefore accurate), and if it included years, because it would directly place the laureates in an historical context which impacted their science. Oh, if you think politics doesn't impact science and religion doesn't impact politics, well .... KP Botany 16:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're proposing a List of Nobel laureates by era, not a list of Nobel laureates by religion, etc. So I don't know for certain what you mean by these lists are being overlooked. "Oh, if you think politics doesn't impact science and religion doesn't impact politics, well ...." That's an extreme overextension. Just because politics might impact science and religion might impact politics, doesn't mean either religion or politics impacted every single one of these men in respect to their sciences. And besides, I don't know why we're talking about politics. Humanism has nothing to do with that. I was just using an example. Sorry, got signed out there for a second. Signing comment. Bulldog123 17:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not proposing a list of laureates by era, I'm proposing that these lists reflect the fact that the Nobel Prize is political in nature, and the 20th century was an age defined by its intermingling of religion and politics. I'm proposing we stop pretending that religion doesn't matter or didn't matter. Humanism has tons to do with politics--wow! KP Botany 17:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but your argument is definitely out of the scope of this article, and feels like it is more for the Village Pump discussions than here. You know, a call to "stop pretending like religion doesn't matter" really doesn't help assess these lists speficially. Bulldog123 21:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and as improper intersections; and kudos to the nom for nominating all of these together. Carlossuarez46 17:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the list of Jewish Nobel laureates. I don't know about the other ones, but this intersection has been discussed in a very large number of mainstream publications. nadav (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Neutral(/Don't know anything about) on the other lists. nadav (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nadav, do you have no comment on the remainder or is it an assumed delete? Also, from my experience of researching the publications that do mention Jewish Nobels, which are mainly non-mainstream, they are more "mentions" than discussions, usually used as an example of overrepresentation per overall population. However, underrepresentation is even more prevalently covered by mainstream publications, such as the underrepresentation of African-Americans and Asians for their numbers. Especially women. There's also the most prevalent publications on White people dominating Nobel Prizes, and brings up the most important questions of eurocentrism etc. However, none of these intersections exist and I don't believe they ever will (unless someone WP:POINT them right now), so I don't think just having mentions of an intersection in some plaes qualify it for retention. Bulldog123 21:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the discussions in sources are usually about pointing out there are surprisingly many Jewish Nobel prize winners. In Israel and Jewish publications, as perhaps is expected, this appears in the mainstream. We also have an article Ashkenazi intelligence for which this list should be an important related article. nadav (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite what Bulldog123 said in creating this AfD, the lists don't have to reflect that people won the prize for works tied in with their religious/political beliefs/ethnicity. As it says at Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Lists_of_people, "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category." Desmond Tutu and Jimmy Carter are well-known Noble Peace Prize winners who are also well-known Christians. Albert Einstein was a cultural Zionist who had to flee Germany b/c he was Jewish. In addition, as it states at Wikipedia:List_guideline#Purpose_of_lists:
Lists have three main purposes:
  • Information: The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.
  • Navigation: Lists can be used as a table of contents, or if the user is browsing without a specific research goal in mind, they would likely use the See also lists. If the user has a specific research goal in mind, and there is only one or two words that are used to describe the research topic, and they know exactly how to spell the word, they would probably use the search engine box. If the user has some general idea of what they are looking for but does not know the specific terminology, they would tend to use the lists of related topics (also called list of links to related articles).
  • Development: Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of the 'pedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written. However, as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list of red link articles needed) should be in project or user space not the main space.
All of these lists meet the three criteria of this guideline for existance. They should therefore be kept.--Alabamaboy 20:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a lot of words, Bama, but it ultimately says nothing. Precedents generally don't support your interpretation. Plenty of people understand what it means to be a non-notable intersection, and for those that don't, I'm not going to bother reiterating over and over. A good example of your view of lists and intersections isn't wide-held is the fact that List of Catholic American entertainers, as well as numerous other religion/occupation lists ...like List of Hindu sportspeopIe met with almost unanimous consensus to delete for the same reasons I give here. Finally, I'd appreciate if you'd also stop wikistalking AfDs I nominate after the Medal of Honor debates. You rarely contribute to AfDs and yet have managed to contribute to all of my most recent ones with references personally directed to me. Please stop. Thanks. Bulldog123 20:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Wikistalking? I have a strong interest in deleting articles (having personally deleted a couple of thousand of them) and I keep track of AfDs. I rarely comment b/c I usually don't disagree with the reasons for deleting articles and have little desire to pile onto a deletion discussion. The problem is that you have brought up several AfDs (and one large group of CfDs) which are of interest to me and, I believe, were attempting to be deleted for invalid reasons. Lists like these around the Nobel Prizes are valid. I should also note that the consensus on the AfDs I joined the discussion on was to Keep. If you bring up AfDs on articles and lists needing to be deleted, I have no disagreement (such as List of Hindu mathematicians, which I see from your contributions you placed a prod template on; I agree with this b/c the list isn't notable and isn't much of a list). But do not accuse me of Wikistalking when I simply disagree with your rationale for an AfD.--Alabamaboy 22:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying that these lists are fine because of....Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Lists_of_people....whatever that's supposed to me, but agree that a list of mathematicians listed arbitrarily for their religion somehow isn't fine really doesn't make any sense, but ok. Bulldog123 05:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please stop the personal attacks. By accusing Alabamaboy of wikistalking you are taking the situation to a personal level and this not a forum for such behavier. Alabamaboy is a very capable administrator and as such he and everyone else in the community are entitled to express themselves on every AfD or CfD in a civil manner. Bulldog, I suggest that you limit your discussions to the topic and nothing else and that this CfD be conducted in a civil manner as required by policy. Tony the Marine 03:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a coincidence that you and Bama show up on this AfD to pick fights and not on the dozens of others that are nominated for the same reason. But I'll drop it if you drop it. Bulldog123 05:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ethnicity and religion are important. As long as there is evidence for such lists they should be kept. In may other lists divided on similar grounds, the people were not so very famous that there was always information to support the lists, and there would inevitably be only partial and always contentious. That is not the case here--there is sufficient biographical information of all, and the lists serve a useful purpose--people are interested in these. Therefore meets all the qualifications for lists. DGG 04:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want to talk about content, all the lists are severely unsourced by reliable sources, and some have been highly controversial for their inclusionism. The Christian, Jewish, and Humanist ones are greenhouses for original research. What do you mean by "evidence" for such lists? The lists are very contentious. There is no evidence 90% of the people would identify this way, especially the living ones. Bulldog123 05:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment This isn't a reason for deletion. Please reread the criteria for deletion. Also, add the references tags to the lists, if you think they need it, which is the action to take under those circumstances. KP Botany 20:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And it isn't my reason for deletion, which you should know. But it's certainly an incentive to delete. Bulldog123 07:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Bulldog123 complains about the the unreliability of the sourcing of these lists and then goes on to state that "there is no evidence 90% of the people would identify this way, especially the living ones." What exactly is the source for that assertion? If we examine a representative sample of living individuals from the List of Jewish Nobel laureates - e.g., the thirty-five still-living prize winners from the period 1995-2006, we find that the autobiographies on Nobelprize.org [41] of twenty-two (Kroto, Kohn, Heeger, Ciechanover, Hershko, Rose, Akerlof, Kahneman, Aumann, Kertész, Perl, Reines, Lee, Osheroff, Cohen-Tannoudji, Ginzburg, Gross, Prusiner, Greengard, Kandel, Brenner, and Horvitz) explicitly mention their Jewish backgrounds. Interviews with five others (Kornberg, Abrikosov, Jelinek, Pinter, and Furchgott) referenced on the JINFO.ORG website [42] also contain explicit acknowledgements of their Jewish backgrounds. So, altogether, the Jewish backgrounds of twenty-seven of the thirty-five (77%) can be trivially verified from their own words. Is that what you call "no evidence"? Jinfo 01:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The simple and most obvious response is: there's an obvious difference between admitting Jewish ancestry and self-identifying as Jewish. Osheroff, Akerlof, Kroto, Jelinek, Abrikosov stress that only part of their family stems from Jewish lines instead of simply saying that they're Jewish. Many of the others you cite write the information half-assedly, usually in no more than one sentence, and almost exclusively the Jewish identification is given to their parents. And to acknowledge that some are very very self-identifying, there are people like Kandel. But still, for a huge majority, there's no evidence to suggest self-identification on any of the lists, not just the Jewish one. Bulldog123 07:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep no substantive reason for deletion under current standards was provided. list is notable and useful.--Buridan 10:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable attributes. Tonganoxie Jim. 24.60.163.16 20:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as completely arbitrary and almost indefinable attribute. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all unsourced and likely unsourcable for many Nobelists; non-notable intersection. —David Eppstein 00:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too POV-weigthy, and irrelevant categorization. Circeus 01:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. POV-weighty, mostly irrelevant, of no real encyclopedic value Sleep On It 15:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the note that User:Sleep On It is essentially a Wikipedia account created for deleting articles should be kept--the more people are aware of what goes on in AfD, with editors making articles bad, then nominating for deletion, adding irrelevant arguments, attacking those opposing them, the less likely it will ultimately have a bad impact on Wikipedia. KP Botany 23:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR and useless. JJL 23:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Sr13 02:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gyroscopic-aether[edit]

Gyroscopic-aether (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Neologism apparently from 1980, never came into popular use; definition from Merriam-Webster Open Dictionary (? copyvio). Originally created by an editor with the same name as the person who is reported to have coined the term. Risker 02:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:VERIFY and WP:NOT#CRYSTAL --Javit 02:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, I'm going with nonsense here. The article is basically a dictionary definition, has nothing more than a link to Merriam Webster's list of new words (on which this is not included, apparently), but a search on M-W's open dictionary has something of a definition - which reminds me of things I see in Urban Dictionary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Oh, it *is* at that link on the page, sort of - click "last" to go to the last page of the open dictionary listings for "G" and you will see that it was added there by a person using the same name as the editor who created the article here. Risker 04:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd like to throw in WP:BOLLOCKS, and WP:OR. It borders on nonsense as well. The end reads like spam...What would possess someone to theorize about aether fields nowadays? Someguy1221 06:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In addition to what others have metnioned, the term seems to lack notability and the article does not seem to be verifiable. (There 5 Google hits after removing sites that mention Wikedpedia and all of them were flaky.) Cardamon 01:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. 
It would appear that the parties who are providing their sarcastic review of the meaning of "Gyroscopic aether,"

are not in truth providing any scientific support to their apparently un-researched criticism.

Gyroscopic aether is simply a means of describing the reality of what actually is a verified scientific understanding that has not been or that has been withheld from conventional scientific focus, and establishment directed thinking and disciplines. In order to explain this sector of scientific understanding, the term, "Gyroscopic aether," is a means for simply interpreting this sector of physical reality and how the laws of nature actually enact our physical world as an interpretive expression for identifying this scientific understanding that has not recognized up until this term was created by Will P. Wilson. For example, consider the reference: "Anti-gravity," and that this term has now become a conventional term of reference for types of technology for example: "UFO," that is not a normally identifiable or understood phenomena by normal aeronautical perspective. But in order to explain how a person might actually explain the interpretation of these little understood technologies that are not comprehended by normal conventional science.

So thereof, it was important to realize that another term that may better explain or provide a more clear understanding of this technology had to be transcended and established in order to more respectively understand how this technology actually works due to the term anti-gravity not explaining anything rather then it being a term that only describes the result of interpreting the technology by generalized observations.

For example, anti-gravity does not explain a means of truly understanding what a UFO technological event might incur such as when someone views a UFO for example, but anti-gravity does not explain how the UFO is actually manifesting itself in a world where the common public have a very limited means of understanding what they are viewing or interpreting. Gyroscopic Aether does provide a better explanation and or more clear interpretation thus providing a better means for understanding how for example a UFO technology may actually operate as, or how other scientific interpretations where the observer under conventionalized understanding does not have a clear understanding of what they are viewing. Gyroscopic aether is simply providing a more simple means for more accurately identifying and a more clearly understanding how a UFO technology might actually operate as, and perform aeronautical maneuvering without having the means of what the common person would think of as being winged aircraft based on venturi atmospheric physics. A term was needed to better interpret and to better explain how to interpret and communicate this mostly still little understood scientific sector. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will P. Wilson [email protected], producer of the All Day Live weekly television program from 2002 to now, from www.scantv.org and now broadcasting on local Northwest cable TV and on-line from SCCTV in Seattle starting on August 1, 2011. 24.19.133.11 (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2011 (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. While the keep votes were very passioned, in the end the delete votes were more in line with Wikipedia policy. —Ocatecir Talk 04:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowban[edit]

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

A neologism that has arisen out of bans imposed on Fark.com users who have then migrated to a spin off site to vent their frustration Steve (Stephen) talk 02:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article provides factual, verifiable evidence of activities on Fark.com and should not be considered for deletion. Marking this article for deletion should be considered vandalism and is being reported as such.Faethe 02:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The preceding statement is wrong, just in case any newbies are reading. Please ignore it- marking articles for deeltion is not vandalism. Attempting to stop deletion nominations by false claims of vandalism, on the other hand, is reprehensible behaviour Lurker 11:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The practice may be in place elsewhere; it's very difficult to detect without going out of your way to do so. More examples of other websites that employ the method should of course be encouraged when discovered. Removing the article just looks like another attempt to keep the subject hidden, particularly when submitted by someone who also decided to gut the Fark article of long-standing, useful, and directly user-verifiable information rather than allow any reference to a particular competing website to stand. Atario 02:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, but it appears the removals from Fark were for the same reason this is being nominated for deletion - namely, verifiability concerns. And your link doesn't work. --Haemo 02:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry. Link now fixed. Atario 02:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't see any reliable sources for this; so, delete unless properly sourced. The standard of Wikipedia is not truth but verifiability. In addition, nominating an article for deletion is not vandalism. --Haemo 02:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the idea that nothing should be on Wikipedia unless and until an exposé has been written about it in Time magazine? You'll have to delete half the content of the place if that's anywhere near the intent... Atario 02:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No - it only has to be covered by reliable sources. Content which is not attributable to such sources should be deleted, per guidelines. --Haemo 03:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Me thinks Steven is also a moderator on Fark.com. A little disingenuous... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarrant84 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 7 June 2007
    • No, I'm not. Used to be a top 40 submitter, ~170 links or so, but that's long since been superseded, and I rarely visit nowadays. I'm just interested in seeing material added here be notable and verifiable. --Steve (Stephen) talk 03:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And yet you didn't see fit to gut the Filters section of the Fark article till a certain filter was mentioned. Interesting. Atario 06:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If user submitted material, screenshots and testimonials are not sufficient evidence for a wikipedia entry, then most of what is contained in the original fark.com article should be deleted. In addition I would like to state that this article has been the subject of repeated vandalism. If some of the links are missing, it is because they were deleted and the original poster has not been contacted. Shadowbanning very well could be a practice going on in other communities as I find it hard to believe this is original. This article helps to promote knowledge of this practice so users of other large sites may have some frame of reference if the same thing is done to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faethe (talk • contribs) 04:14, 7 June 2007
I do not believe that she made a vote above... AleBrewer 00:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per OP. Non-notable, not reliably sourced, and a neologism to boot. The only saving grace to this article is that someone will probably submit a FARK headline about its deletion. -- Kesh 05:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They wouldn't dare, if they wished to stay on Fark — they would be immediately met with action against them: probably a shadowban. Atario 06:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per above and nom. A little context for those uninvolved with the issue: Fark.com redesigned their website in late April of this year without consulting with their userbase or even prior announcement, which was a bit unusual. There was some uproar among its users, many claimed they had canceled their paid subscriptions and some users started a spin-off site. Almost since back then, members of that site have tried to get that site's domainname into the main Fark article which has lead to an extended edit war (please check the article's history), full page protection, semi-protection less than 24 hours after it was unprotected and an extended discussion on the Fark.com talk page. Yesterday, there was even a thread on their site specifically announcing that the article was good to be edited by unregistered users again.

    This article is another, albeit somewhat clever, attempt at getting the domain name into the article. I strongly assume that this not so much out of a genuine desire to write an article about 'Shadowbanning' but the result of the realization that adding the domainname to the article by itself, as part of major sites like reddit and digg, as part of that article's 'Filters' section (all of which can be easily verified by checking the history) and now as a separate 'criticism' section will quickly result in a revert.
    Fact is, It's still a non-notable website and the article still lacks reliable sources for a very simple reason: there are none. The screen shots are WP:OR and this has been explained in detail by multiple users, myself included, again and again. (FD: I wasn't involved in the edit war in any way, shape or form but I am keeping an eye on the article since I requested its unprotection after about a month of full protection.) This attempt at self-promotion has taken up way too much time already that could have been spent doing something productive. Hence, my !vote. -- Seed 2.0 06:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      1. The motivation behind any contribution is irrelevant.
      2. Discussions about Wikipedia taking place outside Wikipedia are irrelevant.
      3. The filter was just as legitimate and correct to present as any of the others were, and in any case, is also irrelevant to this decision.
      4. The evidence on the linked site is outside Wikipedia and therefore cannot be considered original research by Wikipedia.
      Atario 07:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, whatever they are, they aren't reliable sources, and contrary to your opinion I believe that the context of this discussion is quite important; thank you Seed! --Haemo 07:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN neologism Lurker 11:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Internet forum peeing matches aren't notable. Wildthing61476 13:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NEO - and reflect Wildthing61476's comment; this does look like nothing more than an attempt to throw fuel on this particular group's fire with Fark. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Someone else's forum drama. DarkAudit 21:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems to be nominated for deletion just out of Steve's own personal agenda. Frankly, I think that this article could use some (read: a lot) of work and editing, but so is the case with new articles. Steve, who seems happy to announce that he was once a top 40 submitter to Fark has done very little, in my opinion, to hide his bias.AleBrewer 21:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What bias are you talking about? I don't understand. --Haemo 21:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As a former top 40 submitter he obviously holds interest in this - His discussion on the Fark.com History page is quite telling - "trivial spin off site," the removal of selected non-referenced material which was critical of the subject. Note, that the majority of the actual Fark.com article is barely sourced at all. Rather than attempt to find sources, he seems quite content to delete that which is critical and leave everything else that lacks a source intact. Now this new article comes along and it could use some good sources, rather than attempting to go through channels to fix that problem, he nominates the article for deletion three days after it is created. An action which is keeping with his mission to delete what he, personally, doesn't like. Sorry, but to me, his bias is showing. AleBrewer 21:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The onus is not on people voting for deletion to find phantom sources. I looked, too, and it does not appear that any reliable sources exist. If you wish to keep this article, you could change a lot of people's minds by finding some - rather than accusing people of having a secret agenda because they see fit to delete unsourced, self-promotional, material. --Haemo
    I edited the page to reflect more sources. 'Shadowbanning' is similar to 'Global ignore' which is a well established feature of vBulletin. The difference in this case is that first, fark is not run off a vBulletin package, and second, paying users are havng this done to them without their knowlege.Faethe 04:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good start, but the real problem is that they're not reliable sources, which is really what's required here - oh, and an article should never cite Wikipedia in it, especially on Wikipedia. --Haemo 05:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this is a community effort to expose this and this was the work of the community today :) An article is being comprised at p2pnet.net about this, so hopefully we shall have more involvement from the web at large who can provide more information. I had a feeling I screwed up a bit by quoting back to wikipedia :( I haven't done this before, so if someone wants to go and polish it up a bit it would be most appreciated. Thank you :)
    Also, I would like to point out the existence of the WikiProject Internet culture. It would appear to be inclusive of things like this under the heading of website moderation tactics.Faethe 06:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Secret agenda? I just pointed out someone's bias; hardly a secret. If you believe that the article should not point to the bannination website, then that is a valid argument.AleBrewer 00:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term shadowban,after having done a simple google search here and here here thus clearly it has been a term in use on various internet forums for some time. Frankly I don't care if it references bannination.com on the page, but the terminology does exist and seems to have been in use since 2005 according to that very same google search. To so quickly request for deletion, I find overzealous. --Reed Solomon 23:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Internet forums are not reliable sources. Existence does not merit a Wikipedia article, we have to be able to verify its use through those reliable sources. Thus, this is not a valid reason to keep the article. -- Kesh 01:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This article documents a common mechanism for moderating community sites. If this isn't part of 'Internet Culture' then what is? --Bokononist 18:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Wikipedia has every bit as much systemic bias against internet culture topics as it has against anything, and this AFD is just one example. --Random832 22:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not an entity, it's a database. If you are claiming the community has bias, I'd suggest you read more Talk pages. There's too many people here to have a singular bias in that regard. Further, you haven't actually pointed out a policy reason to keep the article. I like it is not a valid argument. -- Kesh 01:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This neologism article with no non-trivial sources should Fark off. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 12:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Ocatecir Talk 03:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gagliarchives Radio Program[edit]

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

Non-notable radio program, with apparent WP:COI issues based on authorship. The author redirects his/her user page to this article. RJASE1 Talk 01:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The COI is a critical problem because nobody else is likely to have written an article on this subject. YechielMan 04:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy since he wants to use it as the page people see when they go to his user page... Morgan Wick 19:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I agree that this is a NN radio program and I was tempted to advocate userfying the article as well. The problem, as I see it, is that would probably stay there, unchanged forever and that's where WP:NOT#WEBSPACE and WP:UP#NOT come in. If rewritten and condensed, it would be appropriate content for a userpage. As it stands now, it's an article about a NN subject in userspace. It's probably pretty obvious though that I don't feel particularly strongly on this issue - I just find myself on the weak delete side of the fence for now. -- Seed 2.0 21:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is already a category for structures; use that instead. Sr13 00:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous sites[edit]

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

WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics. Little connection between lists of "mosques", "waterfalls", "United States military bases", "walls", "zoos", etc. WP:NOT#IINFO as well as these lists could include anything from a house up to the Grand Canyon. Masaruemoto 01:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this is a list of lists rather than a list of the sites themselves; if kept, it should be moved to "Lists of famous sites" or something. cab 03:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. cab 03:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Taggard (Complain) 03:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as indiscriminate, huge list. Useight 06:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too poorly defined inclusion criterion makes this unmaintainable. --Haemo 06:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Change name to list of lists of famous sites. It's actually a useful organizational tool IMHO. I agree that if it listed the sites directly, it would be a nightmare, but I think it is nice to see in one place all the lists we have related to famous places. Capmango 06:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and per comment by cab. Anonymous Dissident Utter 07:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unmaintainable, highly unclear classification. Pavel Vozenilek 13:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Category:Lists of buildings and structures provides a better classification of the topic, at least for buildings and structures. I don't think World Heritage Site or some of the non-structure sites are in there, but in any case the categorization schemes work better than this list. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, interestingly "sites" can mean geographic or man-made features of varying scales so "Versailles" is a site, but so is the "Palace of Versailles", and so is the "Hall of Mirrors at the Palace of Versailles", which leads to an infinite and perhaps overlapping list, and "sites" may be where certain events have occurred that have no discernable remains, which would be hard to categorize. Carlossuarez46 17:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteWP:Not a list and would be better suited as a category, which I think has already be created. Can't be sure though. W1k13rh3nry 20:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
never mind about the "can't be sure though"... Category:Lists of buildings and structures as Elkman said.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as disambiguation page, and keep William Dunlap. Address William Dunlap (artist) and Bill Dunlap (illustrator) when and if the need arises. Tyrenius 01:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Dunlap[edit]

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

Notability not established or sourced per WP:BIO. RJASE1 Talk 01:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It just doesn't look right. Notability is a problem. YechielMan 01:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but... It looks there are 3 (count 'em, 3) William/Bill Dunlaps who are/were painters:
    • William Dunlap (1766-1839) pretty notable both for his work in theater and as an artist; studied under Benjamin West, with at least one book published in the 20th century on his art, his portrait of George Washington is owned by the U.S. Sentate
    • Bill/William Dunlap (1944-) of the east coast, a modestly notable contemporary artist who should I think have an article and whose bio is the 2nd half of Bill Dunlap at the moment. There's at least one book about him (see text of http://www.nga.gov/press/2007/bookcase.shtm ) and he's had works in significant museums. He appears to use both "Bill" and "William" professionally.
    • Bill Dunlap (? -) of the west coast, whose bio is the first half of Bill Dunlap and who seems to be user User:Bill Dunlap. Much less notable than the first two, I don't see adequate sources (yet) for Wikipedia, though the guy seems legitimately "up-and-coming".
Unfortunately, the 3rd guy was the original subject of Bill Dunlap, an anon IP replaced the original content with a bio of the 2nd guy, and then the Bill Dunlap user pulled the original content from history, pasted it into the top and started asking more experienced editors to "fix" things with disambiguation (see Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Entry:_Bill_Dunlap if you're curious). I defer to more experienced editors about what exactly should be done from here. Studerby 02:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split into a disambiguation page per above. Don't bother including the vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 12:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One of the three painting Bill Dunlaps here, one of the two who aren't dead yet. (for id purposes, my web site is here: http://www.billdunlap.com ) I originally found a bio of myself on here a year or so ago. I didn't put it there. I believe it may have been posted by someone at Hoard Magazine. I am happy to admit I may not be worthy of inclusion here. At this point I find the whole thing a bit embarrassing. I initiated this discussion simply because of the unprofessional way my entry was deleted and replaced with another person's entry. There were also the strange editorial comments left by the person who deleted the entry. They made mention of "drummers" and "bands" (which have nothing to do with the entry and left no name). At this point I don't mind if the whole entry is deleted. However, there really should be an entry for William Dunlap (1766-1839). He was a somewhat important painter, one of America's earliest playwrights, and documented the growth of art and design in early America in several books which are still important historical documents today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Dunlap (talk • contribs)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split as follows: 1) William Dunlap is fine as it is, and I think he takes precedence for being there first. 2) Modern William Dunlap (artist) [43] 3) Modern Bill Dunlap (illustrator) [44]. Then handle deletion/notability arguments separately. Gordonofcartoon 18:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, see below Split per the fact that there are several Bill Dunlaps, and the article's prose needs to be improved A LOT. I see no problem with a second AFD if the prose is not fixed (I'll try...) W1k13rh3nry 20:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Nobility and WP:COI because it is quite clear (looking at the history) that its an autobio. W1k13rh3nry 21:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<joke>Sorry, there's no such thing as "Nobility" on Wikipedia! </joke> YechielMan 02:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split into Disambiguation page, since at least one Bill Dunlap is a notable artist.--Kylohk 16:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I've replaced the article with a dab page. John Vandenberg 04:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (requested in IRC by Stephanie), non-admin closure. Whsitchy 01:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pants[edit]

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

All the information within the article that is not already in Wiktionary is uncited and irrelevant. Candent shlimazel 00:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • strong keep the hell, I see no problem with the article? Whsitchy 01:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but let's get some sources. This is at heart a disambig page, but images & formatting, making it look like a weak article. I could see a redirect to trousers but that would lose some of the other cultural associations. --Dhartung | Talk 01:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 00:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bantilan entertainment[edit]

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

Per WP:Notability and WP:SPAM .Creator removes {{db-spam}} Javit 00:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete as repost of John Harley --Steve (Stephen) talk 01:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John harley[edit]

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

Repost of deleted content Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Harley. Assuming contested, since anon IP removed db-repost, so switching to afd. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 00:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Ocatecir Talk 03:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Dicks[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music) easily. No significant press, no hits, etc. The article also screams hoax - stuff about them not playing near nuclear reactors and the portion about the guy who committed suicide fail the BS test. And the part about Bob Dylan's son actually uses a spoof site as a reference. Maybe this band existed, but most of the article appears to be unsourced and false. Rhobite 03:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- The second sentence is the best argument against it "The group never became popular, though did issue several CDs." -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 03:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet notability guidelines --Haemo 06:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs to be rewritten, but not deleted. The band itself at least is not a hoax; the article makes some pretty far-fetched unsourced statements (seven years of celibacy prior to joining the band???). But they do have 3 CDs available on amazon.com. The band passes WP:MUSIC criteria 4 & 5 -- international concert tour & multiple releases on notable indie label Homestead Records. Capmango 06:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki 16:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:Music Cricket02 02:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 00:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of NES Game Inserts[edit]

List of NES Game Inserts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list of items, per WP:NOT Oscarthecat 06:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as nominator. Combination 10:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but I hope this is transwikied somewhere, as there are plenty of gaming wikis. I could see this being massively interesting/useful for collectors, but it isn't an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This info could just be added to a different list of NES games. Plus the data in the table changes from Serial Number to Release Date or some other date by the time it gets down to the letter H. Useight 15:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While cool and interesting, WP:NOT clearly applies here. Gravee 22:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although it's well referenced it is unnecessary and WP:NOT applies as stated above. Xtreme racer 00:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 17:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liakopoulos and the Russians[edit]

Liakopoulos and the Russians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The page exists for more than a year, but I found it by accident while checking what links to Paphlagonian expedition of the Rus. It's hard to see in what way the subject is notable to English Wikipedia. It is either original research or self-promotion. I urge other pages about this personality to be investigated. Delete. --Ghirla-трёп- 06:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete as WP:OR, propaganda, and crystalballism. Is that enough? Clarityfiend 07:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When Anna was murdered Liakopoulos oppenly attributed her murder to Putin and praised him for "showing who is the boss". What a lovely man. But that's by the by. This article fails WP policy in so many ways: completely unsourced, no assertion of notability, violates WP:NOR, violates WP:SOAPBOX. We won't even have to investigate the possible WP:COI infringements. --Folantin 07:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with guy's bio it seems these sorts of pronouncements are part and parcel of this guy's notability; roll 'em up. Carlossuarez46 17:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very interesting article, ought to exist somewhere. But not in an encyclopedia. Capmango 17:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No valid reasons for deletion were provided, in my opinion. The article only needs to be better sourced.Biophys 21:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge (at much shorter length; this is not the place to demonstrate the existence of Pan-Orthodox sentiment). Many people have had opinions about Russia; why should we have an article on this one? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this very funny joke page or Move to Uncyclopedia Ok, just joking. Delete non-notable, original research. patent nonsense. By the way, Liakopoulos is a kind of "village idiot" here in Greece and this must have been a hoax page ("Look malaka, they put Liakopoulos on Wikipedia! O kairos gar eggys!") --Michalis Famelis (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a reason for deletion. There are articles about many prominent idiots in Wikipedia (do you want me to call their names?)Biophys 23:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I can provide sources user:Panosfidis

comment providing sources isn't going to help. The article is just not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. It needs to be published somewhere else. Capmango 17:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK here are the sources. First of all his own bookstore

  • [45]the description (in Greek) says about how Russia threatens the new world order.
  • [46]This is the book of prophecies about the Russian involvement according to God's directions
  • [47] a book about modern prophecies
  • Then in this channel [48] you can find more than 90 videos where he oppenly calims the above stuff. I think this makes the article reliable enough. Maybe it is written in a wrong style but then it needs cleanup but not deletion. user:Panosfidis

LOOK MEN obviously there is an obvious majority of 7 people against 3 who want this article to be deleted but there were over a dozen people (including me) who have been editing this article for over a year. You cannot spit on all their faces even AFTER presented with the sources that prove that the contents are real. user:Panosfidis

  • Panosfidis, it's clear that you care very much for the article and feel very strongly about it. However using language like this is not going to improve your case. Applying Wikipedia criteria to an article does not amount to spitting on anyone. The sources you have presented are all primary: in other words they are this man talking about himself and his views. No secondary sources means no notability. There is no argument that the content is real. You don't need to prove that. The problem is that it is not notable. Sorry. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 21:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OF COURSE there are secondary sources. These claims are the ones that made him famous and popular. Gimme some time user:Panosfidis

OK there you go. First there is an entire internet community dedicated to analysing these claims and prophecies. [49] if you search for these prophecies in google you get more than 500 results [50] if you search about his relation with putin you get 1030 results [51] are they notable? Not all of them but some of them are really important. Like this one [52] edited by Ioannis Fourakis. Even in Athensnews.gr you can find two entries [53]. So YES these claims are notable. user:Panosfidis

    • Forget the '7 to 3' -- this isn't a vote. And I don't think anyone is disparaging the article or the work that went into it, anyway I'm not. Nor am I questioning its verifiablity, notability, or sources. But I don't think anyone has made the case as to why this article belongs in an encyclopedia, rather than for example in a magazine. It's not a bad article, it's just a bad fit, IMHO. Capmango 01:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original "research", unencylopedic, unfunny. Pavel Vozenilek 13:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator.--Yannismarou 17:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Tone 13:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We did not invent the algorithm. The algorithm consistently finds Jesus. The algorithm killed Jeeves.[edit]

We did not invent the algorithm. The algorithm consistently finds Jesus. The algorithm killed Jeeves. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Uncited OR ("appears to be...") with no notability. --EEMeltonIV 11:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. —Ocatecir Talk 03:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People Against Censorship[edit]

People Against Censorship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Speedied twice by me as lacking a claim of notability (and blatant self-promotion), but undeletion requested. The group was set up by two people, one of whom reposted the article after the first speedy, to campaign against the sacking of Don Imus. Virtually all edits are by single-purpose accounts. Don't be misled by the title, this is not a group against censorship, it's the Dan Imus fan club. They got an interview or two, but then I've been interviewed on national radio several times and I know it means nothing. In the end this article is astroturfing, it was created by the subjects in order to promote their cause, there is no credible evidence of significance and no evidence of non-trivial independent coverage either. The group's website is 404, which may explain why they suddenly and urgently need their Wikipedia article back. Oh, and the group should realy be called "people against the sacking of bigots". Guy (Help!) 12:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Disagreement of an editor (or an admin) with subject matter is not a valid reason for deletion. In addition, the nominator should review WP:SPA (merely an essay) and WP:COI (guideline) carefully, they do not allow for speedy deletion. The article contains references to verifiable media sources which indicate notability. The tone of the article is slightly leaning on the side of advertorial, but this can easily be remedied by an editor. I also suggest the references integrated into the main article. In summary, the subject matter is sufficiently notable for inclusion, but the tone of writing should be corrected and the article should be sourced further. --Javit 12:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article's subject seems very flash-in-the-pan, and I doubt its notability. It has only been in existence for 2 months - I'd be surprised if it makes it to 4 months. Noting this article's subject on its parent article should be sufficient. --Plumbago 13:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep but what a flash-in-the-pan it is. Their protest of the Opie and Anthony thing was covered on the major cable news networks, decent news coverage here [54]. Still, this could very well be something that folds in a few weeks once everyone goes back to work/school but I'd prefer to err on the side of caution. --W.marsh 13:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've done some significant expansion of it for now. One major interview and a number of non-trivial appearances regarding their causes seems to cement their notability, and there's no question on their verifiability. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - W.marsh is probably right about the "flash in the pan," especially seeing as how their Web page is a broken link, but either way it's a useful historical sidelight into the Imus debacle. FCYTravis 14:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (barely!) There are, just, two independent sources that this group exists - however fleeting its presence might be! Several editors with registered accounts have edited the page, doesn't seem to be entirely the product of the organisation's own founders. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 15:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Since when did "we have proof that this exists" equate with a keep? Corvus cornix 16:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right, my mistake. It's not the fact of the group's existence that is the issue. But two independent media outlets have found it sufficiently notable to report on its existence, and these reports establish (however marginally) the notability.Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 16:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. Corvus cornix 17:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, group fails WP:N in particular WP:N#Notability is not temporary; there is no evidence for anything but a quick dash of reflected glory in the press as Don Imus was self-destructing. Really little more notable than the driver of the "red pickup" who allegedly was involved in The Governor of New Jersey's 90-MPH car crash during his attempt to get 15 minutes of political capital from the Imus incident. Carlossuarez46 17:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actualy, they've been reached for comment on three high-profile firings in the last few months, not just the Imus one. Whether that will speak to their longevity as an organization is one thing (and an issue we don't tackle), but it certainly speaks to the media at least taking the organization for what it is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per badlydrawnjeff. --JJay 18:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. If it is still here in a year then we can look again.-Docg 09:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carlossuarez46. --Toxicroak 12:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep with strong leanings toward deletion per the above discussion.--WaltCip 19:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Extremely poorly sourced. Only source 1 actually has anything to do with PAC, an interview with its founder. Source 2 does not mention them, source 3 is no longer available on Yahoo!, and source 4 only mentions the organization in passing with regard to a protest. If this is going to be kept, it needs more sources to show notability. -- Kesh 03:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Ocatecir Talk 03:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen of the College, The[edit]

Gentlemen of the College, The (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A college a capella group. Most American colleges seem to have them. The claim to notability seems to be that they are the oldest such group in the college - which is not actually a claim to notability. Possibl;e merge to a lost of groups and societies at the College of William & Mary. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Due to the massive amount of precedent for deletion these things, I'm surprised it wasn't speedied. I doubt there would have been any objection. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although it is a close call. Sadly all the sources cited are exactly the kind that the guidelines suggest are not valid - ie minor listings or college newspaper entries. If only a major source had reported their performances for the President or the Queen! However in the absence of these sources, it does not strictly meet the guideline for notability. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 15:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If only a major source had reported their performances for the President or the Queen! The sarcasm is killing me! Morgan Wick 19:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That isn't really sarcasm, to be honest. tomasz. 10:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources cited in the article do not establish the notability of this group. UnitedStatesian 19:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to College of William & Mary. Corvus cornix 21:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After reviewing the guidelines for deletion, it states that if any one of the 10 criteria listed are met, that the article's subject should be considered valid. One of these includes musical competitions. ICCA is the largest collegiate a cappella competition in the country, and thus the group's strong placement in previous years, even if it no longer competes, should be considered evidence for validation. Furthermore, I've seen a few articles on similar groups that have zero substantianting claims to notoriety and quality which have not been deleted. Also, one of the sources describing their performances is the Washington Post, hardly an unreliable source. Colin 22:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But none of the sources meet the criteria of WP:V or WP:RS. Corvus cornix 22:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please avoid the "we haven't gotten around to deleting other bad articles, so this one has to stay" argument. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And the Washington Post source is hardly "describing" their performance: it lists the time place and ticket price (we can't even tell from that source if it happened!)UnitedStatesian 14:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable by WP:BAND, WP:CORP, lack of multiple non-trivial sources. tomasz. 10:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no need to merge as there is no content which is both sourced and notable. Savidan 16:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of evidence that they satisfy WP:MUSIC. This group is not the oldest a cappella group at their college, just the oldest all-male one; there is an older coed a cappella group. [55] Also, most of the awards they won are things like regional semi-final championships, as opposed to national awards. --Metropolitan90 05:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only the most elite college singing groups such as the Whiffenpoofs and Krokodilios pass WP:BAND and rate an article. Every college has singing groups. Herostratus 14:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -multiple sources have been added to this site, including an ariticle written by a Richmond Times-Dispatch reporter and published in the Richmond-Times Dispatch and the Explorer Jamestown 400 Website. This does report that the Gentlemen of the College did in fact perform for the Queen's visit to the College of William and Mary. This, combined with the many honors received by the group as well as the prestigious audiences and events the group has performed for should verify that the Gentlemen are an a cappella ensemble worthy of an entry. dpmagu 12:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. JJL 23:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete by some admin, non admin closure. Whsitchy 17:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight Festival[edit]

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

This article seems like nothing but an advertisement for a non-encyclopedic local festival. SmartGuy 14:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete JoshuaZ 02:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Jacobs[edit]

This article was previously listed for deletion on December 11, 2005, a few days after it was created. Two people commented and said "keep", and cleanup was suggested. Well it's been tagged for cleanup ever since, and four months ago someone added a "Notability" tag. It remains an orphan.

If it hadn't been listed for deletion before I would have simply slapped a proposed deletion (PROD) tag on it and forgotten about it. But it has, so here we are. I suggest that we delete this poorly written, poorly sourced orphan biography of a living person. --Tony Sidaway 14:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Notability is not established. Also, I know WP:GOOGLEHITS applies, but I received no hits on MSN, Ask Jeeves, Google, or Yahoo. ~ ΜΛGиυs ΛΠιмυМ ≈ √∞ 21:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There are said to be multiple works on social science--in Scopus I find: one in the New Republic:, apparently 1 page long, one in a peer-reviewd journal, Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law,'cited 13 times, and 4 in the journal he edits, IDEA. (details added to article) As for his journal, IDEA, it is an on-line journal, ISSN 1523-1712, that has published between 1 and 4 articles a year since 1996--but it is in scopus, which gives it some degree of respectability. The award claimed is given by the International Transactional Analysis Association,which is listed in the WP article for I'm OK, You're OK, and several other WP articles refer to people who have received it. I have no information on the notability of the photographs. I think all in all it adds up to weak notability. DGG 22:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think there is enough info to remove the 'notability' tag! He does not have the publication record you would expect of a full professor, and I agree we should keep full professors by DGG's standard. He holds no announced academic position, and he lists no publications since 1998. Two of the pubs found by DGG (mentioned above) are by different men also named Alan Jacobs, so I removed them. Note that his personal web site (which I have added to the article) includes a list of his publications. I agree that the award he received counts in his favor. EdJohnston 18:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Publishing in the journal you edit was not what WP:PROF had in mind; and which of these contributors to IDEA is well known - outside the editor's mind, that is? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about that, which is why I mentioned it; however, being editor in chief of a reputable academic (or other) journal has usually amounted to notability, and this is one factor. Whether the journal is important enough is not obvious--if it's in a major index like Scopus, it has some degree of respectability. It's in Ulrich's also, it's print as well as online, been published since 1966, & is primarily devoted to Holocaust and genocide studies. [http/www.ideajournal.com/] He is not the major contributor. I frankly don't know how to evaluate people who have a little bit of notability in several dimensions, none of them sufficient in themselves. DGG 05:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Ocatecir Talk 03:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oana Frigescu[edit]

Oana Frigescu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The Romanian page on her seems to have little content as well, but I can't translate those sources. --Strangerer (Talk) 17:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit 04:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Does seem notable, albeit in another language. Perhaps seek the view of someone from the Romanian project? Guycalledryan 08:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Romanian TV Guide reference convinces me that this is a notable person. MKoltnow 18:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of resumes; if there is a real article here, write it; don't expect us to deduce it from sources in Rumanian. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is basically empty and does nothing to assert notability. Vegaswikian 23:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability of subject not established. Indrian 08:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 Shade (mythology). Daniel 04:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shade (Undead)[edit]

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

Page seems unsure of what it is about, whether it is fact or fiction. Originally, the references were listed as "Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos", "Eragon book", and "A survey on what people define a shade as". Tags and a prod were added by myself and User:The Kinslayer, though they were all removed two days later, by an anonymous IP. Article lists Durza as a shade, but the Durza article links to Shade (Inheritance), which in turn redirects to Magic (Inheritance), which gives a different description of Shades. Dreaded Walrus t c 05:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep seem to have been in a few games, clean up more appropriate Guycalledryan 07:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps merge with shade (mythology)? JulesH 14:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I like JulesH's idea, would seem to fit there better. Whsitchy 15:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This isn't about mythology, so it doesn't fit in that article. It's about the concept as it has appeared in fiction and games, most of which is already covered in the relevant articles linked at the disambiguation page. There could possibly be a place for Shade (fiction) on Wikipedia, but this article isn't it. -- Kesh 02:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_7&oldid=1081100423"