Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 1

< February 28	March 2 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 22:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Mountain View High School Library[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable enough for inclusion. If the school is notable and has an entry, the library could be mentioned there. The warnings about Wikipedia's content are out of place. Tt 225 16:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Kristianto[edit]

Notibility is questionable. Shall we keep? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 01:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Shyam ^(T/C) 14:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Yates[edit]

Weak delete - the info seems to be out there, even some reliable sources (ie newspaper articles about his quest for idoldom), but he still fails WP:MUSIC in my book due to getting voted out "in the first round of eliminations", as one source put it. Most of the newspaper articles seem to be purely local, too. Huon 20:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 24th seems far down the list to me, and I don't see him having done anything in the two years since he appeared that makes him noteworthy, especially under WP:MUSIC and our other guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending sources The article's only references don't appear to be independent of the subject or from reliable sources. I'll reconsider if the article can provide multiple, independent reliable articles about the subject. Dugwiki 21:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable: among the 271 unique Ghits, maybe about 50 were for other people fo the same name, about 20 in particular related to a footballer in the Caymans. His bio potentially fails WP:BIO, as almost all of the Ghits are show marketing or trivial mentions. Outside of the idol context, there is nothing, and especially no achievements of note. There is little or nothing reliable to sustain a biographical article to encyclopaedic standards, and I doubt there ever will be. The only news hits are for the cayman footballer. Ohconfucius 01:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete game show contestants are not inherently notable. No assertion of notability. Resolute 04:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actors in Star Trek and Stargate[edit]

I know there isn't a rule like Wikipedia is not Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, but there really should be when it comes to articles like this. It smacks of WP:OR, is unsourced and serves no encyclopedic purpose. Hemlock Martinis 00:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, actors who have starred in more than one show... shock horror! Don't let the title fool you, this is actually List of actors who have appeaed in both at least one Star Trek episode and at least one Stargate SG-1 episode. This is material better covered by listing in the actors' individual articles, and categorisation in same. -- saberwyn 01:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cites no sources and is of un-encyclopaedic value. Is probably WP:OR. I'm not sure if this is the correct term to describe it (correct me if I'm wrong), but it seems to be listcruft. --RazorICE ^T/_C @ 05:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR #1 loosely-associated topics. However, this is most certainly not original research. All of this information can be easily found by looking at each actor's IMDb page. -- Black Falcon 05:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Black Falcon, who put it nicely. Realkyhick 05:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the cited policy, WP:OR has been eliminated. Now there is just WP:ATT. Edison 06:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as violation of WP:A. Sr13 (T|C) 07:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Black Falcon. Daniel5127 | Talk 07:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a directory, fancruft. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 08:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can only second what's been mentioned J i m p 08:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything thats been mentioned. Why not start an article "Actors that have appeared on both the Tonight Show AND Late Show" —Ocatecir ^Talk 11:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per above. If we allow this sort of stuff, we'll open the path for every crazy list you can think of. Pyrospirit ^{Flames Fire} 15:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I actually like that rationale (that Wiki is not Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon) - it should be suggested as a possible addition to WP:NOT. However, that it isn't OR or necessarily unsourced as all one needs is to access the credits for said series. OR means posting brand new information that no one has ever thought of before (in theory). 23skidoo 16:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I agree with Pyrospirit, if we allow stuff like this it will open a door for other wikipedians to do stuff just as crazy or maybe even worse. §†SupaSoldier†§ 16:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, fancruft. Dino 19:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as arbitrary WP:OR list.-- danntm ^T _C 20:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too random PTluw777 00:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as arbitrary WP:OR list - and far too incomplete anyway. Agathoclea 13:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was I'm going to stick my neck out here and call it a Speedy Keep.. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of Hungary[edit]

This article is a perfect example for those articles, wich should rather be deleted, than filled up with tons of templates, wich will obviously never reach their goals. Be realistic. As a hungarian, really funny to read this article, so maybe this should be moved to the bad jokes section, or something like that. External links almost does not match with content, wich is...aah... Critics would be longer than the article itself. This is what is below poor quality. Bartók Béla should deserve much longer sentence, than speak. Contain is a mess, artilce itself is a mess. Delete or totally rewrite, starting from a stub. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 00:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not cleanup. Fixing the changes what were made to the article with this edit is something that any editor can do, and does not involve AFD at all. The time and effort that you spent nominating this article could have been spent actually fixing it. Uncle G 00:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above poster. --Ozgod 01:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I'm 100% Hungary has culture, therefore it's a viable article, just needs some attention. John Reaves (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Per above comments. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to 2005 civil unrest in France. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:40Z

Ramadan riots[edit]

This article is POV propoganda nonsense that talks about the same riots as what is correctly called the French_riots which already has an entry in wikipedia. This article tries to make riots something to do with Islamic theology and the false claim that the cause of the riots is because the Quran commands hatred of jews and non-Muslims, coveniently missing the fact that all the credible well known newspaper sources he abuses in the article actually do not mention ramadhan as a motivation or the Quran, but talk of alienation, discrimination, and abuse of youth who are descendents of Arab and African immigrants See French Riots. The sources are either not reliable, or they do not draw the same conclusions as this artice Aaliyah Stevens 00:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Part OR, part POV- fork. There is also a problem with RS. Merge anything useful into 2005 civil unrest in France and New antisemitism. Debate about redirect needed. —Viriditas | Talk 00:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is a misleading POV fork of French_riots and these kinds of political bigoted articles have no encyclopedic value.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 01:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: Strong bias in the article that cannot possibly be cleaned up with an opposing side. Anything that is useful could be merged into other articles. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV fork. ITAQALLAH 01:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Badly written and horrendously POV. If anything can be salvaged, merge it with French riots. --Hojimachong^talk 01:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Daniel5127 | Talk 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - possible pov fork; duplicates existing 2005 civil unrest in France. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This messy article appears to be a duplicate of some of the information contained in French Riots, I'd suggest merging whatever may be useful into that article and deleting this one. Dreadlocke ☥ 02:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If I understand the GFDL correctly, we can't merge then delete. If we merge, we need to redirect. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Itaqallah and User:Tom harrison. (→Netscott) 02:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- (→Netscott) 02:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I haven't gone through the refs exhaustively but the criticisms above seem accurate: many seem inappropriate or not supportive of the points. I can't see possible clean-up from pervasive POV pushing and tone. As said 2005 civil unrest in France seems to cover it. Pig^man_{Talk to me} 02:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hopeless POV fork; move any worthy content per Viriditas. However, I ask the nominator to refrain from this type of cross-posting in the future.[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].Proabivouac 02:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with French Riots. Some of the material is salvagable and good, but it is the same thing.--Sefringle 03:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly done WP:POVFORK.03:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above.Bless sins 04:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hilariously bad POV fork. Example in the first paragraph claims the rioters "themselves" use the term Ramadan intifada; the link is to DEBKA, which uses the term but cites no source, and makes it clear that even the word "intifada" is their interpretation: There are plenty of indications that the riots are not simply spontaneous outbursts of frustration by disadvantaged youths of North and black African descent, but centrally organized mayhem, an “intifada” activated by Muslim networking. It doesn't get any ~~better~~ worse than that.--Dhartung | Talk 04:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too POV and very badly written.Nkv 04:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as a blatant POV fork of French riots. Some of the sections discuss information (possibly untrue and definitely POV) that is not even related to the riots. -- Black Falcon 05:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV fork, original research, nonsense, poor writing generally. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 08:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV article, should be deleted. --- ALM 09:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to French Riots. —Ocatecir ^Talk 10:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete. A few typos and badly written phrases but can be cleaned up. Merge with French riots. If not, delete per nom. §†SupaSoldier†§ 16:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pov fork. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 16:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too Islamophobic, and something like this belongs to Wikinews, NOT Wikipedia. - Omar 180 18:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge. Some of the material can be salvaged but it's duplicative. Dino 20:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it's sourced. Arrow740 21:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There is a lot of useful referenced information. -- Karl Meier 21:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is obviously a misleading POV fork of French Riots. Most of the information that is is not duplicated in French Riots is unsuitable for an encyclopedia or irrelivant tengents.--67.175.242.13 10:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - pure POV from start to finish. Paul B 10:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete -Aminz 11:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork; might be difficult to separate out any good material for a merge. -- MightyWarrior 14:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.cs 17:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful. Beit Or 21:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per statements above. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pov fork and merge anything useful into 2005 civil unrest in France. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge with main article. There has been more than enough public discussion of the french riots visavi Islam by well-known authors, writers and columnists to justify a Wiki reference. The article itself is sourced from start to finish using mainstream news reports, experts, opinion polls and research, I therefore see no basis for claiming "unsourced". The burden of proof therefore lies on those making that claim. By the same token, claims of non-NPOV will have to be backed up by legitimate arguments. Any less-than-stellar prose can always be cleaned up, that seems like a minor issue to me. I can't see how that would be grounds for deletion.TimothyHavelock 07:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (again). Salting this time. Awyong J. M. Salleh 02:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DSDI[edit]

Delete Contested prod. Article Dsdi already speedily deleted three times. Article does not assert notability of the subject, is more a general treatise on drop shipping and reads like an advertisement. Katr67 00:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Miskwito 00:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mostly-ad for nn-corp. The encyclopediac material is already covered in drop shipping. DMacks 01:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ADVERT. Also non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given above --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How is it that the DOBA entry qualifies as a valid article, when DSDI's does not??? It seems that there is a great degree of subjective preference regarding inclusion into Wikipedia. Most readers will benefit from the content mentioned within DSDI, whereas the entry for doba contains no substantive value (and certainly does not qualify for notable inclusion). Please advise as to the level of fairness in this case. Thank you! --Corrinderz 01:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another source: macRAE's Blue Blook Entry is also listed within Thomas Register, the most comprehensive reference for manufacturers and distributors --Corrinderz 01:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS please. JuJube 01:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the reference for [http://www.thomasnet.com/profile.html?cov=NA&which=comp&what=dsdi&searchpos=1&cid=20103123&navsec=results Thomas Register' --Corrinderz 01:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick FYI to all: removed less relevant sources and provided more noteworthy ones. Hopefully, this will help with the process! THX --Corrinderz 01:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Please advise as to whether modified refs qualify article as notable...THX --Corrinderz 01:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Daniel5127 | Talk 01:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modified some promotional reference to DSDI the organization within article. Hopefully, this will suffice. --Corrinderz 01:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge into Anabaptist. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baptist women in ministry[edit]

Article about a non-notable organization, which is a violation of WP:ORG. Hemlock Martinis 00:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Although the organization is non-notable, the information in "History of detriments" to Baptist women may be valuable. Perhaps merge this information into Anabaptist. --Strangerer (Talk) 01:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but wish hard that the author contributes to our various Baptist articles, as well as our various histories of the congregational churches. Utgard Loki 13:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Weak Delete. While in small violation of WP:ORG, this content is still useful. Merge with Anabaptist, or Weak Delete and hope this user will contribute to articles like this (as Utgard Loki has stated). §†SupaSoldier†§ 16:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Not notable, but not nessasarily enough unnotable to qualify for deletion. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retain This organization is providing direction for Baptist women who feel called to ministry, but are refused ordination by their denomination, particularly Southern Baptist since the Moderate-Fundamentalist controversy beginning in the late 1980s. The Wikipedia article could be an important source for pointing affected women in the right direction. Thanks. Afaprof01 05:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge No evidence of notability of organisation. NBeale 15:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per Strangerer. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 05:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 on withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 01:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Kirby (poet)[edit]

Another user removed the speedy delete tag, but this biography makes no assertion of notability. PC78 00:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article lacks information on the subject's notability, the reference provided and a google search show him to be a poet with multiple awards and six collections to his credit. Victoriagirl 01:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Expand upon the article, assert the poet's notability, and you'll be all set. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (if it counts, for I'm the guy who removed the speedy) I have just added the list of the recent10 or so of his 24 books, the more important of his awards, and a selection of a dozen reviews for his two most-reviewd books of poetry and book of criticism. I have also added that he holds a named chair at FSU, but I left out the University awards. I do not think the nom for AfD was wrong, because this material was not in the original skimpy article. However, the original article stated he was a professor at FSU; though that is not enough N for WP, it is enough of an assertion so that a speedy was not justified. DGG 02:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for next time, please use {{hangon}} instead of removing the speedy. Cheers, Ben Aveling 21:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the template "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with this page’s proposed speedy deletion, please add: "hangon" --if I understand it correctly-- then anyone other than the author who thinks the article has merit or potential merit can and should remove the speedy--it is just the author who is limited to "hangon". DGG 00:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep especially after DGG's improvements (although I'm not too keen on the brief quotes about the books). The article as it now stands shows him to be more notable than most of the American poets we have biography articles about (roughly 1,400 of 'em). Noroton 02:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Abstain Cman 02:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just took a look at the "What links here" feature for Kirby (I had to actually go to the other David Kirby page to do it right) and found he'd won a few more awards, so I put those in. Getting into The Best American Poetry series three times in five years is very, very good, and being a finalist for the Griffin Poetry Prize, one of the most prestigious in North America, is also very good. I'd suggest to anyone thinking of nominating a poet for deletion that they check the "What links here" feature and do a Google search. It doesn't take long. I doubt there are more than 200 living American poets who have as good a record at awards and honors, which doesn't necessarily make him one of the best 200 poets in the country, but it damn well shows he's notable. Noroton 03:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements made by User:DGG (that's a long list of awards, publications, and interviews). Thank you, Black Falcon 05:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 07:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple awards, multiple independent sources, seems like a clear WP:BIO pass without even having to resort to the more specific academic proposed guidelines. —David Eppstein 07:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an easy keep now with those sources and awards. Good work! — brighterorange (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close. In case I didn't make it clear before, it wasn't the notability of the person that I was questioning, merely the complete lack of any meaningful content in the article. But it looks much better now, and I'm happy to keep. PC78 16:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photon Structure[edit]

(comments placed here by TimLong have been moved one paragraph down. Bm gub 15:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

~~Incoherent, no scientific content. It may be possible to write a WP-level article about photon substructure, but this isn't even a stub in that direction. Bm gub 00:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)~~ Non-notable crackpot theory; reference is to single web page consisting of about 100 lines of text and two diagrams. No refereed journal articles; no published journal articles; no online articles of any sort (the web page invites you to "order the academic manuscript" for $2.95+S&H). Still delete. ( The mainstream theory of the photon, quantum electrodynamics, accounts for pair production and annihilation perfectly well, and has passed every experimental test.) Bm gub 16:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a deterministic representation but is in line with QED rather than QCD.

All physical descriptions in this article are verifiable physical characteristics of the photon and any hypotheses referred to on the PhotonStructure.com website were omitted for this reason. I would suggest the so-called experts go back to the standard texts. Next entry: I had deleted the link to the website in response to the accusation of "advertising" it, but after reading SupaSoldier's comments, have decided to reinsert it. This work was first published in Los Alamos in 1979 and encouraged by Carlo Rubbia of CERN at that time (before he got his Nobel Prize). Documentation for this is available. As to refereed articles, the masters thesis describing this concept was an interdepartmental (Philosophy of Science & Physics) research project at the University of New Mexico. George Gamow was instrumental in providing the interaction of the charged sub-quantal components which, incidentally, rotate 360 degrees per cycle providing a resultant charge of zero. (The annihilation process is also used in Positron Emission Tomography.) (unsigned comment was by TimLong2001 Moved to below header by bmonreal. TimLong2001, please add comments at the bottom of the page.)

TimLong2001, three points:
1. I cannot find any evidence of your 1979 paper in Google nor in my large university library; even the publisher (journal?) "Maaret DeGroff" gets zero hits. Please supply a standard citation.
2. A philosophy-of-science Master's thesis is *not* generally noteworthy evidence for a science article.
3. All of the other references in the article contradict your hypothesis---Nisius, for example, shows agreement between the Standard Model (i.e. quantum field theory) photon structure functions and data. Bm gub 15:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: I can't even make out what this article is about. It almost seems as if the original poster copied the text, and the references are all mashed together. It has no sources that I can tell. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't deal with "photon structure" at all & what it does deal with is covered more coherently elswhere. J i m p 08:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Quite incomprehensible, maybe someone can salvage some information from it and Merge it with wave-particle duality? Though, I didn't really understand either article so I'm not sure. --RazorICE ^T/_C @
redirect to photon. Content may be salvageable. History should be kept. SmokeyJoe 11:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I sort of think that a person with the sense to pick through the history for the good stuff probably doesn't need it. Utgard Loki 13:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Photon per SmokeyJoe. --Polaron | Talk 15:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is nothing here worth salvaging. Arkyan 15:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Photon per SmokeyJoe. Not only is there no harm in keeping the history, and some possible benefit, but it would be a useful redirect to have anyway. Pyrospirit ^{Flames Fire} 15:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm cleaning the article up right now, please give this article a chance! §†SupaSoldier†§ 17:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm giving this advice so that you can try to rework it (quickly!) and we can all see if it's salvageable. I think a major problem with the article is that it doesn't make it clear to non-scientists exactly what it's all about. Quite honestly, the article is pretty incoherent at this stage. I've had some courses in physics years ago, so some of the concepts are vaguely familiar. Other concepts are over my head. Here I am trying to reword what I understand of the article. Feel free to use this in the rewriting, and to correct me if I'm wrong.

From what I gather, photon structure is an attempt to explain wave-particle duality, or how light and matter can show properties of both waves and particles, depending on what is being looked at. The article seems to use the word "light" in the broader sense of anything in the electromagnetic spectrum, from gamma rays to ultraviolet to visible light to infrared to radio waves. If this is the case, then the photons here must refer to gamma rays.

Two observations that form the basis of this theory are:
1. A gamma rays with an energy level of 1.0216 MeV (so-called "pair formation threshold") will spontaneously split into an electron and a positron. (energy or waves becoming particles)

2. When an electron and a positron collide, they produce two gamma rays of 0.5108 MeV, each one exactly half of the "pair formation threshold". (particles becoming energy or waves)

At this point, I can't follow the rest. Am I even close?

The article also needs external references that postdate the theory. It sounds as if the theory was published in 1979, right? There should be third-party references to it that are more recent.

If these concerns are addressed, and addressed quickly, I may be persuaded to switch back to keeping the article. --Kyoko 14:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Upon rereading the references, it seems as if the most recent references are by the same person who wrote the Wikipedia article. While I'm not disputing his authority in the matter, I think that Wikipedia requires some sort of third-party published review or mention of scientific theories in order to ensure notability. --Kyoko 05:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Weak keep. I've read over the article, and it doesn't make it clear whether or not Photon structure is a theory or not. I assume that it is a theory meant to address the paradox of wave-particle duality. The article needs extensive rewriting, and more explicit (and better formatted) references to make it understood that Photon structure has been discussed throughout the scientific community, and that it isn't just original research that hasn't been reviewed by outside analysts. I'm saying "Week keep" for now, in the hope that the article will better explain just what it is talking about, though if these concerns aren't addressed, I will likely choose to merge it with either wave-particle duality or Photon in the future. --Kyoko 05:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The references included published works! SmokeyJoe 03:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of the references listed were published years, even decades before the apparent first mention of the theory elucidated in the article, i.e. before 1979. --Kyoko 14:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gibberish. Tsumetai 12:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Nonsense. Appears to only have been created to advertise the editor's external web-site page. -- MightyWarrior 14:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was my concern as well, which is why I've been trying to point out that proof of outside scientific review is needed, not just what appears to be self-published sources. I've tried to give helpful advice for improving the article, but it is really incumbent upon him and not us to do it. Especially because I guess most of us (OK, me) don't quite grasp what is being said there. --Kyoko 14:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is salvagable. If cleaned it can be useful. It is notable enough for an article if it can be better. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 01:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)All physical descriptions in this article are verifiable physical characteristics of the photon and any hypotheses referred to on the PhotonStructure.com website were omitted for this reason. I would suggest the so-called experts go back to the standard texts.[reply]
I just studied the article, and chased down some references. I concluded that most of the content was unverified assertion or gibberish, and I cleaned it accordingly. However, the concept of "photon structure" is clearly serious. The article should not be deleted for not being notable. Due to lack of content, a redirect is a good idea. Given the image, and the method for study, perhaps the appropriate target is Electron-positron annihilation. SmokeyJoe 03:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Electron-positron annihilation is not an approprite redirect; photon structure happens to be studied in e-p colliders, but not in annihilations---you'd do equally well looking at it in non-annihilating e-e colliders, if such existed. I'd stick with photon, where it'd be reasonable to write a few sentences about it. Bm gub 04:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly Merge. As it stands the article is content-free. I can well believe that previously it was OR and gibberish. In any case it does not deserve a separate article. NBeale 15:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've got to be honest - I'm biased because I know how to reconcile the wave particle duality (using real physics) - and this is not it - but neither is it anything else Mike 17:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All physical descriptions in this article are verifiable physical characteristics of the photon and any hypotheses referred to on the PhotonStructure.com website were omitted for this reason. I would suggest the so-called experts go back to the standard texts. (this unsigned edit was by 71.213.150.27, a user whose WP edits overlap closely with those of article creator TimLong2001. Moved from top of discussion by 18.4.2.3 19:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Verifiable is not good enough. You have to verify using specific citations, given the specific nature of your assertions.
- If you have references at PhotonStructure.com, then bring them here. PhotonStructure.com itself is not a reliable source, and is so poorly written that it is not good enough even to be listed as “further reading”. SmokeyJoe 01:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest giving the author some limited tolerance and time to learn to write an acceptable article. I do urge him to base his contributions on the references. SmokeyJoe 01:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per SmokeyJoe. I have been watching this article and still do not believe it would be suitable material for an undergraduate particle physics student to make sense of, let alone suitable encyclopedia material. I sort of get it, but do not understand how a rotational frequency would yield an amplitude associated with wave motion...that info is just not here. Still, I'll admit I'm frustrated by how much good material gets deleted without a proper look and I've been heartened by this discussion. Please give the author 'some limited tolerance and time to learn' as per SmokeyJoe. Thanks. --Greatwalk 09:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason you don't "get it" is that it is an incorrect crackpot model of the photon. The author thinks that the photon is made up of a bound electron-positron pair, that this explains e+e- pair production and annihilation, and that it photon wavelength relates somehow to some sort of magnetohydrodynamic waves in plasma. Please stop thinking of this as a badly-written article about photons. It's actually a reasonably clear article about a work of pseudophysics. Bm gub 15:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“incorrect crackpot model” and “pseudophysics” are not reasons for deletion. Wikipedia covers pseudoscience, discredited or obscure theories, as long as they are attributable. It is unfortunate that the article appears to describe what the “author thinks” as opposed to what the secondary sources describe, but we can try to encourage him to change his style. There are sources corresponding to the title, although its not clear how the article content connects to the title. A second new contributor has now expressed an intention to improve the article. We should give them time to do this, and failing the emergence of attributable and sensible content, merge the article with photon. SmokeyJoe 00:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - If you suspect theoretics, Bm gub, please say so, but it is safe to assume many at Wiki are at least as intelligent as you. My objection to this article is that it does not state anything clearly, and have asked for a Redirect to Photon so that the history is saved. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 23:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal of Theoretics has a page of "Unsung Heroes of Science", which lists both Halton Arp and Immanuel Velikovsky. The likelihood that Theoretics is anything but a cabinet for fractured ceramics is pretty small. Anville 23:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bm gub just summarized it pretty well. The "references" cited don't actually demonstrate that this is a way to "resolve particle/wave duality". It's a bit like writing an article saying that UFOs come from Jupiter's moon Europa, and then citing astronomical journal articles which give Europa's mass, composition and distance from Earth while crowing, "See, my article has sources!" Anville 23:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Im going to re-write it so that its about the internal structure of photons (as one would expect). I dont know what its supposed to be about (the process of turning a photon into 2 pair particles maybe??). Ive expanded on this on the articles talk page. Any comments/suggestions are welcome. CaptinJohn 12:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Grand master ka 23:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomers (musical comedy troupe)[edit]

Another article about a non-notable student sketch group. I have had trouble finding reference to the group outside the upenn.edu domain. The group calls itself the first all-female sketch group, but they also suggest they are the only all-female sketch group, so that shows the level of knowledge they have about those claims. Should be merged into University of Pennsylvania. Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 01:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Abstain Cman 02:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly sourced article about a non-notable student group.-- danntm ^T _C 03:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, surprised it wasn't a speedy already. Non-notable, no sources to speak of. Realkyhick 05:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It was. There are a lot of comedy group articles that need to go and are only here for reasons of vanity or advertising. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 07:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Student comedy troupes, like student newspapers, but much less so, should get a mention, at most, at their university's pages. Since these groups wink out of existence and then appear with new names every year, they're not stable enough, most of the time, for the U. article, so they're very definitely not stable or accomplished enough for a separate entry. Utgard Loki 13:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unimportant. Not notable enough for an article. Captain panda In vino veritas 22:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Dennis Green. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:41Z

They are who we thought they were[edit]

Article is extremely unsourced - There's only one source, which is only a recap; while the speech was rather notable in the Chicago, it may not be very familiar in other places. Even today, not many people actually remember that speech, in contrast to Jim Mora's ’Playoffs??" rant, which appeared in a Coors Beer Commercial. Additionally, there’s no proof to back up the speech was actually called, “They are who we thought they were”, as many other Chicagoans call it the “Crown their Ass” rant. The Speech is already mentioned in the 2006 Chicago Bears article - However, the NFL Lore entry committee, dubbed the game to be mundane, and did not consider worthy of mention in that article. ShadowJester07 ►Talk 01:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Should be redirected again to Dennis Green, as it had in the first place. How, exactly, would you source a speech, though? 1ne 01:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See WP:CITE and WP:CITET -- ShadowJester07 ►Talk 01:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Dennis Green and condense it a bit in the process. I wouldn't object to turning this into a redirect. Realkyhick 05:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dennis Green. Definitely does not warrant its own article. —Ocatecir ^Talk 11:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm tremendously unconvinced that this is a popular "meme" or "saying," and so a redirect isn't needed. As a stand alone, it's just a day's fad. It's not Knute Rockney. Utgard Loki 13:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dennis Green already includes everything that could possibly be merged from this article. ObtuseAngle 16:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is absolutely a popular meme in the sports world, and it absolutely does not deserve an article. I can only hope that Dennis Green doesn't soon have a section called "They are who they we thought the were in popular culture."Djrobgordon 23:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thanks for drawing my attention to NFL Lore, as it's an OR mess. --Djrobgordon 04:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to 30 Rock. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:42Z

TGS with Tracy Jordan[edit]

Delete or Merge Unnecessary article about a fictional show. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 01:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It is the centerpiece of a notable show. It could be condensed and merged into 30 Rock, though. Realkyhick 05:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the important information (not cast and crew lists) into 30 Rock, or delete. --RazorICE talk C @ 11:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above, nothing but primary sourcing is cited. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 14:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this article into the 30 Rock article, as this information is of use to THAT article. Then redirect this article to that article. AEMoreira042281 03:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herschel hermosa[edit]

Insufficient evidence of notability. I marked it for speedy delete at first, then substituted with a prod, as I wasn't sure about the notability. The author deleted the prod, so I submitted it to AfD. --Strangerer (Talk) 01:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For someone who has been allegedly been covered on numerous websites, I was surprised to find only 3 google hits. Clearly non notable. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparantly nonnotable (myspace as the only external link?) Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. I think that using MySpace as a reference/link is pretty bad overall... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No proof of notability, or much of anything else. Realkyhick 05:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't admins speedy delete articles like this, where the dude's last name is spelled with a lower case? He doesn't appear to be e.e. cummings. Myspace superstars aren't. Utgard Loki 13:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, it only has one reference, Myspace, which is not a reliable source in the least. The article seems to provide no value, and besides, the title's mispelled. Pyrospirit ^{Flames Fire} 16:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week KeepThe Doctor 16:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to elaborate a little...--Daniel J. Leivick 17:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. This article is very much like a vanity article. L uis₁₉₇₂ (Talk • My Contribs) 18:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient sources Only reference is a myspace page. Delete unless some independent, reliable published sources can be provided. Dugwiki 21:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity page, no references. SubSeven 00:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unknown student per nom, or as hoax. Devon Aoki is a 'she'. Ohconfucius 07:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Non-notable person: probably a vanity article (but maybe a hoax). -- MightyWarrior 14:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bucketsofg 02:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenja Communication[edit]

unencyclopedic and not really important article. editors POV, deleting others edits,and references dont have proof of arguments Askbeth 01:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Well referenced article on an apparently notable subject. I can't see what is unencyclopedic about it. If there are issues with the content bring them up on the talk page or a RfC, don't try and delete the article. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saw V[edit]

For prior related discussions, see Saw III (AfD discussion), Saw 3 (AfD discussion), Saw 3 movie (AfD discussion), and Saw IV (AfD discussion).

Strong Delete, and prevent recreation until further notice Lets ignore the fact that right now all this page is is a messed up incomplete template. Saw IV hasn't even come out yet. We don't know the plot about it yet or who will be in it or whatever. Yet people are starting to make articles about the fifth movie?! This fails WP:Crystal for one thing. For all we know, Saw IV could bomb (God forbid) and they wouldn't make it. The same thing happened with Saw IV's article in that people kept on starting up topics so it had to be deleted and prevented from recreation. Seeing as people are going to constantly add Saw V I request that it also be blocked until Saw IV has long been out Saw V has already gone into production. CyberGhostface 01:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At least until Saw IV comes out. This is way too early Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect until externally verifiable information can be provided concerning the production of this movie. -- saberwyn 03:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or we'll be dealing with Hammer III, Screwdriver VIII and Rototiller XXIV before you know it. Noroton 03:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Come on now, Saw III was released not that long ago. Let's go ahead and predict all the movies that might come out in the future. Add to that the page is incomplete and doesn't feature anything in the way of content -- and what is there is for Saw IV. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as empty - there's nothing in this article besides an infobox that's mostly copy/pasted from Saw IV (including the IMDB link). Then protect it until Saw IV comes out. Zetawoof^(ζ) 05:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm gonna be bold, tag it {{db-empty}}, and see what happens. Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Removed: "active AfD, I'll keep it there for the moment". Oh well. Zetawoof^(ζ) 23:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and protect per Zetawoof. Meanwhile, I'll start work on Saw VI. :-) Realkyhick 05:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No content. Maxamegalon2000 06:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, no content or whatsoever, WP:NOT a crystal ball as well. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 08:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Protect until the movie is confirmed AND their are details about it available. TJ Spyke 10:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete it has no content.--Cometstyles 16:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball. What happened to 4? —Ocatecir ^Talk 11:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A1, no context whatsoever. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 14:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Come on, an article about a movie that not only doesn't exist yet, but might never exist? Wikipedia may be shiny, but it's not a crystal ball. :) Pyrospirit ^{Flames Fire} 16:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete under A1. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 16:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending better, verifiable information The article has maybe one source (maybe) and pretty much no reliable information. Articles on future events have to be based on reliable, published info. Dugwiki 21:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pending verification. Glad to see Saw IV up. It was under WP:DRV at the same time I was rescuing Playboy Online, if I recall correctly. TonyTheTiger 23:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The article does not have any substance in it in the first place! --Nevhood 05:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With Saw IV not even in production yet, how can we be sure that Saw V will ever exist? The article has only two sentences and an infobox that may give off unreliable and unconfirmed information. It's only link is to the IMDb page for Saw IV. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 01:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and merge content here from Salients, re-entrants and pockets. This is going on DYK. -- ALoan (Talk)

Pockets of resistance[edit]

The stub has no place on Wiki, as "pockets of resistance" is not a term. Santabarba 01:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - I have destubified the article, describing several battles from World War II that involved pockets of resistance. Dino 23:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep::comment: actually it is a term. Its a military term. After an enemy is defeated and they are fighting from small areas within its called 'pockets of resistance' Though the article makes it sound as if its a new term for Iraq from the media. Its been around for years. Commonly used to describe holdouts in island hopping in WWII. A complete article re-write for context is needed to be accurate.--Xiahou 02:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - this is the second article started by me that User:Santabarba (a new user) has put up for deletion in the past half an hour. It is a term that has been widely used by the media, and as pointed out above, a military term. Sfacets 02:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: We have already established that the reason for nomination is a moot point (It is in fact a term) - in addition to this the article has since been expanded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sfacets (talk • contribs) 00:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comments. I don't see any sources for the article, nor do I see how it could grow beyond a stub, or a dictionary definition. Lastly, since article names are supposed to be singular it should be moved to "pocket of resistance", if kept. -Will Beback · † · 02:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, source, and expand. An article could possibly be written about this, including but not limited to definition, historical examples, tactics relating to the pockets and the cleaning thereof, more widespread use. Agree that the term is older and used wider than the Iraq invasion; here is an example from World War II, here is one from a UK parlimentary transcript regarding the implementation of a new law, and several military novels I have read have used the term. -- saberwyn 03:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
question: can more be said about this than an expanded circular definition: "Pockets of resistance are small areas or groups (pockets) resisting an occupation force or government." ? Wintermut3 04:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wintermut3 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, this is really a dicdef best covered in a related more notable term such as search and destroy. Even as a term related to Iraq its usage peaked in 2004-2005. It's certainly much older[11]. As a political term this is no stay the course. --Dhartung | Talk 04:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a valid term, but more appropriate as a dicdef. Realkyhick 05:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 08:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary if they want it, else delete, only a dicdef. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 14:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, as it could develop into a better article. However, if it shows no sign of improving, transwiki it. Pyrospirit ^{Flames Fire} 16:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far too generic to be worthy of an article, since it's not a technical military term, just a figure of speech which happens to have a military application. Certainly not a term restricted to Iraq either, as people have said above. The OED records its first use in 1940 (and the first use of "pocket" to refer to a group of resisting troops in 1899)! I find it amazing how people always assume that terms started to be used when they first heard them. -- Necrothesp 18:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not see how this can ever be expanded beyond the scope of a dicdef. Arkyan 20:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ [see below] per saberwyn. Due to usage of this term in the Iraq War and elsewhere, it's timely. Historic examples could be added, such as Bastogne (1944) and Stalingrad (1942-43). Dino 20:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dicdef - the term doesn't seem really expandable into a more general article. Transwiki might be a good idea for this one. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Resistance movement Also redirect Resistance (military) to the same place. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a reasonable alternative. Arkyan 22:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not so sure about that. "Pockets of resistance" means small encircled groups of regular army soldiers, bypassed after an enemy offensive (short time frame ... days or perhaps a couple of months), probably relying on conventional tactics. "Resistance movement" means an army of irregulars primarily based among and recruiting from the civilian population, perhaps lasting for many years and relying on guerrilla tactics. These are separate concepts and perhaps worthy of disambiguation. Dino 23:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or transwiki. I have seen this expression used many, many times. Might be appropriate for an article on overrun or envelopment. — RJH (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Salients, re-entrants and pockets. The topic is a perfectly valid one to cover, but can be dealt with better in context. Kirill Lokshin 01:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Salients, re-entrants and pockets per Kirill. Please also note that the article has recently been expanded considerably - some people may wish to reconsider their comments to date in the light of this. Ben Aveling 12:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe the proper solution is to rename that article "Salients and re-entrants" and keep this one, transferring information about pockets from that article to this one. What do you think? Dino 14:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support this proposal. Seems sensible. One significant difference between the two is that 'pockets of resistance' is often used to refer to guerrila and insurgent activity, where there is short, or long periods where the enemy's location isn't really known, except that they're somewhere in the area. Very different to salients and re-entrants. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support - or a brief section linking to this article is also possible. Sfacets 05:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  - While I have no objection to a separate article on pockets as distinct from the salients one, it should really be at Pocket (military) rather than Pockets of resistance; the latter is more a media term than a military one, and can't be properly applied to things like the kesselshlacht doctrine in any case. Kirill Lokshin 18:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article greatly expanded. -- Petri Krohn 16:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Kirill. The other article points to this one using {{main}}, and the corresponding section of Salients is stubby. They fit adequately, and they can always be split later if need be. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, important military concept. Gives clear examples. Everyking 08:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's consensus to keep, to move to Pocket (military) and to merge from Salients, re-entrants and pockets. I'm going make a request at WP:RPM. If anyone disagrees, feel free to follow me and ask them to hang-on. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Dino 12:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is this likely to happen today? The article is nominated at T:TDYK. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Who can say? There's a 4 day backlog, but it's not a huge number of articles if someone decided to do it. Given the DYK listing, I'm sure a request at AFI would get a speedy response. Or we can leave it where is till DYK is done. I guess it doesn't really matter where it is, so long as there's certainty that it will stay put for a while? Therefore, I've struck the entry at RPM, and you can decide if you want to get it moved real quick, or just leave it alone for the moment. I've been bold and removed the AFD tag from the article (clear consensus to keep as expanded) and I've also removed the Stub tag. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - And the AFD tag has been reverted already. Sigh. Can someone else please pull the AFD tag, I'm not going to revert war over it. If necessary, point out that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Artaxiad 23:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Tolkien family. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 11:16Z

Baillie Tolkien[edit]

Procedural AfD; was a deleted prod, now contested. [12]. Undeleted the article to allow for AfD.-- Fang Aili ^talk 02:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not assert notability. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change back to Merge as per Mr. Manticore's convincing argument below.~~Merge into J.R.R. Tolkien, but only the fact that she edited the volume, not the family information. It seems worth a sentence or a phrase in that main article. Then Delete~~ Noroton 03:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, Wikipedia does not merge and delete, as that violates the GFDL which requires a record of the actual editing be kept.

FrozenPurpleCube 03:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK, good to know. Then just delete and let the editors retype the information if they find it worthwhile. I love Tolkien, and I've got nothing against the subject of the article, but even a redirect page is a waste of pixels and however many pennies it takes to host that page. Those pennies could be put to better use! Noroton 12:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, redirects are cheap, costing far less than the effort of researching the information on the page. It's not a question of pennies, but thousandths of cents.

While storage costs in the aggregate are a concern, as regards to individual pages it's of almost zero consequence. Furthermore, the benefit of a redirect is very high, instead of a search result, it automatically moves the person doing the looking to an appropriate place. FrozenPurpleCube 19:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK, splurge on those thousandths of a cent! Let no one say I'm not willing to change my mind. Splurge and merge. Noroton 21:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Christopher Tolkien, the husband, where the family information may be of use. Also Mention in J.R.R. Tolkien, and The Father Christmas Letters. -- saberwyn 03:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Saberwyn. A couple of facts are missing from CJRT's article and it's not an implausible redirect. Eluchil404 04:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, agree with Saberwyn. Realkyhick 05:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into J.R.R. Tolkien. Daniel5127 | Talk 07:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful information with J.R.R. Tolkien. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 08:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the argument at Talk:Baillie Tolkien - there are five articles you could merge to (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Itransition, Christopher Tolkien, The Father Christmas Letters, Tolkien Estate, and Simon Tolkien), though the Simon Tolkien is itself a borderline case of merge/keep. Even the merge votes here cannot agree which article to merge to. Also, the article could be expanded a little. Possibly the right method is to have an article on Tolkien family (a redirect at the moment), and put Baillie, Simon and Tim there (plus other minor members of the family, such as Edith Tolkien [though she currently has, and maybe should keep, her own article] and Arthur Tolkien (ditto, as for Edith), though Mabel Tolkien is a redirect), along with the family tree, and change existing uses of this family tree template into link to the family article. Christopher Tolkien and J. R. R. Tolkien need their own article. The others are more borderline, and a full family article would be a natural place to include the family tree and add what is known about the other members (such as Tolkien's brother, Hilary). So I'd say keep or create the article Tolkien family (currently a redirect to Tolkien Estate). Carcharoth 09:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This might well be the best option. As long as this AfD closes Merge/Keep, the direction of the redirect and location of the information are editorial decisions that can be changed later if a better solution is found. Eluchil404 10:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Being related to multiple notable people is no more an assertion of notability than being related to just one notable person. It is preferable to mention her where appropriate in any of the other articles, rather than maintain a standalone article that does not meet inclusion criteria. Merge to Christopher Tolkien as he is her husband and thus the most direct relationship. Arkyan 15:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I am the one who closed the PROD as a delete. Subject doesn't meet WP:BIO in any appreciable way. I'd be fine with a redirect or merge to either J.R.R. Tolkien or a new article on the Tolkien family that could collect the more marginal members of this family in one article. Some of the individuals Carcharoth mentioned meet WP:BIO but Baillie and others do not and don't really justify standalone articles.--Isotope23 15:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep she is N as the editor of J. R. R. Tolkien's Letters from Father Christmas and she was previously J. R. R Tolkien's secretary. But a merge to Tolkien family makes sense, as well. DGG 00:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Tolkien family should be changed from a redirect and articles on minor members of the family (including Baillie Tolkien) can be merged into that page. Additionally, the information in Template:Tolkien (which is also up for deletion) can be moved to the Tolkien family page while the template is deleted. >^..^< Nimfaelin 08:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Tolkein Family. Not notable in own right. NBeale 15:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Homer and the Marge[edit]

The result was Deleted at 18:37, 1 March 2007 by Jeffrey O. Gustafson, following speedy deletion tagging. Don't mind me, just doing the paperwork. -- saberwyn 07:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT a crystal ball. worthawholebean _talk^contribs 02:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 02:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article has already been deleted once in the past 24 hours and somebody recreated it. I nominated it for speedy deletion. -- Scorpion 02:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt pointless nonarticle. If it actually becomes an episode, some administrator can unsalt it, right? Noroton 03:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and prevent recreation until such a time as at least a paragraph of externally verifiable information can be written about this episode (preffereably at a point after it first airs). -- saberwyn 03:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not an episode. A copyright database search and google search reveal nothing. It was created once earlier and was speedy deleted and it has since been recreated. I have renomed it for speedy. -- Scorpion 03:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point about recreating when the "episode" airs still stands. If no episode by this title airs, no recereation. -- saberwyn 05:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated, Wikipedia is not crystal ball. I wish, but it is not. --Ozgod 06:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:43Z

List of Diamondtron CRTs[edit]

Listcruft per WP:LIST. Wikipedia is not a product catalogue; and the notes section reads like advertising. Awyong J. M. Salleh 02:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--TBCΦtalk? 03:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for listcruft, non-notable products and advertising. --RazorICE ^T/_C @ 05:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, listcruft. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 08:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a product catalog. --Polaron | Talk 15:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft and per WP:NOT. Pyrospirit ^{Flames Fire} 16:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retain - I was quite desperate to find a concise list of these no-longer-new CRTs. While looking for a good monitor for color graphics, I found that all the high-end CRTs are being phased out; information on what existed recently (now avail as refurbs) is hard to find. LH DAY 19:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is the user I was talking about, she replaced my comment for herself. --Razor ICE 00:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. --Bejnar 04:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:43Z

Anti-Jihad International[edit]

tagged as possibly lacking notability for just under a month, nothing available in terms of independant verification or attention from reputable sources. seems like a web-based organisation, in which case fails WP:WEB (or WP:ORG if it is otherwise). in any case, nothing to suggest the organisation is even remotely notable. hence, Delete. ITAQALLAH 02:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 02:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per lack of notability and lack of soruces.--Sefringle 02:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So far, the most notable thing about the site is simply the number of places the link has been placed. Shenme 03:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of notability. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Realkyhick 06:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:N. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 08:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable and very few content. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 16:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. --- ALM 12:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.cs 21:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.Bless sins 02:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources or apparent notability. Dragomiloff 19:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Admittedly, this is a close one, but Black Falcon and Crunch have good points. The article has seen a couple more references added since the start of the AfD, and having a building named after him, although not explicitly mentioned in WP:BIO, is a sign of enduring notability. Grand master ka 00:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dwight Gustafson[edit]

Non notable university professor. Google pulls only 1100 hits. Some are are Wikipedia mirrors, and a few of the early hits are unrelated to the subject. Contested prod, AfD, Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After viewing the edit history and seeing a majority of this article come from one person over the course of ten months, the aforementioned Google hits, and the lack of any really notable information in the article. Other than achieving academic administrative successes and the works he has written (which the article has not specificed any notably major performances, except for the one in Virginia) I am swayed to vote to delete. If the article can be referenced and expanded and wikified it may be worth keeping. --Ozgod 03:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sourced. According to the article, he has a "Fine Arts Center" of a university named after him and has been awarded the highest civilian award in the State of South Carolina. -- Black Falcon 05:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment. More sources have been added to the article since a number of users (above and below) expressed their views. -- Black Falcon 06:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It does need more sources, but it's a borderline keep. Doesn't hurt that he has a building named after him — I know that isn't a WP:NN guideline, but it doesn't hurt. 1,100 ghits isn't too bad. I could be persuaded either way, but I'm erring on the side of keep for now. Realkyhick 06:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 1100 hits not too bad? Yes, yes it is. I get 976 hits - and thats mostly because of Wikipedia. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Technically, the # of ghits is not an indicator of notability or lack thereof. But speaking from my prior experience with articles at AfD (and I'm not claiming that you do not have equal or greater experience--I've not even viewed your contribution history), 1100 hits is actually rather good. That said, the figures for unique hits (excluding WP) are 963 for Dwight Gustafson and 713 for Jeffrey Gustafson. -- Black Falcon 08:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are many Jeffrey Gustafson's but only one Jeffrey O. Gustafson, and that feller pulls 976 hits (all but 30 or so Wikipedia related). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have found some sources for the article and will add them shortly. One of the sources is a news article exclusively about Gustafson here. That link doesn't work, but if you search for +"Dwight Gustafson" -wikipedia +palmetto, it is the "Greenville Online" link (click on "Cached"). -- Black Falcon 06:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, please note that almost all of the content in the article is sourced by the Greenville News article alone. -- Black Falcon 06:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the creator of this article I've watched it be plagiarized by MSM reporters since I posted it--which demonstrates relevance and need as well as a few less savory things. DG shaped the Fine Arts program at BJU. He was dean for forty years and has a large building named for him while still alive. Hardly your average academic. Much of the information I used to write the article came from a print history of BJU rather than the Greenville newspaper.--John Foxe 11:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the article must have a {{cite book}} citation telling us what that print history that you used as a source is. Uncle G 14:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's right there in the references: Daniel Turner, Standing Without Apology.--John Foxe 14:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 07:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: The fame and importance of the individual seems to rest within a narrow geographical and occupational area. I.e. he's important in South Carolina and among administrators at religious colleges. Otherwise, he does not appear to have made a significant dent in public fame or public affairs. Additionally, the prose of the article is somewhat saccharine. Utgard Loki 18:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no third party source to establish that his work as an administrator is N. There is no third party source to establish that his work as a musician is N. , except a local newspaper, which I do not consider a reliable source on the question. If RS third party evidence can be presented that he is N as conductor or composer, I'll be glad to say he is N.DGG 00:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was able to find in an index that one of Gustafson's pieces, "Serenade for Strings" was reviewd in the magazine The Instrumentalist, May 1999 issue, page 80. Unfortunately the magazine is not available to me, but with luck someone else has it and can see what it says. Maybe it is a start. Crypticfirefly 06:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a citation to a music newsletter that I hope provides a bit more substance about DG's reputation as a composer. A lot depends on what you consider "third-party."--John Foxe 14:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - We've created stubs for other figures such as paleontologists who would get fewer google hits and have difficulty in getting info on on Wikiproject dinosaurs. I can see wikipedia is moving forward on verifiability but this can be difficult in some areas. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 01:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (PS: saccahrine prose is a matter for addressing POV material but is a separate issue to removing an article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 01:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak delete The guy receives the highest civilian honor in his state and they name a building at a university after him because he is such a great guy? If that's not good enough to be considered "notable" I don't know what is. Crypticfirefly 05:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Apparently until recently the Order of the Palmetto was handed out fairly freely. Crypticfirefly 06:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep notable in large geo area, and has made contributions is several disciplines. Although NN internationally, conceivably a fair number of users would still search for this article. -- MightyWarrior 15:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dean at an accredited university for 40 years, had a building named in his honor, sure the article needs rewriting, but no reason to delete. Crunch 14:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HornFans[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:WEB and is simply a puff piece about their site. KelleyCook 03:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It does meet WP:WEB, at least according to the references listed. See notes on the article's talk page. *Mishatx*-In\Out 04:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mishatx. I personally don't feel college football message boards are notable, but if any are, this one appears to be. ObtuseAngle 05:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it does meet WP:WEB, which is tough to do with a site of this nature. It does need a bit of the puffery taken out, and the Critcisms section seems to lack sourcing. Realkyhick 05:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable site about a major University's sports programs. One of the 10 biggest university-specific fan sites in the United States. Article has just been cited and is already well referenced and useful. Johntex\^talk 05:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references establish notability per WP:WEB. I am also copying this comment from the article's talk page: "It is the ninth most visited college sports site in the country. It has been referenced in national and local media." -- Black Falcon 05:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources have been cited and its notability has been established. One of the most visited university fan sites in the US, should assert enough notability. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 08:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has multiple references by independent sources, meets notability criteria. —Ocatecir ^Talk 11:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I nominated this particular as keeping college fansites, against WP:WEB will open up a huge can of worms as every school tries to outdo each other. There are many more recognizable college football fan sites than HornFans, off the top of my head "EveryDay should be Saturday", the fark board at "SoonerNation", "NDNation", "Wild West Football", "BuckNuts", "The Blue-Gray Sky". And then there are the many more top quality college basketball programs that have there loyal fan sites. And almost none of them have Wikipedia entries -- a quick perusal shows the recent creation of EDSBS (well sourced) and soonerfans (it is an unsourced stub -- I speedied it). Furthermore, the very nature of sports fansites, means that rival boards entails that they will be puff pieces and likely will soon get into edit wars. I think this is not the reason that WP:WEB exists. To prevent an encyclopedia from turning into a self promoting forum. -- KelleyCook 15:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The above strong delete is also by the nominator. It should be marked comment. --MECU≈talk 15:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why would the nominator (who in the case of an admin who moves a "hangon" to AFD may not even have an opinion on the matter) be excluded from voicing his opinion on the "vote". For that matter, these aren't straight up and down votes either. It is a concensous building exercise which may or may not fluctuate during the week. -- KelleyCook 16:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My point is that you voiced your "support" for deletion in the nomination. Adding further comments is fine, but trying to double-count your vote is not. You did not state in the nom that you did not have an opinion. If you had, then listing below with your support/oppose would be fine. --MECU≈talk 15:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't buy the slippery slope argument by the nominator. Because we don't have more notable sites doesn't mean this isn't notable on it's own. It has many references by third party national sources. A potential for vandalism is not a reason to delete. Should we delete George W. Bush since it's highly vandalized (although not currently, since it's protected...)? --MECU≈talk 15:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article seems to indicate that it is more than just a fan website. Charity work and activities beyond the scope of the internet seem to establish it more as a club/organization, and given the amount of sourcing and references available, seems to meet inclusion standards. Arkyan 15:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "More than a website" is incorrect. It is the function of sports fansites to organize get togethers, hold raffles, and offer promotions. Therefore, that this one has succeeded in getting hoo-rah parties and the like is not testimony to its surpassing "college sports fansite" status, but merely that it succeeds in fulfilling that status. Given that it's a fansite for a very large U. with an extremely high sporting profile, that would be assured. The question is whether this is appealing to people outside of the fan world. The answer to that seems to be "no." Are visitors to Tarheelblue (for UNC Chapel Hill, and a gigantic site) going to go to Hornsfans for some reason? Are Georgiadogs.com (even bigger) visitors going there? Are Buckeye fans going to go there to debate? This is just a website, and being #13 among college fan sites fits with the college's rankings. <shrug> An everyday site doing an everyday job. Utgard Loki 18:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Fans of other teams do go there to debate (and flame). But this is common among most sports message boards. *Mishatx*-In\Out 18:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if we are going to argue that only fans of the team will visit the article, we might as well argue the same thing about the school athletic article, Texas Longhorns, or about the school itself, University of Texas at Austin. For that matter, does anyone outside of Ap Lei Chau care about that island? People visit articles to learn about the subject. That includes people with a keen interest as well as people with a passing interest. It is entirely reasonable to believe that people interested in discussion boards will browse articles belonging to such a category. It is also reasonable to assume that a football fan will visit articles related to competing teams, etc. There is virutally no Wikipedia article that will be of interest to every single person in the world. This article in question is useful to enough readers to make it valuable, and it is well sourced. Johntex\^talk 21:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Texas Longhorns]. The article appears to me to be in large part a puff piece ( though some criticisms have been added ), and, references notwithstanding, this is not appropriate for us here. Please remember that popularity is not the same thing as notability: there are numerous fan websites, and the article provides no reason to believe that this one does anything that its peers don't. It is already a well-established principle here that audience size is only a very minor factor in consideration of notability. Finally, inspection of the references suggests that these tend simply to mention the website in passing, and are not about the website per se. WMMartin 14:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 22:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

César Abreu[edit]

Non notable - notability not sourced Rothko65 03:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does fail the WP:BIO standards. --Ozgod 03:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Realkyhick 06:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As a former member of Menudo, though relatively briefly, he seems to qualify for an article. The claim about gaining Puerto Rican celebritry through the earlier kids' show, though not sourced, is another possible notability grounds. If not keep, a possible merge/redirect to Menudo. --Groggy Dice T | C 06:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He spent less than one year with Menudo - is it worth merging him into that article? --Ozgod 14:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would say there is no need to merge this there. Simply listing his name, with, perhaps, "(later worked in television)" would be more than sufficient. Utgard Loki 18:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not yet notable, maybe someday, one touring company in a minor role does not make for notability. --Bejnar 04:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Dunlop Manufacturing Bubba hotep 15:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tortex[edit]

Contested prod. Rationale was No reliable sources to establish notability. None availible via google. Does not meet requirements of WP:N or WP:CORP. Parent company is on AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dunlop Manufacturing. Eluchil404 03:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless some more good sources can be provided, then I might change my mind. Realkyhick 06:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lack of sourcing should be addressed by adding sources, not deleting the article. The product itself is extremely notable and very significant as it is a replacement-product for an entire line of products that were made from an endangered animal's body parts. Shrumster 18:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if we can verify that this is not just mylar. I use the picks. They're pretty much what we call "mylar picks," and we never actually refer to them as "Tortex." Otherwise, without verification that this is some miraculous third substance, what this article is about is a brand rather than a substance and an object rather than an invention. Utgard Loki 18:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Guitar pick and/or Dunlop Manufacturing. The information is legitimate, but I'm not sure it makes sense having its own article. Crunch 14:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Utgard Loki. The article may be misnamed, but the subject is notable. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 05:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Véronique Becker[edit]

Dubious notability Rothko65 03:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on the edit history it would appear to be a vanity article. --Ozgod 03:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity, vanity, it's all vanity. Realkyhick 06:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person's vanity page. Jules1975 09:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note on "Vanity" per AfD Wikiquette — The accusation VANITY should be avoided [13], and is not in itself a reason for deletion. Tyrenius 03:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pls! No personal ads here 202.176.193.126 11:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. Alf^Photoman 14:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC),</noinclude>[reply]
Comment, translation from French Wiki, similar translations exist on Spanish and German Wiki. No opinion re. notability yet but tend to delete due to lack of sources Alf^Photoman 14:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Freshacconci 16:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, though i'm tempted to say Keep just for the wonderful gallerist prose! Johnbod 03:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supprime rapidement. I cannot see the assertion of notability, unless it's this "She realised her first oil-based paintings at the age of six", which is inherently unproveable. It appears the French article contains no more or less than this one here, created by editor with few other edits; the Spanish one was created by an established user. Ohconfucius 06:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could find nothing notable, and I tried Alf^Photoman 12:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her paintings look good. But notability not established. Bus stop 00:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:44Z

Daniel Garcia (magician)[edit]

Non notable restaurant magician who has marketed a few non notable tricks. Article is full of POV and was tagged in January for not being notable. The only references are spam-links to pages where people can buy this guy's various tricks. Saikokira 03:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of reliable sources proving notability. eillusionist.com is actually somewhat of a laughing stock within the magician industry for its self-promotion, and should not be relied on for anything. If genuine reliable sources can be provided for Mr. Garcia, I might change my mind, but until then, I say delete. --El on ka 04:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of sources, but all appear to have ties to Garcia of some sort, making them dubious. More reliable sources might prompt a change of heart on my part. Realkyhick 06:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Elonka is correct. Daniel Garcia is not yet notable enough. TStone 03:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Concerns of nominator not addressed, and two of the keep arguments are juvenile personal attacks. --Core desat 03:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nectarine (radio)[edit]

Contested speedy. Does not claim or demonstrate notability per WP:WEB; no sources. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS, and possibly WP:ADS. After going through Google News, the website doesn't seem to have been "subject of multiple and non-trivial published works"--TBCΦtalk? 03:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Le Spam. Realkyhick 06:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SPAM. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 08:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dubtfull It's not that notable, but not unknown either. // Liftarn
Grudging weak delete. Not unknown among tracker music fans (Nectarine is among the most famous of demoscene net radios), but probably not famous enough according to our notability standards. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh?Thanks for keeping Nectarine below your notability standards in the future, asses :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.221.45.43 (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Eh... not a particularly constructive comment here. Please calm down and try this "debating" thing ocassionally. =) Anyway, the sad fact is, Wikipedia is being swamped with stuff about websites, and we have to set the bar somewhere. Regrettably, we get so many articles about apparently irrelevant sites that we have had to implement some dangerously huge obstacles and see what sticks - regrettably, it may mean that "sort of famous in their own circles" sites get axed, which is a shame but setting the bar is very difficult. Anyway, it is also my opinion that websites make lousy article material in general, unless there's something absolutely remarkable about them; Nectarine is, um... basically just a net radio station. I don't really see how this article could be expanded a lot; it's certainly worth putting it as an external link in some article or like. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. So Pouet.net is not "spam", and Nectarine is? The wikipaedophiles need to google a bit more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.96.119.5 (talk • contribs).
- Ever gone fishing? Feel free to nominate that article for deletion too. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A very important part of the demoscene past & present, and, for that matter, an important part of internet history. Who cares about google news, use your own brain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nterr (talk • contribs) 02:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Yes, and as such, discussing it in Wikipedia in some form is justified. Whether or not it warrants an article of its own is another matter altogether. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep this article please nectarine is the most notable music site to the demoscene we should cover it yuckfoo 03:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep known and important site in its niche, the Demoscene. The Demoscene is significantly stronger in Europe than in the US, which might make it seem less relevant, but Wikipedia is not just about what is noteworthy in one country. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 16:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If it's known and important, surely you must know of some reliable sources that can be cited. RJASE1 ^Talk 17:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Alexa reports site traffic at over 1 million hits per week. I know most people don't like using Alexa as proof of notability, but that's a start. Also, the anonymous attacks in this discussion are only going to hurt efforts to keep the article, not help. --Vossanova ^o< 18:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are looking at the "Alexa rank", where a large number such as 1,000,000 indicates non-notability. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 11:12Z
- Blush - never mind then. --Vossanova ^o< 17:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Demoscene. It is simply not notable enough for its own article. However, as a popular webcaster within the demoscene, it merits a mention in that main article. Vassyana 08:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus and WP:SNOW. Article has shown improvement. Nomination withdrawn Pea ceNT 08:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Coral High School[edit]

Appears to be a quasi-joke or nonsense page on a non-notable, though demonstrably existant, high school. -Toptomcat 04:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN. Noroton's excellent cleanup work has rendered the article much better. -Toptomcat 15:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The high school is definitely existent. However, this article is completely fact based. From looking at the history, it looks like a particular IP began to invalidate the article with obnoxious comments that brought about the speedy deletion discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DizzleDixon (talk • contribs)
Delete. I can't find a good version of the article to revert this to. Much of the article seems to be devoted to satirical and unsourced negative comments about the school; it would be better to warn the vandals, delete the article, and allow the creation of a more serious-minded article later. --Metropolitan90 05:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the school is legit and as deserving of its own article as any of the other 46,000 high schools on here. But obviously it's full of schoolboy crap. I might delete everything but the infobox and a sentence with a stub tag, with hopes that someone will add legit info later. In fact, as I was writing this, I decided to tackle the job myself. Realkyhick 06:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable school and no sources. Realkyhick, WP has started to cut down on all these school articles since editors realize that schools are NOT automatically notable and have to show notability just like anything else. TJ Spyke 06:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Note that the other two high schools in Cape Coral, Mariner High School (Cape Coral, Florida) and Ida S. Baker High School, both have articles. We can debate their notability as well (I'd vote a weak keep on both), but they're there. I think it should be all-stay or all-go. Personally, I think virtually all high schools are typically notable enough in that they are often the focal point of a community, but that's another debate for another place. Realkyhick 06:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those "all stay or go" comments don't mean much. It may be your opinion that all schools are notable (my opinion is that they are not), but it's not Wikipedia policy and I hate when some people vote Keep and just say that "all schools are notable" instead of basing it on current policies. TJ Spyke 06:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TJ, could you specify those current policies? Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I know WP:SCHOOLS is not policy, and when I looked at WP:ORG it not only has a "summary box" at the top that doesn't assert much authority, it refers to WP:SCHOOLS. If you're referring to WP:NOTABILITY, that doesn't seem to cover villages, towns and counties where notability is hardly ever asserted and deletion nominations are hardly ever made. (But if I'm missing some other rule or guideline, please point it out.) If a rule for schools exists, maybe some of the Wikipedians who are voting to keep the schools articles, including me, should start participating in the discussions at those guidelines talk pages, because there are plenty of us and Wikipedians, after all, make the rules. Noroton 18:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is interesting, from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes: "Schools are frequently nominated for deletion, but consensus is frequently not reached. Most of the approximately 270 school articles nominated for deletion in the eight months January to August, 2005, resulted in no consensus, with fewer than 15% actually deleted." Not a rule, maybe out of date, but interesting. Noroton 19:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable school with no sources. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 08:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep it's borderline notable as an article subject, and now that it's sourced and all the potentially libelous nonsense attack-type stuff has been deleted, there's no real reason to delete it. I'd like to congratulate the clean-up crew. You changed a silly joke article into a presentable and sourced article. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 17:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 18:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I had some time on my hands and (inspired by Realkyhicks' cleaning up the page) I was interested in seeing what the article would look like with statistics from the "Great Schools" Web site, which has state Department of Education statistics on schools. I also included a list of clubs. It isn't much and doesn't address any notability issues, but you get a picture of a school that, despite some advantages (teacher experience and education, higher-than-Florida-average wealth) is not very good academically. If some people in that community who don't pay attention to the news down there happen to see the article, it seems to me it would be useful to them. Why is this relevant to our deletion discussion? Turn the question around: We're the one's who should be relevant to our readers' concerns (while staying within the context of an encyclopedia/almanac). Our encyclopedia is better off if it's relevant to some of the concerns of communities. What we do with community articles (on villages, towns, cities, counties) which don't need to assert notability, we should do with high school and school district articles: present a good encyclopedic description of the subject that people in the community can use. We can do it like no one else can. We should do the same thing for all hospitals and for the same reasons. We can get verifiable information on these institutions, and they're intensely, overwhelmingly important to their communities. I doubt any other types of institutions are as important (libraries, elementary and middle schools, fire departments), but if a good case could be made, I'd want articles on those as well. There's a limited number (even though it's vast, but Wikipedia is vast), we can still have standards for articles, and Wikipedia is none the worse for them, in fact, Wikipedia is better for having them. Noroton 18:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I strongly disagree with this sentiment. I believe that Wikipedia is worse for the inclusion of this article. If we continue down the route that this poster advocates, we will end up with articles on pretty much everything - schools, hospitals, post offices, roads, churches, shopping malls, broadcasting towers, et cetera, ad nauseam et ad infinitum. Of course this is great if you want Wikipedia to be a collection of indiscriminate information - a kind of Google, with people editing the directory entries for ease of reading - but it does mean that Wikipedia will cease to be an encyclopedia under any commonly understood definition of the term. I certainly wouldn't see any point in working on this project if it were to evolve in the way that Noroton wishes, and my hunch is that many of our best editors ( from which category I explicitly exclude myself ) would feel the same. The idea that "all must have prizes" was discredited in the educational establishment by the 1980s, at least in the UK, and surely it must be time for us to realise that where the "prize" is a Wikipedia entry the same is true for schools. If everything is "notable", nothing is. WMMartin 14:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: WMMartin, although we disagree, I respect your point of view and have no doubts about your sincerity, although I think you'd benefit by rereading my comments above. I think it's easier to respond point by point:

"this sentiment" — I'd call it a "point of view", it's not just emotional, but considered.
"we will end up with articles on pretty much everything" — as I said in so many words, I would limit wholesale acceptance of local institutions to those that have a powerful influence on most members of a community. That leaves out most schools other than high schools (I would also include private high schools for other reasons). That criterion would certainly include all hospitals but leave out the other institutions you mention: post offices, roads, churches, shopping malls, broadcasting towers, unless they could show a similar powerful influence on a broad swath of the population.
You can include any of these already if you find two newspaper articles focusing on them, correct? And it doesn't matter how small the independent publication or source is, as long as it's considered reliable, correct? (This is the way I read WP:NOTABILITY, perhaps I missed something.) And do you seriously doubt that any high school in the country, no matter how small or obscure, could meet that criteria? The effect of this criterion is to hurt schools in rural or lower-income areas that don't have newspapers with good enough advertising revenues to support much of a Web presence. I live in one of the wealthiest areas of the country. My town of about 18,000 people has two weekly newspapers full of ads, daily newspapers in each of two small cities bordering the town and a glossy magazine in addition to coverage it occasionally gets from other publications. This wealth alone ensures that there are reliable independent sources about nearly every institution in town. We can't eliminate all Wikipedia biases, but we can short-circuit some of them, and this is one, regarding high schools and hospitals, that should be short-circuited. Although all high schools get newspaper coverage, the poorer, more rural schools would have to wait longer to get Wikipedia articles as editors for those articles have to do a lot more scrambling to get the information. And to what purpose? Nearly every high school has its own Web site, and it's hard to imagine that those Web sites do a lot of exaggerating about the schools, so they provide some basic information to start building an article on. We've also got state statistics on each school, which is the thing schools would be most inclined to lie about if they were going to lie. What other purpose is a "Notability" criterion if not to establish that something exists and is important to enough people that it's worth having an article on? Why would you doubt that high schools wouldn't meet this criterion?
"Wikipedia will cease to be an encyclopedia under any commonly understood definition of the term" — As an open-source, Web-based, electronic encyclopedia it is already a new thing. In subject matter it already includes topics that would not go into other general encyclopedias -- Pokemon characters, gay porn stars, video games (we've all got our own list of outlandish types of articles, I'm sure). So your idea that Wikipedia will "become" a grab bag of odd articles is too late in the game. No open-source project like this can avoid popular taste unless it gets much tighter with its criteria for article inclusion — and what makes you think that's going to happen? The milk is spilled, the horse is past the barn door, the toothpaste is out of the tube. It is also inevitable that a nonpaper encyclopedia would expand to cover details that paper encyclopedias just didn't have the economic ability to cover.
"All must have prizes" — You won't find anything I've said that supports that idea. I love my home town in Connecticut (well, at least I like it), but when I read that it was the home to the head of the state Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s and a center of Klan activity, I included that in the article about it. I regularly have to check the article because that bit of information has often been removed by anonymous editors, some of whom make comments in which, I swear, you can just hear the howls of pain. An NPOV article, particularly as we get more information about the subject, is often far from a prize. I'm particularly suprised you would make this statement in a deletion discussion about Cape Coral High School. As I mention above, the statistics I put in the article show the school has embarassing problems.
"I certainly wouldn't see any point in working on this project if it were to evolve in the way that Noroton wishes, and my hunch is that many of our best editors ( from which category I explicitly exclude myself ) would feel the same." Why? And why leave if post offices are covered when you haven't already left since pokemon characters and porn stars are covered? What is the reasoning behind this idea that separates it from mere sentiment?
There are at least two major differences between Pokemon and porn star articles on the one hand and articles on high schools and other local institutions on the other — the local institutions (a) will likely last over time, meaning that the articles will get many more readers long after the P. and p.s. articles are forgotten; (b) the latter category is one readers will find useful in non-trivial ways, including as a source of negative information that the institutions themselves will hardly ever put on their own Web sites and which might be difficult to find elsewhere.
"If everything is notable, then nothing is" I agree, but expanding automatic notability to high schools and hospitals doesn't mean everything else has to be included. We will always have some boundaries to defend. Noroton 17:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wow! Heck of an argument, Norton. Great job! Also a great job on the article expansion. Realkyhick 17:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons in my comment, just above, and as I also argue here. Noroton 18:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and a "bravo" for Noroton. I couldn't agree more. There is too much Wikispace devoted to unimportant characters in "Spongebob Squarepants" and the latest edition of "Everquest," and not enough devoted to things that actually make people's lives work, such as schools and hospitals. Dino 20:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but it's much too "listy". — RJH (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Kudos to Norton, for taking the time to help out a poorly constructed article aimed at poking fun at the school. I believe that now we should focus our ideas collectively, to help in fairly representing this school with accurate data and up to date information. Its amazing that a group of silly school kids have uninherently helped there school by aiding in disseminating information that is relavent to their school. I would request that if anyone does intend to add to this article, that it be as up to date as possible. Thank you to Norton and to anyone else who had helped in this article, for taking the initiative to fix this article and further develop it and help this school and its community.MachiavellianSociety 24:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Norton, you didn't really do anything to make the article keep-worthy. Nothing you added makes the school notable. TJ Spyke 00:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you want multiple independent sources? Well, there's the Daily News of Naples article referred to in the second paragraph and there's this: link, with multiple articles about the school -- especially numbers 5 and 9. How's that? Noroton 01:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the collaborative and gradual efforts, wiki users and cape high students can monitor and alter the page as needed. ive added a bit in the clubs and added athletics which i can get more info about tomorrow. i also replaced a section belittleing local news stations written by a student with the achievements section. Wfe_x_4 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wfe x 4 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I come to this article after Noroton's work. Sadly, although the article is informative, it still doesn't indicate why the school is notable, nor provide evidence that it is notable. The fact that Noroton likes the school is not actually relevant: he hasn't shown that it's any more notable than its peers. WMMartin 14:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable enough to have been the subject of multiple newspaper articles, but I think every high school in the country can claim that. Of course, I think they're all notable enough for inclusion here. (And actually, I don't happen to like or dislike the school.) Noroton 16:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep In 30 seconds of research I discovered that the school had been recognized in 1988-89 by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program, the country's highest honor for a school in the United States, which would be a very strong and explicit claim of notability, certainly moreso than its peers, contrary to WMMartin's claim. Contrary to the absolutely false statements made by TJ Spyke, most schools are notable, and all it takes is someone to lift their finger to add the required information to demonstrate this fact. Alansohn 01:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 an nn-bio.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell handler[edit]

No sources. Not notable. 14 hits on Google for "Mitchell Handler", none for this person. 0 hits for "The Newsbreak Times". Recreated 5 times after being speedied. Prod removed by author. Onorem 04:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BIO, probably a speedy candidate, so feel free to slap that on at your own decision making. Yanksox 04:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. --Core desat 03:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Davis[edit]

Delete. Duplicate of London Charles article, which redirects to Flavor of Love anyway. Ckessler 04:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Flavor of Love. Why not? --N Shar (talk • contribs) 05:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ckessler will know that it was not a duplicate, as London Charles had long been a redirect. She won Flavor of Love, and we have winners of a lot of other reality TV shows, so she's just as notable as they are. Either keep them all or delete them all. Since deleting them all won't happen, there's no reason to delete this. This information is not told in the parent articles so it needs its own. And also, Ckessler, do NOT blank articles and JUST put an AFD notice. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 05:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That is some spectacularly circular and self-serving logic. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page blanking was unintentional and happened because of the redirect. If it's not a duplicate, who is Chandra Davis? Why does there need to be a page for each of her aliases? Ckessler 06:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Davis is her real name. London Charles is her stage name. If you read the notes I put in the table on the Flavor of Love page, you would have known that. The funny thing I've noticed is that people have been so quick to shut this page down, but the other winner, Hoopz, has had a page that has never ever been in danger of AFD. I just find that a funny double standard. Going back and trying to AFD it now just seems spiteful. If one can be kept, why not the other? Hoopz is not more well-known than this girl. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoopz was up for AFD, and I did "vote" delete. Not my point. Why do we need an article for her real name, and an article for her stage name? Ckessler 06:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the time you did an AFD, there was not an article for her stage name. It had been redirected. I had simply changed the redirect to her real name and not Flavor of Love. So at the time of the AFD, there was only one article about her. Not two. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep a better article would be a sure keep. Reality TV is here to stay. TonyTheTiger 23:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Davis is already mentioned at Flavor of Love (Season 2), this mention covers the full extent of her notability (or claims thereof). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP read above. Mcoop06 01:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mike_H. --Mardavich 04:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus. Nomination withdrawn. Pea ceNT 11:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back Dorm Boys[edit]

An editor asked the following question at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/William Sledd (2nd nomination):

Then tell me what makes these youtubers so special. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_Dorm_Boys Why do they rate a wikipedia article, but not William Sledd? I demand an answer. James Allen Starkloff 75.89.17.161 23:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So, I looked at the article to try and find an answer. I noticed that it asserted more notability than did the Sledd article, but at the same time there were no reliable sources cited. The article states that "[t]he Back Dorm Boys received mainstream media attention in the United States through The Ellen DeGeneres Show" but provides no further information, and this Google search yields little. Another claim, that the pair were signed by Motorola, is similarly difficult to confirm with reliable sources and a marginal assertion of notability anyway. The answer to the original question is "They don't rate a Wikipedia article either." Delete. N Shar (talk • contribs) 04:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's a bit late to withdraw the nomination, but see my comment below. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 00:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Why is Wikipedia deleting articles about youtubers? James Allen Starkloff 75.89.29.62 05:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia is deleting articles that have no reliable sources and are not attributable. In particular, attributability is a policy. Articles on YouTubers are more likely to have no reliable sources than, say, mathematics articles, so they are nominated for deletion more frequently than mathematics articles. If reliable sources are provided, this article could be kept. Conversely, articles that are not attributable, whether on YouTubers, conventional television actors, or politicians, may be nominated for deletion or proposed for deletion. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 05:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have the Back Dorm Boys been the subject of a exteranlly verifiable writing which is not directly related to the group? (for example, news articles, scholarly works, etc). None of the claims in the article can be Wikipedia:Attributed (verified by the use of third-party sources), and there are no potential sources in the External Links section. No source for the claim of appearance on the Ellen talk show, and I would feel significantly more comfortable if someone high-up in the making of Heroes states outright that the scene mentioned in the article is inspired by the BDB. Delete unless the information can be verified trough reliable, fact-checked sources independant of the BDB. -- saberwyn 05:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So they lip syncs songs on YouTube? Big deal, not everything on YouTube is notable. TJ Spyke 06:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant Keep I still think that people who are only famous for appearing on YouTube don't deserve articles, but they do pass WP:N now. TJ Spyke 04:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- <sarcasm>Something on YouTube is???</sarcasm> -- saberwyn 06:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It can't be reliably sourced. GassyGuy 07:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:RS. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 08:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BIO unless some reliable sources can be provided.Keep based on new sources. Nuttah68 15:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are we counting Sina.com as a reliable news source? Because there are enough Sina.com articles that can be found if you search using their Chinese names. -Pandacomics 15:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(in English) The Economist. Out of the dorm: How to make Confucian communists squirm.

(in English) The Scotsman. Fame and fortune are knocking for the Back Dorm Boys from Beijing

(in English) Fox News. Greatest Hits of the Year's Greatest Hit: 2006's Best YouTube Clips BDB is ranked #9.

(in English) ABC News. Made in China: Podcast Revolution

(in English) China Daily. Chinese 'Backstreet Boys' - Article w/4 pages of pictures

(in English) The Age. A three-liner in their article about "Google idol"

(in English) The Seattle Times. "2 Chinese boys" lip-sync their way to Web stardom

(in English) Miller, Donna. and Bruenger, David. Beyond Cultural Globalization: A Postmodern Interpretation of Decivilization. Presented at the IAICS Conference San Antonio. Analysis of the Back Dorm Boys from pages 15-17 (double spaced).

Donna Miller is an instructor at the Jefferson Community and Technical College, while David Bruenger is an Associate Professor of Music at the University of Texas San Antonio[14]

(in English) Assmusen, Nicole. Iowa State News. Editorial on the BDB Phenomenon

(in English) China.org Lip-synching Duo Look Beyond YouTube Fame

(in Chinese) Lianhe Zaobao The Guangdong Arts Institute's funny Back Dormitory Boys become famous on the Internet. Short synopsis of their achievements, and an interview with Wei Wei.

(in Chinese) Yahoo! China. Interview with Yahoo! China - 15 pages.

(in Chinese) Sina.com Back Dorm Boys as the "most popular" Internet people

(in Chinese) Sina.com Technology Back Dorm Boys gain popularity on Youtube, World Cup tribute video reaches 160,000 viewers.

(in Chinese) Sina.com Interview with the BDB.

(in Chinese) Tom.com 3-page interview with the BDB.

(in Chinese) Tom.com News about BDB appearing on music video for a song by Catcher in the Rye (Chinese rock band).

(in Chinese) Tom.com Back Dorm Boys are the most "in" idols. Internet groups never cease to amaze. Published today.

(in Chinese) Sohu.com BDB's deal with Pepsi.

(in Chinese) Chongqing News. News on Back Dorm Boys being on a show.

I think it's a matter of searching "back dormitory boys" not "back dorm boys" on Google. Keep. -Pandacomics 15:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep My über-deletionist half is screaming 'delete' because of the YouTube, but my saner half is intrigued by Pandacomics' links. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per links provided by -Pandacomics. --Hobit 18:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I shudder to say it, but keep - Pandacomics' links, especially the Economist, Scotsman and ABC News stories, suggest notability has been achieved. By a YouTube phenomenon. I need to wash my hands now. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Use the presented news articles and likewise to perform a complete rewrite of the article, where all claims made by the article are demonstrated to be true by an external source. Remove any claims not demonstrated by a source (By demonstrated, I mean someone 'talking' about the claim, not the claim itself in action). Being the English Wikipedia, I would suggest a preference to sources in English, but if you can find reasons to work them all in, go for it. If this is done, or at least progress towards this is underway by the end of the AfD period, keep. -- saberwyn 21:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. By "find a reason", did you mean "find a way to incorporate the information in those Chinese articles that might be of use to the encyclopedic nature of this Wikipedia article" ? -Pandacomics 21:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- If both an English and a Chinese article say something, cite the English. If its only in the chinese, cite it, but be aware that verification will be more difficult. -- saberwyn 10:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Though I'm not withdrawing the nomination in case others have opinions, I think that some of the sources (in particular the Economist story) confirm notability. If the article is kept, we should have a complete rewrite for sure. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 00:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Needs a lot of cleaning up, but a large amount of notability (much as it makes me shiver to count Youtube etc) EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I stand corrected. It can be reliably sourced. I agree with Saberwyn that this should be completely rewritten so that it is reliably sourced. GassyGuy 04:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this article gets deleted, I'll cut my hair and put on red lipstick to make the most anti-wikipedia video ever. DrZarkloff151.213.162.165 19:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per links provided by -Pandacomic. bbx 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep please they are very popular in china and have multiple endorsements too you can read chinese article yuckfoo 04:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this highly notable meme. "Back Dormitory Boys" receive 23,500 Google hits, and "Back Dorm Boys" another 22,900. This, combined with a dozen non-trivial English-language references, and even more in Chinese language meet and exceed WP:BIO standards.--roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 09:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to PlayStation Network. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 11:09Z

PlayStation Store[edit]

Speedily deleted as spam but was restored on review and is now here for full discussion. Procedural nomination, I have no opinion. (To closing admin: Note redirect at PLAYSTATION® Store). ~ trialsanderrors 04:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge (changed my mind as per below) into PlayStation Network. Information about the shops is in PlayStation Network already. --RazorICE ^T/_C @ 05:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's already covered in the PSN page. TJ Spyke 06:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant, everything has been covered. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 08:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Not everything is on the PSN page. Only a basic overview is shown, and would cause unneeded clutter in the PSN page. In fact the commerce section should me linked to this as the main article. DanB91 11:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to PlayStation Network then. Koweja 15:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 15:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep; I don't see that everything is covered on the PSN page, but that page is also not very large and so could easily accommodate this content. — brighterorange (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to PlayStation Network. Some of it is covered there. Merge the rest. --- RockMFR 18:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Decidedly spammish. Smerge per everyone else. Note that I've listed the original title, PLAYSTATION® Store, on WP:RFD. —Cryptic 19:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The playstation Store gets bigger daily, that's why it needs its own article.68.194.46.211 19:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the PS Store i believe is too big to merge to the PSN article, what should probably merge with this article though is the List of PlayStation Network games though. DanB91 19:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, straight up. It makes no sense, no matter how any of you look at it, to merge, or delete this. This is not, I repeat, not redundant. First the PSN is a community experience, where as the PS store is just that, an online shopping mart for games and other entertainment media. The PS Store, will soon vastly eclipse the size of the PSN page here, and honestly the subject matter in each are leagues different. PS STORE, PS NETWORK, = 2 different situations completely. This dilemma can be easily summed up, the PS store and The PS Network provide distincly different, and unique functions, and therefore, are two separate entitys.69.109.186.20 00:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)BFrosty, Playstation Underground Moderator.

(this was mistakingly put in the discussion page so i copied and pasted it here) DanB91 00:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I know the store sucks, but there has been no reason presented to delete the article on this feature of the PS3. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the link, I used it as a start to the criticism section in the article. Mathmo ^Talk 04:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided, might be useful to have this article, I guess. But a few sources would be nice... I'm not really sure what Wikipedia counts as a reliable source in the gaming world, though. --Sid 3050 15:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well.... there was one source in the above comment made directly above you. So there is a start. Mathmo ^Talk 04:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Like I said: I'm not really sure what counts as a reliable source. But intuitively, I wouldn't have regarded a webcomic and its blog (which isn't even directly cited as a source) as a reliable source for Wikipedia. (Disclaimer/Clarification: I really, really like webcomics and follow 25+ webcomics regularly, but I somehow don't see them as reliable sources to cite in an article about an online marketplace. If there is a ruling declaring PA as a reliable source, please show it to me, I'm genuinely interested since Wiki Rulings often enough surprise me.) --Sid 3050 16:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Notable topic. The entire topic (GAMES) should be expanded and backed up with strong and reliable sources. This is the 21st century, ladies and gentlemen. It is about "time." I think we should want the children of the world to come here first. Also, Ok to merge.Lee Nysted 19:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this the same nonsense you've copied and pasted in other deletion discussions? --- RockMFR 19:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it stood before I editted I believe it should just be a redirect and merge. But however I do believe it can be substantially improved, as I made a start to by adding in the criticism section. Thus my Keep vote. Mathmo ^Talk 04:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The triviality of the sources provided means that the initial concerns haven't been addressed. --Core desat 22:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hunt[edit]

I prodded this article because it appeared to fail WP:BIO and WP:N in general, the prod was removed by a single purpose account Special:Contributions/Schick and some attempt made to show notability. No references supporting the notability are provided. The article seems to fail WP:V and has other non-encyclopedic issues. I leave it to the community to decide. Jeepday 04:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Ozgod 05:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Besides the obvious name that indicates this article might be a hoax (Michael Hunt --> Mike Hunt --> My cunt), article offers no sources to prove notability. —Ocatecir ^Talk 11:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. Alf^Photoman 14:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC) </noinclude>[reply]
Comment, if instead of trying some conspiracy theory someone would have bothered to Google "Michael Hunt" + "Cosmic American Art" (172 hits) he would have found out that there is no basis as far as M. Hunt being a hoax. No opinion yet as to notability but tending to delete due to lack of sources Alf^Photoman 17:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe. So, he exists (perhaps with just an unfortunate name). Conceived at Woodstock? I'm sure many people were, and even more lay claim to it. (Hasn't "attendance" at Woodstock gone from 250000 to several million over the decades?). Anyway, unless those appearances on all those Canadian media outlets can be verified, his notability is questionable at this time. Freshacconci 17:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe he's real, but not notable. 2 Montreal paper entries, 2 national mag ones on the media listing (website). Far-sighted of Gram Parsons (died '73) to coin a phrase to describe his art! Johnbod 03:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnbod Alf^Photoman 13:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the artwork is great. I like the sandblasted wooden reliefs. But notability is not established. Bus stop 00:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I like the work, an interesting, hardworking artist Modernist 02:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like it too, the problem is no ILEKEIT, its sources Alf^Photoman 23:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added a few sources to the article. John Vandenberg 09:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The "references" supplied to not support Notability per Wikipedia:Notability (people). They are appear to advertisements to view or purchase his products. Also note that one of the references claim the art not the artist were conceived during Woodstock his images, which were conceived during Woodstock '69[15]. Jeepday 14:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The notability isn't clear cut (even to me) but in the nomination you focused on verifiability, and so I mostly tackled it from that angle. To me, the level of notability is acceptable but I see why you would disagree. The article has been around for a while, so we should be seeing more sources in place by now. John Vandenberg 16:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My guess is the reference is in error. How was the art conceived at Woodstock '69? Bus stop 15:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Michael Hunt was conceived at the Woodstock Festival in Bethel, NY and born in Honesdale, PA in 1970.". [16] John Vandenberg 16:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like the art, but the references are just self promotional. We don't see independent critical review of his work. I may like his work (I do), but we don't see unrelated sources with some stature offering an assessment of the work. His work hasn't come to the attention of publications in the business of offering comment on visual art. I think that is what notability is about. The Chamber of Commerce of Woodstock are not experts on art, are they? And their real business is promoting anything that involves economic activity in their area. Bus stop 17:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - It looks like several editors like the work but not the level of notability so why not put a lack of notability tag on the article for a few weeks, and then delete if nothing improves? Modernist 19:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see nothing wrong with that. His references look good on the surface: Canadian Art, Montreal Gazette, CBC, Global-TV, these are all more than legit. However, there is no specific info on this, publication dates, air dates and so on. But giving the article time to get these in order sounds reasonable. If they don't check out (i.e. just not found or provided, or made-up outright), then put it up for deletion again. Freshacconci 19:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments above (as long as the correct info is included). Freshacconci 19:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My vote remains to delete the article on Michael Hunt. If notability is not present at the end of the article for deletion time period, then I think the rules say that we delete. Are there extenuating circumstances? Then let the authors of the article re-create it when sources are available. Bus stop 02:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 admitted hoax. Dragons flight 00:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Panda[edit]

Primary author is a known sockpuppet, confirmed by checkuser. Article appears to be a hoax. Google searches are unable to identify meaningful evidence of a "persian panda" (though there is a blogger using that name), and the article itself provides no sources. Dragons flight 04:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awwwwww, pandas are so cute! Delete as hoax, but a very well-written one. In fact, it's extraordinarily difficult to prove that it's a hoax -- the only thing we have to go by is the lack of sources. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 05:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. If Scylax of Caryanda had written about bears, that fact would pop up in a web search, and it doesn't. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Speedy Delete as completely unsourced and a probable hoax. I'll gladly change my opinion, if any reliable sources are provided. --Stephan Schulz 07:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upgraded to speedy after it was acknowledged as a hoax.--Stephan Schulz 20:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:V, WP:HOAX. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 08:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A very well-written and plausible-sounding hoax, even I was fooled by it until I found the discussion on the administrator's noticeboard. I can find no sources that can verify that the panda exists, and certainly no reliable ones. --sunstar net^talk 09:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 11:07Z

Buffyverse chronology[edit]

These three articles are all chronologies of the entire "Buffyverse" (the universe of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and an inherently crufty term). However, all of them appear to be original research - they are all completely unsourced, and read like a fansite. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and Wikipedia is not a free web host or a fan site. I would be open to transwikiing this if there is a Buffy Wikia that could take these articles, but these are not encyclopedia articles.

This nomination also includes:

Response: You are right that this article does need better referencing, however as the person who pretty much put this whole thing together, I can tell you that I used not only clear markers in the texts themselves, but many secondary sources such as Keith Topping's unofficial guides which place books in the timeline, and the Buffy/Angel episodes in relation to each other, a Dark Horse Comic timeline that was at the Dark Horse site, 'Historian notes' at the begining of many stories, as well as comments in interviews by authors and script-writers about how stories relate to each other. Putting together this article was a lot of work, and I'd really appreciate if people allowed it time to reference itself rather than deleting because they assume its based on original research because of the current lack of clear referencing. -- Paxomen 16:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely fan-written. --InShaneee 05:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As opposed to all the other Wikipdedia articles which are written by people who have no interest whatever in the subjects? Edison 23:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Allow me to address the reasons for deletion presented so far.
1. Completely fan-written. One of the worst reasons I could imagine, even worse than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Why does it matter who wrote it? The article should be judged on its merits. In fact, why would something about a fictional work/universe be written by people who don't like/care about the work/story?
2. WP:CRUFT is an essay and not a reason for deletion. To me, issues related to quantum physics are quite crufty (as I've got little understanding of what it's about). What's cruft for one person is completely normal for another.
3. Unsourced original research. Please note that this is a chronology and all of the entries are blue-links, so the sources are likely located in those articles.
4. WP:NOT#IINFO. This does not qualify for any of the 8 things listed at WP:NOT#IINFO. It's not so much a "plot summary" rather than an aid to navigation for articles related to the Buffyverse.
5. WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. This guideline includes "Personal web pages", "File storage areas", and "Dating services". This is obviously none of the three.
6. Finally, these articles meet WP:LIST as aiding navigation (given how extremely well-organized they are) and being highly informative (i.e., it's not just a list of internal links). Therefore, exremely strong keep. -- Black Falcon 06:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Wikipedia articles don't cut it as reliable sources - it's still original research (saying that sources are "likely" in those articles doesn't help), and WP:NOT is policy, not a guideline, and is not limited to what is explicitly stated on it. I also did not say that WP:CRUFT was a reason for this nomination, but this is fansite material and not encyclopedic. --Core desat 07:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are reliable sources available online and offline to support the list. Do we need to delete immediately, or allow improvement? -- Paxomen 17:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coredesat, WP:NOT is limited to what's stated in it; otherwise, I can claim that WP:NOT a repository of presidential biographies! If WP:NOT can be applied to things not listed in it, how are you to argue against my claim? -- Black Falcon 00:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Transwiki per nom. TJ Spyke 06:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per the excellent analysis of Black Falcon. The bases for the nomination have been shown to be invalid. Edison 06:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 100% original research, as per Black Falcon's own admission. "The blue links have sources" constitutes sourcing Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia articles. Not gonna hack it. JuJube 06:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to have misunderstood. That was not what I wrote. I wrote that the sources are located in the articles, not that the articles themselves are the sources. -- Black Falcon 07:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A transwiki would be fine if some place can and will accept these. GassyGuy 07:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 08:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please clarify? "Original research" means that the information is inherently unverifiable (not just unverified). The information points to books and TV shows, which are certainly verifiable by secondary sources (for the TV episodes) or by primary sources (the books/comics/whatever themselves). -- Black Falcon 08:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment WP:OR doesn't say anything about verifiability. --Core desat 14:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Yes, it does (though it uses the equivalent term attributable). Please see WP:NOR#What is original research?. It states that "Original research is material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source." and contrasts this with "unsourced material", which is attributable but not yet attributed. -- Black Falcon 19:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Needs cleanup, but keep. All of this is easily sourced from the episodes/books themselves, the commentaries on DVDs, and especially the books about the series. >Radiant< 09:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternatively, merge with e.g. List of Buffyverse historical flashbacks or somesuch. A list of Buffy-related books is encyclopedic. Adding the time period in which those books are set is just an extra bit of data. >Radiant< 10:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to comment a second, the practical difference between this index article and an article indexing just the Buffy-related books is that this article is attempting to organize information related to the Buffy franchise across all media types (books, television, comics, films, etc). It seems to me to be a fairly useful sounding means of organizing the large amount of information available on the franchise, and places all these varied articles in some sort of chronological perspective for the reader. Personally I think this sort of indexing also sounds like a possibly useful idea for similar cross-media franchises, such as Star Wars or Star Trek, etc. Dugwiki 22:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's perfectly valid reasons. This article tells us nothing about the comparative real-world significance of the works of fiction listed and, as an unsourced guide to how they interrelate, is an unpublished synthesis of published material. Yes, Black Falcon, we are all well aware that WP:CRUFT is not a policy. However, it is a succinct way of expressing the spirit of policies and guidelines like WP:A, WP:FICT, WP:WAF and WP:NOT. WP:NOT does not contain a section entitled "Wikipedia is not for listing all fictional spin-off materials from 1990's television series 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' in the order in which they seem to be set". However, as reasonably intelligent and literate human beings, we can probably take it as read. -- IslaySolomon | talk 10:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT should be used as the policy states, or it should not be used at all. -- Paxomen 17:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Pax. The argument that "policy might not actually say this violates anything, but in my opinion it should" doesn't hold water. Either it breaks the policy as written or it doesn't. There's a good reason the words "cruft" and "trivia" don't appear in WP:NOT, and that's because there is not strong consensus on how or when to delete articles based on those criteria or even how to properly define those terms. Dugwiki 21:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but needs cited sources and a cleanup. --RazorICE talk C @ 12:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as most of the reasons for deletion are either invalid or little more than veild ad homium attacks. Furthermore there are many, many, many other fictional chronologies on Wikipedia. If one is voted for deletion on grounds that can be applied to all of them, then ALL of them need to be deleted. Singling out a single article for deletion by processes that can be used to delete an entire category of articles is just wasteful. The Simple precidence of other chronologies is a good piece of evidence to keep this one. Especially if the others are not being threatened with deletion. -- Majin Gojira 12:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:ALLORNOTHING -- IslaySolomon | talk 12:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Second inapplicable due to the nature of the comment. The reasoning given for the deletion can, by and large, be equally applied to the others (as the term "Fancruft" has about as much bearing as the term Mary Sue in how it is used commonly and liberally), it is not specific to the article, therefore, I mention the others. Unless there is a specific reason to delete the article that only applies to this article, then there is no reason to delete it, making the entire argument disingenuous. -- Majin Gojira 13:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The essay referred to by IslaySolomon states prominently that is is just someone's opinion and not a policy or even a guideline, so it counts for no more than anyone else's opinion to the contrary. It also explicitly says "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged." Edison 23:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Black Falcon's reasoning. Can always been cleaned up, etc. but AFD is not a place to judge content. The claim that it's not sourced doesn't make sense because every entry includes the title of the book or other work from which the information is taken, and most of these works have their own Wikipedia articles from which (in theory) info such as ISBN and publisher can be obtained rather than doubling the size of the chronology articles with bibliographies. I do have a concern regarding the images which, under Wiki's increasingly draconian free use rules probably aren't kosher anymore. But that's an IFD issue, not an AFD issue. 23skidoo 16:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Although it may appear like original research and many will argue for deletion because they think it is, I can see why people would think it might be OR. However there is actually no original research in this article. All it needs is clearer referencing. Many sources were used, including Keith Topping's unofficial guides which place books in the timeline, and the Buffy/Angel episodes in relation to each other, a Dark Horse Comic timeline that was at the Dark Horse site, 'Historian notes' at the beginning of many stories, as well as comments in interviews by authors and script-writers about how stories relate to each other and more. As well as clear markers in the texts themselves. It needs time to build the referencing, but there is no real justification for deletion. -- Paxomen 16:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Black Falcon. Sources can easily be put into the article. Wouldn't it have been better to put something on the talk page instead of (or at least before) electing it for deletion? --Dookama 17:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a time-line of a well-known fictional series seems encyclopedic --Hobit 18:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The nominated articles serve as source material for a navigational tool for Buffy-related articles; I think the WP:POINT policy would successfully argue against its removal, as right now Wikipedia is served by hundreds of articles on Whedon's universe that are currently quite easy to navigate. WP:IAR is a very dicey rule, but it can support this as well: ignore rules when doing so improves Wikipedia. Does WP:IAR grant utter immunity to the chronology? Of course not. But it does support the suggestion that facile navigation between tightly related articles does indeed improve Wikipedia, and leaving a article navigation system in place long enough to grant editors enough time to properly reference the article serves Wikipedia much better than ripping it out (presumably userfying it in the process), which would require the rebuilding of linkage and structure once a referenced version of the article was posted. Witness how Esperanza, instead of being deleted, took instruction from its MfD and came out of it a better organization. This can be done here. Lack of references is a problem that can be resolved by editors with an interest in Joss Whedon's writings providing references, and does not need to be resolved by removal of the material. To remove the material and disrupt the very nicely prepared navigation system already in place is disruption simply to serve a point, a practice strongly discouraged by WP:POINT. I'd also suggesting using inflammatory terms such as "cruft" isn't very polite. — Whedonette (ping) 18:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Erm, I'm not disrupting the community to make a point, so I don't know how WP:POINT is applicable here. By this logic, WP:NOT#OR would be useless. --Core desat 04:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:POINT suggests discussion is better than unilateral action. The disruption to Wikipedia would be the resultant damage to the various navigational templates used in each and every Buffy/Angel/etc. article and the sheer manpower required to either eliminate the navigational templates altogether and/or re-repair them once a referenced version of the chronology is available; the point you would be trying to make is Wikipedia's policy of articles being referenced (I do not suggest malicious intent); the preferred method of discussion-based resolution would be withdrawal of the AfD (or failure of same) in order to allow Whedonverse editors enough time to properly reference the chronology. Moreover, allowing editors time to address problems in an article, instead of deleting it outright, (a) is a common practice in AfD, and (b) in no way contravenes core policies such as WP:NOR. — Whedonette (ping) 15:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I don't understand why this would be considered original research. I've read the guidelines at WP:ATT and I fail to see how it meets any of the criteria laid out there. Yes, it organizes the information (chronologically). But you can't write any article without contributing some sort of organizational scheme. Chunky Rice 21:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (might need some cleanup) First of all, references to "cruft" can pretty much be ignored - there's no cruft in policies or guidelines. Second, this appears to be the equivalent of a list article for an episode index for a television series. The main difference I can see between this and an episode index is that this article covers multiple related products in the same franchise. Since episode lists for television series are permitted, I don't see a problem allowing for this sort of cross-product list as well since it probably would help interested readers more efficiently navigate the related articles. The main short-coming, which appears to be correctable, is that currently the references for the "in world" dates and other information are buried in the corresponding articles. However, since those references almost certainly exist, and can be appended to this article, I'm for keeping the article in place and allowing for its contributors to clean it up a little by providing some in-article sourcing and removing any statements that might not be verifiable. Note that the article does not appear to be an extended "plot summary", and does serve as a useful index for a larger multi-article topic, thus not violating the WP:NOT#IINFO section on Plot Summaries or violating WP:FICT. Dugwiki 21:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep As valid as something like Back to the Future timeline, which has been demonstrated as fine. - Denny 21:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC) - Denny 21:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's sourced, this isn't. --Core desat 00:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - 99% of the sources on the BttF timeline article are the BttF films themselves. That's what this is doing. its as near as I can see from inspecting the Buffy timeline pulling in by the airdates and stated dates in the fiction material (for the in-universe dates, the same as the BttF, Star Wars, Star Trek, etc.) timelines... or am I misunderstanding what you are saying in reply? - Denny 00:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This can be sourced as well. There is a WikiProject dedicated to "Buffyverse" articles. If you had put an {{unreferenced}} tag on the articles and explained it in the talk page, I'm sure they would have addressed the issue rather quickly (and since when is the lack of easily obtainable sources a reason for deletion?). Also, most of these three lists consists of the canon timeline -- that's ridiculously easy to source with secondary and primary sources. -- Black Falcon 00:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wouldn't the solution then be to source it, not to delete it? Chunky Rice 17:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its a fairly reliable source. PTluw777 00:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is? The article itself? Wikipedia articles can't be self-references. -- InShaneee 21:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, articles aren't supposed to use other articles as references. But in this case it's probably just a matter of transposing the references from the linked articles to this one and removing any information that doesn't seem to be verifiable. Things like the name of the episode, the one sentence summary and the in-fiction date are all probably quite easy to provide a citation for. Dugwiki 22:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Black Falcon. It is a chronology of a well-known television show. --Carioca 01:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, although improve by bringing sourcing into this article rather than through other articles referenced. Article is very encyclopedic as I see it, and extraordinarily comprehensive. -- Davidkevin 13:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, exceedingly useful in listing/organising what could otherwise be a complicated timeline. Are there any viable transwiki options, as in, Buffyverse wikis as popular as the one organised by WP:BUFFY? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment First of all, this is not a "Buffyverse" wiki. This is an encyclopedia. There is a Buffy wiki here. --Core desat 05:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seems a bit presumptuous of you to "remind" other editors that this is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a "Buffyverse" wiki (and I hardly think the inclusion or exclusion of these 3 articles would tip the "balance"), but the "Buffyverse" is an encyclopedic topic that merits inclusion in an encyclopedia and these list provide a navigation tool as suggested per WP:LIST. -- Black Falcon 05:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All, per Black Falcon's excellent rebuttal of the wrongful reasons given for deletion. Mathmo ^Talk 04:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a load of mostly original research about pop culture. Go put it on BuffyWiki. Wikipedia should confine itself to discussing the real-world importance of fiction, and not spend a great deal of effort on documenting the fictional universes found within pop culture; such content is far better suited for special purpose projects. With respect to Buffy, that means that perhaps a discussion on how the name "Xander" has pervaded popular culture is in order, but there is no encyclopedic purpose to a detailed chronology of the fictitious Buffyverse. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the definition of original research, which refers to material that is inherently unverifiable (i.e., "cannot be attributed to a reliable source"). -- Black Falcon 05:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Show me the reliable source, then. If there isn't one, then it's original research. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - A lack of sources is not proof of original research. Original research is something that we as editors have made up ourselves and requires that information is inherently unverifiable. For instance, a claim of membership in a truly secret organisation is original research. An unsourced claim that Tony Blair is the PM of the United Kingdom is not OR. Despite that, a number of references are provided here. Moreover, the information could be sourced using primary sources (e.g., "The WB Buffy promo, "History of the Slayer", states specific dates"). The article may have issues of verifiability, but it does not meet the criteria for original research. I hope this clarifies my initial response. Cheers, Black Falcon 06:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- definitively original research. It would be nice if this was published in a reliable source, so that our articles on the television series could reference it. Jkelly 07:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I disagree that this is original research. Almost all the entries in the list are verifiable, and the article is not using the collected information to advance an original opinion or original analysis. All its doing is indexing the information in chronological order. Far as I can tell there is no overall original analysis or interpretation or opinions implied by the article, and thus it is not original research (see WP:NOR#What is original research? for a definition that explains the difference between original research and simply being unsourced.)Dugwiki 16:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - As someone who has spent a deal of time pondering over Wikipedia:Attribution, I'm not convinced there is a shred of actual genuine "original research" in this article, it just needs citing. There will be plenty of sources to reveal why it has been organised the way it has. There is absolutely no good enough reason to delete all this work. -- Buffyverse 00:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 22:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demir Karaca[edit]

The subject is not notable per WP:NN, and sources provided are either not in English, cannot be verified, or are simple search engine listings. It is difficult to tell whether this person is truly notable, or whether the article is simply created by a fan, colleague or employee of Demir Karaca for promotional purposes. The text tends to imply the latter. I will add that this is not a rock-solid nomination -- if editors other than the original author could provide some additional proof of the subject's notability, I'd be inclined to change my mind. Realkyhick 05:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as I can make out the claim to notability seems to be dating a star (in which case merge any relevant info to her article), rich (not enough by itself), businessman (doesn't seem to really qualify), court case with government (again not quite sufficient), sportsman (again not up to the notable benchmark). Tyrenius 05:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity aricle. Most of the edits were made my CriticColumn whose contributions are mostly relegated to this article. --Ozgod 06:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced to confirm notability. Probably a WP:COI, probably fails WP:N. Also, the first image has one of my favorite fair use rationales ever. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 06:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:N, WP:COI. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 08:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to The Transformers: The Movie. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 11:03Z

An article about a single throwaway line from a movie. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:02, 1 March 2007

Delete Unless it can be proven, referenced and demonstrated any effect this has had on popular culture. --Ozgod 06:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Warcraft III is not a reliable source -- though this does explain a mystery.... --N Shar (talk • contribs) 06:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator is incorrect in three respects:
- It is not a "single... line" but used several times in the movie (The Transformers: The Movie).
- It is not a "throwaway line" but is a movie joke that comes back to the main characters.
- It is also not a "throwaway line" because it has had huge impact on the Transformers community, on a par with a major (though not leading) character, e.g. like Jetfire. Robinson weijman 07:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if Robinson weijman is correct with his comments, I still don't think it's a notable subject worty of it's own article. Jules1975 09:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Same can be send of many Transformer related articles, and many other science-fiction articles and for that matter fictional items in general... I really don't know where the line is drawn in Wikipedia, but for consistency I think this should be kept. Please also note that, based on the above comment, the reason for deletion appears to be changing. Robinson weijman 10:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it cannot. The line is drawn at prohibiting original research. Many science fiction topics have already been written about outside of Wikipedia in books, articles, and papers about science fiction. To make a case for having an article on this aspect of a fictional universe, you must provide sources that demonstrate that writing about it is not original *research. Where are the books, papers, journal articles, or other published works outside of Wikipedia that have analysed this greeting, its spellings (in the games and by fans) and its occurrences? Analyses of the greeting performed directly by Wikipedia editors and published first in Wikipedia are original research, which is forbidden here. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G 12:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've added two sources. Robinson weijman 13:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable and unsourced. Perhaps Merge a cut down version into an existing Transformers article. --RazorICE talk C @ 11:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either The Transformers: The Movie page or possibly greeting habits. FrozenPurpleCube 19:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Transformers: The Movie, as I don't think this gag's groundbreaking influence is going to be sourced. SubSeven 00:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please recheck article and comment above... I have added sources. Robinson weijman 08:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The IMDb link confirms that the quote exists but not that it is siginifcant in any way. The everything2 link also does no such thing, not that it could be considered a reliable source anyway. It's a wide open system just like Wikipedia, except with even fewer checks and balances.. SubSeven 08:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. Ezratrumpet 04:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is not worth the merge, and the redirect would be misleading. --Bejnar 04:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'KEEP or MERGE. it doesnt warrant deletion, but i can see merging it with the article for the movie itself and creating a redirect, but if people ARE looking it up, it obviously should be left in some sense--Unicron0827 23:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:46Z

Weirdo (speech)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I cannot see any future for this page to expand into an encyclopedia article. The word "weirdo" is already included at Wiktionary. ~CS 06:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. ~CS 06:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WINAD unless someone can address the following concern (in which case WP:WINAD becomes inapplicable): I do not see how this could be made into an encyclopedic article. Any article would inherently be about the word itself. I would be more than happy to be proven wrong with an example of how it could be encyclopedic. -- Black Falcon 06:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Realkyhick 06:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. Robinson weijman 07:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 08:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a dictionary. —Ocatecir ^Talk 11:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ObtuseAngle 16:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I created this article, and now I agree with the nomination. Aurora north 11:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favour of Wiktionary. --Slgr a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 21:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Religion in Romania. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:48Z

Romania missionaries[edit]

The article contains very little useful content, and the content that exists does not meet NPOV. More importantly, I fail to see what the purpose of this article is: what exactly does it mean by "Romania missionaries"? Ronline ✉ 06:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ronline ✉ 06:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see the point, either. No context. Realkyhick 06:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (who really didn't need to add a "vote" after nominating the article for deletion). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically, this is spam for the organizations involved. Probably spam for worthy causes, but still spam. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 06:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing but spam. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 08:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no need for mission spam, thank you Alf^Photoman 14:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - unencyclopedic spam by foreign groups that seek to undermine Romania's Orthodox character. Biruitorul 08:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletions. --Slgr a n d s o n (page - messages - contribs) 21:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. So close it already. --Bejnar 04:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tawker. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Asian NHL players[edit]

List is not particularly useful, and is the only list for NHL players regarding race (ie. there are no lists for black NHL players). Also, many of these are not verified, and are "Asian" judged by looks or surnames (the articles themselves don't give sources or even indications of race).

A similar deletion request was posted the other day, for a category for Asian NHL players (see here). -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This seems to have been deleted already. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 06:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 11:01Z

Dandelion_Junk_Queens[edit]

No reasonable notion of notability. Only attempt to establish notability is a list of tours with two bands who do not have wikipedia pages themselves (presumably also non-notable acts). Top 4 google responces are myspace page, wikipedia entry, and 2 flicker accounts. Tomb Ride ^{My Talk} 06:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete for not being notable, however if a better source is provided I may change my mind. --RazorICE talk C @ 12:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless links to non-trivial third party articles concerning the band are added before the end of this debate. A1octopus 14:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the band definitely meets the requirement here: "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in reliable sources." by doing TWO tours of the US (and one of the West Coast of the US), as well as touring New Zealand and Australia (though I know the article does not YET mention the last two). As well, the article lists two independent write ups of the band that are not press releases or anything like that. pointing out that the first four google hits are a myspace, wiki entry, and flickr accounts seems irrellevant to me. of the 2,240 hits that come up, of COURSE the first ones are going to be a wiki entry (most of the google searches i do list a wiki entry first), and a bands own page, as google lists by relevancy, and by having a bands page linked from other pages it automatically jumps up in "relevancy" in google searches. as well, i'd like to know what makes an article's source "non-trivial". i'd ask A1octopus to define that in a NPOV way. Murderbike 22:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to note that this user is the creator and sole editor of the page in question.Tomb Ride ^{My Talk} 01:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McElroy Gang[edit]

Non-notable, no good sources that I found, and I believe already recreated after being speedy deleted. - Denny 07:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Speedy if possible, can't imagine why you didn't just do that...Someguy1221 07:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is a formal statement to Wikipedia from the McElroy Gang organization:

The problem is that I keep trying to update the page with more credible sources, yet while I'm editing the page with more credible sources, the Wikipedia officials keep deleting it. I fail to see how allowing this page to exist in its draft states is detrimental to the overall credibility of Wikipedia. I have listed in the talk pages several times that the organization is continuing to work on making the article more reliable. Moreover, if the article as as inconsequential as the editors insinuate, then it is unlikely that the article will be seriously referenced until the article is complete. The McElroy Gang organization firmly believes that Wikipedia is an amazing and innovative breakthrough in the way knowledge is shared and as of right now, the organization also believes that this editing and drafting process is fulfilling the purpose of Wikipedia by facilitating an environment for the members of the organization to share information that can later be referenced to the public. That being said, I would like to ask the Wikipedia organizations officials to please bear with us during this drafting process.

VMacisBack 07:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blessed by a broken heart[edit]

Article on a band; no assertion of notability. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 07:58Z

Delete, WP:BAND. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 08:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as both sources cited are to the band's own Myspace and Purevolume pages and thus fail WP:BAND; no notability or reviews, no information on US Sales, and have not won any major awards. --RazorICE talk C @ 11:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They're a nottible band, they've been published in Metal Hammer in the UK. They've released two albums as of this year. Just because i don't know the sales in the US doesn't mean the band isn't nottible.Scubster 20:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Above user is page creator. EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They've just been signed by Century Media Records, which seems fairly notable in the Christian music publishing regime, but most of the coverage that I can find consists of a reprinted press release. Which, incidentally, is what most of this article is - it appears to be copy-and-pastes of an All Music Guide bit and the Century Media press release. Delete and rewrite from scratch when they've got more independent coverage. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough for WP:BAND yet. May be so in future but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A1octopus 22:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, they've got some released albums and a google search turns up quite a few potential sources. This article needs a serious rewrite, though, right now it's borerline speedy for advertising--UsaSatsui 12:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They're a very nottible band and I have seen them play good band.Somethinghadtodie 16:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Above user is new account that oddly spells "Notable" the same way as the page creator (see above). Film at 11 tonight is "One of my socks is missing". EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a sock, and I was able to find these easily: [17], [18], [19], [20]. Whether they're WP:RS is up for someone else to argue, but they're more than the average no-name garage band. --UsaSatsui 23:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is one of those where a band is heading towards notability but isn't quite there yet. As you said above, the article needs a rewrite too - I'd be quite happy to be convinced by that. EliminatorJR ^Talk 11:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced - myspace and purevolume doesn't cut it I'm afraid. EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so basically what you're saying is if a band doesn't have a .com, .org, .net...ect site they're not a notable band. so, if a band doesn't have a website behond a myspace and purevolume that automatically makes them not notable?? THAT IS BULLSHIT.Scubster 05:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, it doesn't mean that, but if you read WP:BAND you'll see that Wikipedia needs secondary, not primary sources for notability. Now, UsaSatsui has pointed you towards some in his above posting, so why not update your article with some of those and rewrite it so it reads less like advertising, and perhaps some of the Delete votes will change to Keep. EliminatorJR ^Talk 11:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, I don't know why I try. It's apparent that some people think that Wikipeida is just some webhost that puts up any old crap people care to type in, and that you can establish that something is "nottible" by just repeating some drivel about how it's "bullshit" and that "just because we haven't heard of it" and how everyone's out to get you because your two-bit band IS SO worthy, and they don't even bother to read the policies that would prove notability and get the article kept. Instead, they shout, and shout, and shout, and think that will guilt people into giving in or something. I went out of my way to help provide the information that could get this article kept, and the result? Whine, whine, shout, shout, bullshit. Doesn't exactly encourage people to keep being friendly. Listen, Scubster (for the record, sign your posts), there's rules around here. Play by the rules, or at least pretend you want to, and I'll bend over backwards to help you...I'm sure 90% of Wikipedia would. Continue to be a jerk, and I know I'm not going to bother anymore. --UsaSatsui 18:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well the thing is everyone around here thinks they're right about every dumb little trivial thing. I have nothing to do with this band and I think people should be more informed about them.....Scubster 05:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good faith? :( --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 10:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the option to be reposted when meets the requirements. The album on independent Blood & Ink Records, the article in Metalhammer and the signing by Century Media Records indicate that they're on their way, but not quite Wikipedia-ready. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 10:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Tommy and Oscar. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 11:00Z

Max Alessandrini[edit]

Questionable Notability Rothko65 08:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, until reliable sources are cited. The article currently fails to meet WP:BIO criteria, if the problems are solved then I will reconsider my decision. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 08:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails to show the subject is notable. janejellyroll 09:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of comics or animation-related deletions. -- Eastmain 02:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being the creator of a program shown on network television (as confirmed by a page on the network's web site) strongly suggests that the person is notable. He's not listed on IMDb.com, though. --Eastmain 02:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletions. -- Eastmain 02:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Proto. SYSS Mouse 14:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Aliens Hidden in South Park[edit]

Pointless page. The editor give the rationale that they are as important as Kenny but at least Kenny is a character. The aliens are just an easter egg. This seems to just be a way to link to the two sites and to display numerous pictures with no fair use rationales. The way this article seems to be going, the user is going to add more pictures until the user shows every single alien shown. Sure there is a way to make this a good article but it is hardly notable and frankly little more than cruft. Gdo01 08:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out through the logs that this has been deleted before (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of aliens hidden in South Park). I change my rationale to speedy delete by WP:CSD#G4 (reposting of deleted material). Gdo01 08:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial list. Improper use of fair-use images. No sources (aside from screenshots) stating that the appearance of "alines" in the background, and nothing saying that this is something important to the series. -- saberwyn 09:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per above and being listcruft/fancruft, as well as being non-notable and for use of copyrighted images with no rationale. Page has also been recreated twice after deletion. --RazorICE talk C @ 11:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Bunk bed. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:49Z

Loft beds[edit]

This article is almost entirely the work of a manufacturer of these beds, and the images are uploaded by her from her website. It reads like an infomercial. Guy (Help!) 08:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REPLY FROM AUTHOR: Actually, the two beds pictured are from different manufacturers, and there is no way for somebody to click over to any particular retail site based on this listing. Due to that, I think your fears that this is an infomercial designed to bring the author traffic are unwarranted. I have received zero traffic from wikipedia, nor do I expect to.

Merge the relevant bits into the bunk bed article. Jules1975 09:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with bunk bed, ignoring the information at the bottom of the article ("...you should make sure that the beds meet the ASTM Safety Standards..."). --RazorICE talk C @ 12:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filmfare Best Actress Award (Tamil)[edit]

... and 16 other similar lists that can be found on Filmfare Awards South :

Contested prod (the article got deleted and was recreated). Filmfare Awards South has a list of similar lists, some were deleted and some weren't. Weak Delete per lack of sources. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Listing the other articles of this festival. Some of them are either contested prods or recreations too. It seems fair to do the same treatment to all the lists. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I am not sure what is meant by the "lack of sources" for such a list, when the individual articles exist for almost all the individuals and films. DGG 03:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lack of sources is not an appropriate reason for deletion, esp. when notability is clear -- the articles weren't tagged with appropriate templates before the nomination. Sources are easy to find for this with little help from Google ([21][22] etc.) utcursch | talk 14:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just to clarify, some of the lists of this festival were prodded, speedied at creation as non notable or deleted by administrators as being unsourced. I am looking for having a debate about the notability of these articles, instead of having endless recreation of them after the deletion. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are articles on the Oscars, Emmies, Grammies and so on, so why shouldn't there be articles on these Indian awards? (I hope there are Indian wikipedians willing to improve the articles.) Pharamond 16:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, it is useful to have a reference on film awards that don't happen in Hollywood, on the other hand the total lack of secondary sources makes it questionable if these are notable even in their own country. I would prod them all as unsourced and if not sourced by next month delete and salt Alf^Photoman 17:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell ^talk 09:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The way to dispute a Prod is simply to remove the tag from the article (and preferably to add sources etc as you do so), not to cart the article into an AfD situation. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yves Pouliquen[edit]

Another user, User:Jreferee, proposed that this article should be deleted according to the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion guideline, bacause the person supposedly "does not meet Wikipedia:Notability". I disagree strongly. This is a member of the Académie française. Every member of the French Academy is notable; that is so obvious that I would never have thought it would need to be stated. I can't imagine why somebody would claim otherwise.

Looking at the contributions of User:Jreferee, it turns out that the same user has also added "proposed deletion" tags to a large number of other biographies of people who appear to meet any reasonable interpretation of the term "notability", including a winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Poetry (Yusef Komunyakaa), and several winners of Olympic medals (Yves Mankel, Yuriy Krymarenko, Yuriy Melnichenko and others).

It appears to me that User:Jreferee has simply tagged articles with titles beginning with the letter Y more or less at random. Some of these are not great articles, perhaps, but it does not seem reasonable to me to use "notability" as an excuse to delete articles which are simply incomplete or undeveloped. Pharamond 08:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I would have just removed the prod and left it at that. Jreferee is nominating articles willy nilly. JuJube 10:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close per nominator. (never thought I'd say that). Re Jreferee, I earlier followed through his log and de-prodded up some of the more obvious ones (medalists, pro soccer players, smithsonian artists), but, several remained that I didn't know enough about. Neier 12:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic for Yves Pouliquen has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other. The topic fails WP:NOTABILITY. Pouliquen himself might have fame or importance, but WP:NOTABILITY requires that to be set out in published works. This article has been around since April 11, 2006 - almost one year. In that time, the article material has not been attributed to a reliable published source. In response to the {{prod}}, the PROD was removed and the remover of the PROD also posted this AfD instead of improving the article. Given this long passage of time and the recent failure to improve the article to address the WP:NOTABILITY concerns given as a reason for the proposed deletion as suggested by WP:PROD, it is unlikely that there is sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about the topic. The topic fails WP:NOTABILITY and should be deleted. -- Jreferee 15:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Keep per published source comments below. -- Jreferee 03:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, to claim that a member of Acc. Francaise is not notable beats worst fears about Wiki editors, on the other hand, this article is abysmally sourced so it should be tagged as such Alf^Photoman 17:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is this a speedy close as it has been nominated to be kept? Or is the nominator questioning whether the prod has some validity? If you dispute a prod, the prodder should be the one with the responsibility to escalate. --Dhartung | Talk 22:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing your comment, Dhartung, and others on this AfD, I think this AfD may have been posted to make a WP:point about the PROD that I posted on the article. I'm sorry that this matter took up everybody's time and apologize for my contribution in it. As always, I am happy to discuss any matter either on my talk page or via email. -- Jreferee 03:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 22:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No offense to User:Jreferee, but I find it almost absurd to claim that a member of Acc. Francaise is not notable (unless we assume no knowledge about what Acc. Francaise is). Sure, maybe there are few English-language sources about him, but there are sure to be plenty of French sources. This is a case of the article being insufficiently verified, rather than the subject being non-notable. Please do not confuse the two. I have added three sources to the article to address issues of WP:ATT. I have also included this in the list of French-related deletions in the hope that someone who speaks French can contribute sources to the article. -- Black Falcon 22:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Common sense suggests that a member of the Académie française would be the subject of multiple published works, and indeed a quick Google search finds his biography at the Académie's website and an article in Le Figaro. He has also been in a biographical documentary. It's not surprising that articles about people who have mostly been written about in languages other than English take longer to source than others, but that's not a valid reason for deletion. —Cel ithemis 23:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article not being expanded or updated for a long time does not make it a prod candidate. Académie française member is notable. STTW (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 03:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dunlop Cry Baby[edit]

Prodded as lacking independent sources to demonstrate notability. De-prodded as "useful". None of the links cited in the article are independent and reliable all are to the company or sellers. A google search reveals nothing else. Even if cited, I don't think a mere list of notable users shows that a particular product is notable. Eluchil404 09:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's an extremely notable piece of equipment in the history of Rock and Roll, and still used to this day. Here's an article. wah-wah FaAfA (yap) 10:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment related AfD for parent company is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dunlop Manufacturing. Eluchil404 12:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it's the best-selling guitar effects pedal of all time, that makes it notable enough for Wikipedia. It certainly looks more notable than the BOSS DD-6, for example. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 02:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found this article useful, and would like to give the opportunity to be expanded. The link to the "mods" page was particularly useful, taking me to info I didn't get after about 15 minutes of Google search! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.58.21.24 (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep. The article needs cleanup and TLC, but it is certainly a notable piece of equipment that is extremely famous among musicians. Vassyana 08:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Child safety seat. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:50Z

Car seat safety[edit]

Prod contested without explanation or improvement. A User Guide on the law and use of child seats in New Zealand. The final line of 'This article was produced by New Zealand Child Restraints – www.childrestraints.co.nz & many more links on site.' implies spam. Nuttah68 09:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge paraphrased into Child safety seat (which has a link to this AfD article for the NZ section). Flyguy649^talk_contribs 17:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A set of instructions which rather bizarrely seems to assume that car seats are only used in New Zealand. Completely non-encyclopaedic and would require too much of a rewrite to be useful. -- Necrothesp 18:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a manual and this is not a logical redirect. --Dhartung | Talk 21:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- this article seems quite specific to New Zealand regulations and addresses the topic in an instructional manner, instead of in an encyclopedic manner. The article where this information really would belong, Child safety seat, could probably use substantial rewriting too. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 01:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopaedic. --Concordia 02:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nor can it be made encyclopedic. Any useful material is already in Child safety seat, which no longer links here. --Bejnar 04:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to child safety seat. --Candy-Panda 08:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 10:59Z

CHIC '91[edit]

nn youth conference. Lacks sources and fails WP:N. This, and other articles, were tagged for speedy deletion, but the tags were removed--without explanation--by an IP editor. janejellyroll 09:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are articles for the same conference for different years, equally nn:

Delete all per nom. No notability shown; parent org has no article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Legion of Frontiersmen. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:51Z

Australian Medal of Merit[edit]

Non-notable. An in house medal given by an obscure private organization for attending meetings. Name suggests it's from the government, but it's not. Bobanny 09:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ or Merge into Legion of Frontiersmen, as per nom. Changed my decision as per Maustrauser's vote below. --RazorICE talk C @ 11:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created the article, in response to several biographies on WP that claim that the biographee, see Glen Dettman for example, were awarded this medal. It was claimed to be some great achievement when it is a non-notable bit of metal. I'm inclined to think that it should remain because it informs people that it isn't a Government medal, as its name implies. If it is deleted, it will reduce the ability of people looking at biographies where the medal is claimed to understand the medal's true character. Maustrauser 11:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cman 16:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is probably better unless more can be said (and sourced). --Dhartung | Talk 21:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The medal itself doesn't seem to be particularly notable, but (if only to address the issue of it being mentioned in multiple biographies) a merge, redirect to Legion of Frontiersmen seems appropriate. If it is not even notable to the LoF article, the content can be removed in the future by editors. -- Black Falcon 23:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect, as above. Mystache 00:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. --Bduke 00:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. TonyTheTiger 01:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I'm fine with merging and redirecting to the LoF article, although in the short-term, it might feed the shell-shocked trolls. There's a thread on a web forum for British soldiers upset that the Legion of Frontiersmen have been trying to steal their thunder with fake medals and such, and some of them have been slagging and vandalizing Wikipedia as part of a campaign. One person has registered and has been engaging constructively on the talk page, and hopefully others will follow suit. Bobanny 00:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. It isn't an official medal or honour but worth mentioning in the Legion of Frontiersmen. Capitalistroadster 01:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to be boring. The Legion of Frontiersman and the Legion of Frontiersman (Australian Command) whilst 'born' from the same organization, appear to operate independently and therefore a merge or redirection may not be appropriate. Given this, I think the original article should remain.Maustrauser 06:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun revising the article, and it'll cover the whole shebang. There hasn't been a unified LoF movement since WWI, and there are only splinter groups scattered throughout the Commonwealth that individually are small and non-notable, IMO. They all lay claim to the same history, which will be the focus of the article. If articles on individual factions do get written, they should be daughter articles of this main one (currently, it's the only LoF article). Bobanny 05:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, privately issued medal of dubious notability - normally I'd vote delete, but this is worth a redirect for the reason that Maustrauser outlines above. Lankiveil 11:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Buildings at the University of Kentucky. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 10:57Z

Greg Page Apartments (University of Kentucky)[edit]

Prod contested without a reason being given or any improvements. A university residence with no notability claimed or sources provided. Nuttah68 09:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable student residence. Jules1975 09:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reason whatsoever why an apartment building should be notable without good reason. -- Necrothesp 18:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I am the creator of the article and I had originally hoped to find more information about this. I'll merge it with Buildings at the University of Kentucky under a Trivia heading, and include basic information regarding this University of Kentucky structure. If it is voted upon deletion, please do not delete until I can merge them over (give me two days). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Article has been merged. This entry may now be deleted. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the long term, this item should (and will, I believe) be restored to its own article. Greg Page Apartments are among the more notable buildings at UK for various reasons (the last residence facility built for 26 years, the continuous problems due to shoddy construction, the only undergraduate apartments, the location adjacent to the Arboretum & Commonwealth Stadium, etc.), but given the brevity of the current article, merge is acceptable for the time being. Cmadler 21:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Daniel Bryant 06:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian comedians on television[edit]

Unmaintainable article and original research Delete Steve _(Slf67)^talk 02:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm pretty sure this is exactly what the "category" system was designed for. --Haemo 03:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete eyesore of an article. What is the point of a giant table demonstrating nothing more than "X-actor appeared on Y-show"? Wavy G 03:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Steve _(Slf67)^talk 03:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Violates Wikipedia rule of notability and my personal rule of being badly written. L uis¹⁹⁷² (Talk • My Contribs) 06:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the original creator of this page, I say delete. I created this page when I was very new to the project. The point of it was to demonstrate the considerable overlap of many comedic actors and shows in Australia, and how a very small number of people have been responsible for most of the quality comedy to come out of Australia in the last 15 years or so. But after being here for three years.. yeah, it's not really suitable, is it? I disagree about the notability comment though - every single show and person linked on this page will demonstrate that. -- Chuq 06:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I quite like the page as it links comedy shows and comedians together in a useful way. It has a few maintenance issues (which shows and artists are worth including to demonstrate the theme) but I dont consider it OR. John Vandenberg 07:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No, not original research (that was a poor choice for a nomination reason, I think), but, speaking for myself, I can't make any sense of it, as it is now. I can't see how this topic is the least bit encyclopedic either. An awkward table of comedians and the shows they appeared on? Please explain the significance of this, if possible. Wavy G 08:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lists of people without explicit objective membership criteria. Lists are useful if membership of the list implies notability, and red links can show missing articles in Wikipedia. Is this a useful matrix to keep in some project space? --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbitrary original research, and unwieldy too boot.-- danntm ^T _C 15:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not claimed as a list, but essentially WP:LC. dcandeto 16:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Categories are best served for that purpose. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 13:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems more like a Category than an actual article--Cometstyles 15:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as agreed to by the original creator. Possibly could be a useful category. Capitalistroadster 01:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- created in good faith but no longer fits the goals of the encyclopedia. - Longhair\^talk 11:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete would be better (although still deletable) if it didn't straightjacket itself into a subset of comedy shows. Also, reasons outlined above. Lankiveil 11:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:52Z

Danny Govedar[edit]

Non-notable person; no news sources found about him. Also nominating:

Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know if thiss is where to put it, buy i don't think that the article Danny Govedar, DX Films, EHW, and SMog Town Boys should be deleted. Danny, owner/founder has asked for my help to put his film company up. He has already filmed several bands, ect, and i feel that if you are to remove DX Films, why don't you remove Paramount, or steven speilburg, they're just a movie company and a movie director. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hyscule (talk • contribs) 02:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment The previous !vote was copied verbatim from my talk page here. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Paramount and Steven Spielberg are different because they satisfy the notability guidelines; we have multiple independent sources that have devoted entire articles to them (and probably entire books, as well). I can't possibly see how we'd find any for DX Films or Danny Govedar. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all No reliable, independent sources found. -SpuriousQ (talk) 02:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Elementary school kid who supposedly makes films but doesn't have an IMDB entry, my bare-minimum criterion for filmmakers. Comparison to Steven Spielberg is simply absurd. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Starblind. L uis¹⁹⁷² (Talk • My Contribs) 06:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and salt for all reasons already mentioned and the high likelihood of re-creation. A1octopus 10:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think protects are done preemptively. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 15:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all Clearly non-notable. dcandeto 16:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all No reliable, independent, sources on any of them. SkierRMH 19:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all unless reliable sources can be found to demonstrate this is not a non notable enterprise. Nuttah68 15:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Starblind, lacks sources to establish notability.-- danntm ^T _C 23:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - nothing notable here. It was painful just seeing how little there really was. --Bejnar 04:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Dunkin' Donuts. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:53Z

Fritalian[edit]

This page has been nominated for Deletion by anonymous contributor 76.179.203.138 without further explanation. --Tikiwont 16:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This page DOES NOT deserve to be deleted. It is a legitimate explanation of Dunkin Donut's new advertising campaign!Yeyewa 02:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It may be a legitimate explanation but that does not equate to a reason to create an article for it. A fake language invented for an ad campaign that has no existence beyond said ad campaign is not encyclopedic. Arkyan 16:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I addeded some references and copyediting. However, it needs to be clarified what the topic of the article is. About the imaginary language there is relatively little to write and I doubt that the term has even been invented by this campaign. Because of a rather widespread reception in blogs and groups, this may rather become an article about an advertising campaign, if someone sees a notable case. Meanwhile I will have a latte macchiato and a wikibreak. --Tikiwont 18:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I knew that my caffeine level was rather low;) Merge into Dunkin' Donuts, which would then actually receieve its first external references.--Tikiwont 09:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good grief. An imaginary word invented for an advertising campaign deserves its own article? I don't think so. -- Necrothesp 18:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Dunkin' Donuts page has a legitimate section for such content; an article for a segment of one advertisement campaign isn't justifiable. Whilding87 19:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dunkin' Donuts. The sources do not seem to justify the existence of a separate article, but it does deserve a note in the company article. -- Black Falcon 23:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of places of interest in Kent[edit]

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Croxley 02:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. --Wafulz 03:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nominator. L uis¹⁹⁷² (Talk • My Contribs) 06:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - who defines them as interesting? One man's interesting is anothers boredom. Ben W Bell talk 08:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbitrary and travel guide.-- danntm ^T _C 15:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:LC; List of boring places in Kent. dcandeto 16:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move I agree with the comment "Wikipedia is not a travel guide" however the page does not break the guidelines set in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information where it talks about Paris should mention the Eiffel Tower but not the phone number. The List of places of interest in Kent page was created following advice from Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography in an attempt to improve the Kent article (see Talk:Kent). The information could be put back into the Kent article rather than this page, or the page could be moved to List of tourist attractions in Kent. Just because you may find something 'boring' does not make it unworthy. - Olive Oil -_ŢάĽɮ - 19:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Might need some cleanup but otherwise reasonable. This is consistent with Wikipedia:Summary style avoiding making the Kent article too long. --Polaron | Talk 15:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an arbitrary list of things that range from locations to shopping complexes to sports clubs. Wikipedia is not a directory. Nuttah68 15:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - It was done as part of a clean up of the Kent article. Yes WP is not a directory, etc. How do you all suggest the editors at the Kent article and the relatively new Wikiproject Kent either clean up or merge back this article to make this a suitable page/bit of information. Pickle 17:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far too arbitrary and POV and could never be anything else. -- Necrothesp 18:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above (maybe rename list of tourist attractions in Kent or something similar. "places of interest" is open to pov I guess, whereas tourist attractions are.......tourist attractions whether or not I would find them of interest.) Jcuk 20:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the list is not just tourist attractions though. That randomness is part of the problem. It is a list where peolple have added what interests them. Nuttah68 21:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak move to List of tourist attractions in Kent as a couple of others have suggested above, and remove things can't justifiably be listed in it. By way of precedent, there are such articles: List of tourist attractions in Amsterdam is a good example of how such an article can exist.--A bit iffy 08:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There already exist several such articles , see

Places of interest in Bermuda, Places of interest in Bursa, Places of interest in Ernakulam district, Places of interest in Kasaragod district, Places of interest in Kolkata, Places of interest in and around Ernakulam, Places of interest in the Death Valley area, Places of interest in the Death and Panamint valleys area. They are not tourist guides they list the places which have geographic or cultural significance. Lumos3 22:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Should this article be worked on now? or is it best to wait until a decision has been made, to avoid wasted effort? - Olive Oil -_ŢάĽɮ - 06:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia isn't a directory. Besides, who decides what is and what isn't. Those articles listed by Lumos3 should probably all be deleted as well.-- Carabinieri 15:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The result was delete. The keep arguments do not address the fact that this article has no assertion of notability, which would technically make it a speedy deletion candidate. --Core desat 22:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terabithia (band)[edit]

1st AfD

I would like to nominate this article for deletion. I was one of the members of this band and the person who created it was not in the band. It's my feeling he only created it to promote himself as "producer," which I've already deleted. The previous arguments for keeping the article online are laughable at best. True, we did receive a number of 3rd party reviews and a spot on the CMJ Charts for a couple of weeks, the importance of the band is trivial to anyone outside the band's inner circle, which did not include the aforementioned "producer." Most of the good stuff we recorded was right before we broke up as a 4 piece, something this article doesn't even mention. Please delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evertonpalmer (talk • contribs) 2007/02/28 21:21:35

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - By the way, the edits bolstering the producer/production weren't part of the original article. --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination and lack of external sources. Also given the one-line nature of the article, Wikipedia will not be any the poorer without it. A1octopus 19:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient notability for Wikipedia. I've added a few more refs and will try to incorporate some more information into the article. While they didn't make much of a dent in the indie rock scene, to be sure, people do still remember the band (like me). --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - the Allmusic review reads ...begins interestingly enough, but a few short moments later, it devolves into sadly conventional indie rock -- the big chords, big melodies, and big dynamics are all there and handled competently, but there's not enough content behind them to attract a great deal of notice. File with the vast number of indie bands who sounded tolerably good during the mid-'90s, but can't hope to stand any test of time. Perhaps there are some better sources available? --Debsuls 01:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You might be the only person who remembered us as a band. While I'm interested as to how you know about us, anyone who does remember us doesn't need Wikipedia to remind them. If they know, they know. Besides, the lack of any kind of real information available makes this entry even more questionable. Delete. --Evertonpalmer
Keep. I created the original article because I wanted to learn more about the band whose CD I picked up in an open-air market in Union Square ten years ago. I still think the reasons for keeping this article the first time around continue to apply. I don't believe that a little vandalism is grounds for deleting an article that would otherwise stand. If this article is missing important information about the history of the band, the proper response is to add that information, not to delete the article. skoosh (háblame) 01:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you want to know more about the band, email me and I'll tell you all you would ever want to know. [email protected] --Evertonpalmer

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:53Z

The Legend of Dagad Trikon[edit]

The article is a masked commercial advertising promoting sales of the author's book Santabarba 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Sfacets 02:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - There's nothing much in the article. No 3rd-party reviews are cited, so it does not appear notable. Hundreds of thousands of books are published every year, so merely being published isn't a sufficient sign of notability. See Wikipedia:Notability (books). It doesn't com close to meeting that standard. -Will Beback · † · 02:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ordinarily I would say "userfy" as well (i.e. copy to creator's sandbox as a work in progress) but it hasn't been updated since it's creation 8 months ago. -Markeer 14:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified underdeveloped article on a book.-- danntm ^T _C 23:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends merchandise. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:54Z

Thomas & Friends: A Day at the Races[edit]

Non-notable. One-line article that reads like an advert. Croxley 02:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tag as Stub see if it's improved. Many video game articles are stubs, but I don't see that this one should be deleted merely because it is one. FrozenPurpleCube 04:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Thomas & Friends (computer games) - which isn't a particularly good article either, but might improve.Mdcollins1984 11:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as per Mdcollins1984 -- EdJogg 12:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete; there's essentially nothing unique to this article except its title. dcandeto 16:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge' as per Mdcollins. Intinn^Talk! 10:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MERGED. Article has been combined with Thomas & Friends (computer games) and merged to Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends merchandise, pending mass-deletion of merchandising sub-articles. EdJogg 15:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:55Z

Kerrying[edit]

Non-Notable Neologism. Delete FaAfA (yap) 10:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nomination. This manages to be a neologism and out of date! Jules1975 10:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Googling Kerrying yields a bunch of unrelated results, so there's no evidence that this is a well-accepted definition of the term. ObtuseAngle 18:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, childish turnabout on "swift-boating" that gained no notoriety. --Dhartung | Talk 21:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 08:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:56Z

Jijo Raju[edit]

Such a minister doesnot exsit. See http://india.gov.in/govt/cabinet.php Gigu 10:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom. Also see: http://cabsec.nic.in/coumin.htm. Intinn^Talk! 10:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Flowerpotman 01:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 03:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emjae[edit]

Previously proposed for deletion with a second from another editor, article then was proposed for deletion in August without clear consensus. notability and references tags were placed in December and no notability claims have been added since then. Recommend deletion based on lack of notability. Warfieldian 10:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Doesn't seem to be notable (only one GNews hit, top Google hit is a MySpace page), but maybe the record labels with which he is affiliated are more significant than it first appears. Doesn't seem to be well-known nationally/internationally. ObtuseAngle 16:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless links to non trivial third party reviews of this artist and/or his work are added before the end of this AfD debate. A1octopus 19:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:58Z

Thomas Thurston[edit]

Hoax. Deprodded. Weregerbil 10:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced attributions about an evidently living person Alf^Photoman 14:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if real, not notable. --Dhartung | Talk 21:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete assuming this is real, still lacks any verificationor even claimed accomplishments which will allow the article to pass WP:BIO.-- danntm ^T _C 23:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence any of the claims are true. janejellyroll 01:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions/This user send to E-mail) 09:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously a hoax Stephenchou0722 16:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 22:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pump It Up Party Zone[edit]

Page consists entirely of advertisement, company is not notable Rahzel 20:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yep, advertisement and notability not asserted. --Pig^man_{Talk to me} 20:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Advertising material. Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as spam. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Pump It Up has an annual revenue of over $250 million dollars. The facts stated on the Pump It Up Party Zone page are informative and are not intended to be an advertisment for the company. The same information can be found on our home page. User:Borbafett 14:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've made some changes to this page which hopefully make the page less POV and read less like an advertisement. I think, though, that notability still needs to be established for this page to not be deleted. --Rahzel 19:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 10:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no citations and no links to any other Wikipedia entries, which to me is sufficient quantitative evidence that this page is useless. Qualitatively, it just doesn't feel notable either. --Adlaiff6 04:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Utah Film Critics Association Awards 2006[edit]

Delete - maybe I'm missing something but an award given by an "association" of 13 members doesn't strike me as particularly notable. Unable to find anything indicating that this is considered to be any sort of honor, let alone a major one. No sources found for which the award is the primary subject. When it is mentioned it's part of a laundry list of other similarly minor awards that studios mention in press releases and on the back of DVD boxes. Otto4711 20:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can this nomination be construed as including deletion of the infobox and navtemplate associated with the award or does that have to be done separately? Otto4711 20:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but I don't see which templates you're talking about -- were they deleted already? If not, please add them at the top using {{lt}}. Quarl ^(talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 10:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mentions of the Utah Film Critics Association awards can be found on a number of reputable sources, but as Otto4711 they are essentially all mentioned as parts of a list. No assertion of notability. Arkyan 20:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711. --Dhartung | Talk 21:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WAAV, Inc.[edit]

Non notable company. Link spam within the article itself, only edits of the author were to this article or to other articles in an attempt to link to this particular one. The article has held the notability tag for days, and not been touched. Delete, unless notability can be established. J Milburn 22:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just been notified of the request for deletion tag. I have added some of the articles in America that reference the company's products in major American newspapers and magazines. I hope this clears any of your concerns for notability. Thank you.

I know employees of this company personally. I know that they have some great products and they have many customers. They were featured in last Sunday's Boston Globe. Please read up on the american press this company has. 24.218.204.89 04:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not convinced that this company meets WP:CORP. Vegaswikian 07:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quick quote from the WP:CORP article: "...smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." Also: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, the source of which is both:

   * independent of the company, corporation, organization or group itself, or of the product's or service's manufacturer or vendor, and
   * reliable.

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as (for examples) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations..." In addition to being at the same location as Lotus 123 and Anderson Consulting first began - clearly the articles provided in the page do meet this criterion.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 18:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Its a well-documented article about an increasingly important sector. Now imporved sufficiently.DGG 04:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 10:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see enough individual references in the links provided for it to meet guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I implore you to check those sources. I do not feel strongly either way, but there is very limited mention in the sources provided. J Milburn 22:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relatively comfortable with the refs in the Boston Globe, Mass High Tech and CNN Money (which is short, but focused on the company) as indicating there's a reasonable amount of notability, personally. I could be wrong, of course. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep the current state of the article seems free of spam and reasonably sourced.DGG 22:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psst... DGG? *points upwards* You opined a keep up there. You might want to choose one. =) Tony Fox (arf!) 23:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Exploring the references, I'm a little sceptical of genuine notability, but on the other hand, I don't think it's worth deleting. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 06:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Schempp

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. --Core desat 22:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Life Extension: A Practical Scientific Approach[edit]

Not notable, no content, dicdef Rifleman 82 20:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as stub. This book is notable for helping to launch the life extensionist movement. Spacepotato 04:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - the assertion that it "popularised" the life extension movement would make it notable, but it's not backed up by third-party sources. Delete unless sources can be found by the end of this AfD. Walton monarchist89 17:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless multiple, independent third-party sources can be found (i.e. meeting the WP:ATT policy). My 20 minute web search didn't turn up any such sources, but maybe someone else will be more successful. -- MarcoTolo 22:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 11:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, or worst-case merge to Life extension. Very notable book, many substantial non-trivial reliable independent published works about the book itself, and countless on the movement of course. I expanded and added a number of news articles about the book. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 11:16Z
Keep assertion and citation of notability. -Markeer 14:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears notable... - Denny 14:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep dicdef?? huh? Keep per Quarl's sources. — brighterorange (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Life extension. Morphh ^(talk) 17:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge as per Morphh. How can this be considered a dicdef? The book is a precedent in itself anyway. Whilding87 19:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Somewhat notable book from the 1980s, published by major publisher, influential in the health-food sector. Dragomiloff 19:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J. Bernard Hogg[edit]

This article clearly does not meet the criteria for notability at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). If improvement is made and it meets one of the criteria, it could be saved I suppose. - Tim1965 16:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - may be notable, but there's no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to demonstrate notability per WP:BIO. Delete unless more sources are found by the end of this AfD. Walton monarchist89 17:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article. If the end result of this process is deletion, i request that the article be moved into my user space for future expansion and possible revival. Richard Myers 21:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 11:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, historically notable; I've expanded and added sources. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-01 11:27Z
Keep, shows promise and includes a source thanks to Quarl's update. --RazorICE talk C @ 11:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources added by Quarl Alf^Photoman 14:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient books and now sourced.DGG 03:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Admittedly a professor with some publication. The publications listed are a dissertation, one article from non-peer reviewed Pennsylvania History, one 41 page book on local church history, locally published, not widely held, see OCLC 16220230, and a 69 page book on a local organization, also locally published, and not widely held, see OCLC 78798582. I don't see how that makes him a notable academic. Aside from his obituary and the campus newspaper, no one has written about him. --Bejnar 05:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to asert notability. Only 1 ref. NBeale 15:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - this is one area where wikipedia can rise and flesh out the richness of history and heritage that gets lost otherwise. Seems to me more notable in many ways than many other biographical pages. Noability is subjective, I feel the sources mentioned are sufficient, even if localised cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 01:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am i allowed to vote, as the article's creator? Not sure. But if it is permitted, i vote: extra strong keep. ;-) Richard Myers 06:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per expansion and sourcing by User:Quarl. This is a valid stub article. -- Black Falcon 08:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 11:00Z

Patrick Altaie[edit]

I tagged this article with Template:Prod with the reason "No sources, no assertion of notability, Altaie is described with the weird term "conceptual mathematician", no publications in Mathematical Reviews." An IP editor removed the tag, so I'm bringing the article here.

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arsalan Ali below for a discussion on a related article which was created and de-prod-ed by the same editor. Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has the overpowering odour of hoax about it. --Folantin 15:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:ATT, completely unsourced. 9 ghits hardly gives any impression of notability, either. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nice try but i felt the pull on my leg on time Alf^Photoman 20:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't seem to find anything to substantiate this, nor can I find anything about his friend the famous physicist Arsalan Ali. Note that if this is deleted, this (and probably Arsalan Ali, too) will need to be removed from List of left-handed people, which they were added to recently. --Sopoforic 06:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. A "conceptual mathematician" is one who never existed in the real world, but only as a concept in some daydreamer's mind. DavidCBryant 12:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- David Eppstein 03:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 11:00Z

Arsalan Ali[edit]

I tagged this article with Template:Prod with the reason "No sources, the claim of discovering the theory of relativity before Einstein is outrageous, almost no other content." An IP editor removed the tag, so I'm bringing the article here.

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Altaie above for a discussion on a related article which was created and de-prod-ed by the same editor. Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - certainly asserts notability, but currently unsourced and unverified, and looks like it might be a hoax. Delete unless sources are found to verify the article's claims. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 13:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, no references and seems to cite people he only knows Alf^Photoman 14:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Big claims, no sources, no relevant Google hits that I can find. Smells remarkably hoaxy to me. --Folantin 15:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:ATT, completely unsourced. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A hoax. DavidCBryant 12:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- David Eppstein 03:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A hoax, indeed: "some sources maintain that Ali discovered the theory of relativity before Einstein" -- but the guy was born in 1903, whereas Einstein proposed the theory of Special relativity in 1905, and General relativity in 1915/16. Turgidson 04:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like hoax. Jahangard 05:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 22:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chipping Campden Morris Men[edit]

notability is not established. FisherQueen (Talk) 12:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article begins with a discussion of Chipping Campden which has its own entry anyway. That article also has a link to the group's website. I cannot see what notability the morris group has qualifying it for entry in Wikipedia and it is in my opinion amply recognised by the link from the Chipping Campden article. Tt 225 12:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails to establish notability at all. No reliable sources cited. Darkspots 12:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They appear to be trying to use Wikipedia as their webpage. Not notable. -- Necrothesp 18:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article as it stands is a copyvio of their webpage. Having said that, no objection to a rewritten article showing proper sources. Jcuk 20:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question wasn't able to find any reliable sources with a reasonable google search. Are there sources of which you're aware, or was that a general comment? Darkspots 18:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 22:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bodo sperlein[edit]

Obviously autobiographical article, possibly violating WP:SPAM (though not as blatantly so as most), and person's notability is uncertain (there are 800-odd GHits for the name, but mostly to sites selling products). ~Matticus ^T_C 13:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability; external links are to sites affiliated with him or his company; no evidence of coverage in multiple independent sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. Also borderline for speedy delete CSD A7 (no assertion of notability), but I won't tag it as db-bio unless other users agree. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 13:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now tagged for speedy deletion under CSD A7. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advert. -- Necrothesp 18:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g1, patent nonsense, WP:NFT. NawlinWiki 13:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2/22[edit]

Disputed proposed deletion. Seems to be covered by what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT), mainly it seems to be original invention/original research due to the lack of attribution (WP:A) by supporting material. blue520 13:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete CSD G1 (patent nonsense). So tagged. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 13:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mart inp23 23:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grayson Ediger[edit]

The subject of this article was for some time member of a cover band. Most important feat of this band were two nominations for the San Diego Music Awards for Cover band of the Year. After leaving the band, Ediger released two solo albums, but no information about the notability of these albums is provided. The name "Grayson Ediger" gets only four Google hits, none related to this particular person. The subject seems to be just another well-meaning amateur guitar player, nothing that sets him apart from others. I say we delete this for lack of notability. A ecis^Brievenbus 13:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:Music and WP:Bio. If we let this stand then I also would be worthy of an entry on the grounds have once played bass guitar in a tribute band. A1octopus 14:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 22:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wily & Right no RockBoard: That's Paradise[edit]

A "suprefanicon" game without references that seems to be merely a mod/hack/whatever of a game. No indication that it is bought/downloaded/played or in any way significant, much less notable Utgard Loki 13:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - no sources, so no evidence of multiple coverage in independent sources to establish notability per WP:SOFTWARE. Delete unless sources are added. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 13:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was an actual Japanese release that never quite made it to the states, not a hack or fangame. It needs some sourcing and rewriting, as well as some fact-checking (the gambling elements weren't what kept it out of the states, it was mainly a lack of interest from American gamers and the fact the NES was pretty much dead by 1993), but the subject itself is valid for an article. --UsaSatsui 12:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not trying to be argumentative, but if the game never made the Anglophone world, is the article really proper here, instead of on the .jn -pedia? What drove me bonkers was that the thing was so darned gamecrufty. It starts with all sorts of jargon that gamerz would know and that readers wouldn't, and then it goes on to want to give a feature list! That's really a case of "Wikipedia is not GameFAQs" to me. Utgard Loki 13:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It shows up occasionally in the English-speaking world, and I disagree that something can be notable in only one language. I agree with you that the article itself, for lack of a better word, sucks. I'll try and improve it when I have some spare time. --UsaSatsui 14:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the current state leaves much to be desired, I don't consider it good policy to delete something based on whether English people know about it. If that were the case, we've have to delete multiple things that are notable (i.e. Imperial Seal of Japan). And this is coming from a deletionist. ' 16:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Know about it?" It didn't get released in Anglophone nations. Comparing an orphaned platform's single-nation game to the Sea of Japan is astonishing. This is not a case of "know about it," but rather "had any effect of." Describe some way in which this game affected anything except bank accounts. Utgard Loki 18:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I dunno. Describe how any individual game, English or not, affected anything but bank accounts. "It wasn't released here!" isn't a good enough reason to delete and this reasoning doesn't help our extensive bias towards English subjects, when we should be covering all notable things, whether they were only released in Japan or not. ' 12:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. An actual commercial release, likely reviewed in Japanese. We should probably merge this in paragraph-or-less form somewhere, though; it's kind of a footnote to a English-language encyclopedia unless someone who can read Japanese wants to write a proper article based on Japanese sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Easy keep An actual commercial release, it's a no brainer. (Djungelurban 21:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, especially given that there's practically nothing left. No prejudice against writing a proper article from scratch. --Core desat 22:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Immaculata Community College[edit]

This page reads as general nonsense and a personal attack. Shimaspawn 14:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, nonsense and slander against some person, with no references to support allegations. Clerks. 15:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and let someone create an article without this history. Fg2 02:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should have been speedily deleted as a personal attack when it was first found. The present stub is really stubby, but if there's some information that could make the article useful, it would probably pass the notability standard. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 02:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Juice (website)[edit]

Non-notable website per WP:WEB, no sources. Contested prod. RJASE1 ^Talk 14:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dubtfull It's not that notable, but not unknown either. // Liftarn
- Comment So.. is that keep, or delete? What is "dubtfull"? --Vossanova ^o< 14:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Either way. If not sources can be found it will have to go, but it is quite well known among those into demos. // Liftarn
Weak keep. Unfortunately it seems as though the Orange Juice website is defunct now, but I feel it still has historic value as a demoscene portal. We just need some reliable sources to back that up. If the consensus of this debate leans toward delete, then I would strongly suggest to merge and redirect to Nectarine (radio) instead, since ojuice.net redirects there now and the sites share much of their content. --Vossanova ^o< 15:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Oops, seems as though Nectarine (radio) is up for delete too. Damn. --Vossanova ^o< 15:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:PN as far as I can read it. Mystache 00:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Demoscene. Simply not notable on its own. Also contains vanity cruft claims, such as claiming "it was the first demoscene-related portal on the Internet". This is simply not true since the demoscene portals existed on the Internet, even previous to the advent of the WWW, usually in the form of telnet-available BBSs. Regardless, it has some notability as a hisotrically popular demoscene portal, but not enough to comprise its own articles by WP standards. Vassyana 08:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Vassyana. The website was important for the demoscene, but isn't notable enough to have its own article. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 06:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nutrisystems Diet[edit]

The article seems just to be repeating information from the company website, and I can't find any coverage of this in any type of reliable source. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 14:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Withdraw nomination per below. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I expanded the article with substantial coverage from Forbes, the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Charlotte Observer, and PC Magazine, out of 128 references in ProQuest. I omitted any that were just financial announcement. It was the subject of a Forbes cover story. With a $2 billion market worth, it is the dominant company in the delivered diet food business, with over $435 million in sales in a $800 million market. Convenient, reasonably tasty, and reasonably cheap at $10 per day. Helps Americans learn how large a portion of food should be. Edison 18:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 11:01Z

List of fictional bullies[edit]

Boils down to "fictional characters that are not very nice to other characters". Definition of who is or is not a bully is not objectively definable. Original research, not a meaningful grouping, and trivia. >Radiant< 14:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - listcruft - or we'll end up with "List of fictional people who drink coffee" or "List of fictional Europeans who don't drive cars..." A1octopus 16:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Take that, bullies. Edison 16:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hobit (talk • contribs) 18:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Pointless, arbitrary, POV list. -- Necrothesp 18:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. OR, POV, etc. Otto4711 20:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as above. Mystache 00:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn procedurally pending the outcome of the active AFD - this may or may not be revisited following its closure. --Core desat 00:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buffyverse chronology (canon only)[edit]

Nominating this for pretty much the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffyverse chronology. It appears to be original research and fansite material ("this list is one interpretation...certain productions have not been accepted or rejected among fans"), and is completely unsourced. Most of articles it links are also unsourced and possibly also original research, as the only sources most of them use are IMDB pages or reviews that do not contain any of the information on them. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a publisher of original thought. As before, a transwiki to a Buffy fan wiki (perhaps on Wikia?) might be a good idea. Core desat 14:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Nomination procedurally withdrawn, see below. --Core desat 23:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I voted in favor of keeping the other chronology articles, but this one is too much a case of duplication and POV judgement calls 23skidoo 16:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn per request by Coredesat. 23skidoo 00:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced to the TV episodes and othre "canon". Edison 16:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should this nomination be combined with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffyverse chronology, since this article is a sub-page of the 'Buffyverse chronology' article? -- Paxomen 17:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with Paxomen. This discussion should be merged. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hobit (talk • contribs) 18:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I didn't combine these articles into a single AFD because I did not catch Buffyverse chronology (canon only) until the original AFD had been well underway. Since it had been about 10 hours since the original AFD nomination, I felt starting a new discussion was warranted. I will ask another admin to merge the discussions. --Core desat 19:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feeling at WP:ANI was that the two threads should not be combined. Also, there seems to be a distinction: there's a better case for deletion here as OR, since "canon issues" are involved, which makes it even more subjective and in need of sources. Mango juice^talk 21:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Assuming the other article isn't deleted (which appeared likely) I'm not as sure about this article. There might be some POV or OR issues with what is or isn't "cannon", and it sounds like this index and the other index have significant overlap. So I'd probably support merging this one into the larger one. Dugwiki 22:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am procedurally withdrawing the nomination to wait for the other AFD to finish. Since there is a delete argument at this time, I cannot speedily close the AFD until the delete argument is withdrawn. I will revisit this after the other AFD concludes. --Core desat 23:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WallStreet Tower Omaha[edit]

Delete per WP:NN War wizard90 15:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? What part of the notability criteria do you feel this fails to meet? It has numerous mentions in media, including at least three TV spots; one on NBC [23] and two on ABC [24][25]. Kafziel ^Talk 15:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (I'm tempted to simply type "per WP:N") per Kafziel's findings. --Oakshade 17:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very promising stub, someone with a bit more knowledge i.e. someone from Omaha I guess, could turn this into a very interesting article. The building seems notable from the description of it in the article and that notability is confirmed by the sources referred to. I'm assuming good faith but it seems a strange nomination.Jules1975 17:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The reason I nominated it, is because I don't know of any other circumstances where we keep articles on condominium projects, and it may be a case of recentism, and thus not really notable per say. However, if the majority consesus thinks this news related article is worth keeping then that is fine. Just seems more like something that should belong in Wikinews than an encyclopedia. War wizard90 23:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as housing projects go, Co-op City comes to mind. Granted, that one is a bit more famous and established, but from that page's categories I see that there are actually quite a few other articles about buildings like this.

I don't really believe in recentism; a subject might seem trivial now, but someday it won't be "recent" anymore and maybe then someone will be glad we compiled this information while it was readily available. 50 years from now, kids might be doing class projects on this building. Who knows? As long as it has the sources to establish its notability (which this does), we can't be expected to predict how significant today's trivia will be in the future. Kafziel ^Talk 15:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it currently under construction? Have they at least broken ground? If so, then keep since it documents a skyscraper under construction, and skyscrapers are notable. If they're just taking reservations or something, and there's still just a parking lot there, then it isn't a done deal yet. I was going to check out their official website, but the Flash animation took too long to load. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 02:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the multiple sources provided by User:Kafziel, which establish notability. -- Black Falcon 08:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 10:54Z

Omar Garcia-Bolivar[edit]

Not notable. Mocko13 15:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced and unsourced. If Sources i.a.w. WP:BIO are added by end of this AfD change to Keep Alf^Photoman 17:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 kept. The article says he's Jason the Red Power Ranger!—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All "delete" votes are from sockpuppets of a single banned user. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Austin St. John[edit]

Non notabile TV Character? Beginskaj 15:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sammy Fasi 15:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you be more specific as to why? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - actor, not a character. Played a very notable role. Can't see on what grounds you'd delete this. --Dweller 15:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Playing a power ranger is a very notable role, IMHO. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't ring a bell to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.22.123.107 (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment Can you give a better reason than that? 'I've never heard of them' isn't exactly convincing. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable actor. -- SmokeDetector47^{( TALK )} 16:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no reason at all to delete this article. This entry into AfD shows people why I protest the current AfD system. Cman 16:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone please speedy-close this nomination by a now-blocked abusive sockpuppet. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.80.251 (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2007
Delete, nn actor. PoetYers3s 19:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)— PoetYers3s (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, Power Rangers television actor and movie actor. I see no reason to delete it. --Strangerer (Talk) 20:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs a little cleanup Sounds like this guy starred in a very popular television series and major motion picture. Also looks like the article has a couple of articles about him. The only gripe I have would be that there are some missing citations and it sounds like it could stand some additional sourcing to beef it up in terms of verification and to further establish the notability of the subject. Dugwiki 22:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable, though the page could use some cleanup. See some of his costars (notable for the same reason he is) at David Yost, Thuy Trang, and Jason David Frank. eaolson 03:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 11:02Z

Christopher F. Brooks[edit]

There is no information in ths article Clerks. 15:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's not the case. --Dweller 15:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little information provided, and googling "christopher brooks froth" without the quotes doesn't show any independent sources. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero evidence that he or the band he started are notable. Propaniac 18:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Propaniac
Delete. Member of a band that doesn't itself have an article. -- Necrothesp 18:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough for mainspace. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 21:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Itransition[edit]

Subject company does not appear to meet WP:CORP; I originally tagged this as a speedy, but this was contested by the primary author so I thought an AfD would be a better option. My opinion is Delete.--Isotope23 15:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I disagree to the matter, the text was written in neutral style according to wiki's requirements and it does not contain any advert hints but just brief information about the company. thanx Nevalex 16:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC) nevalex—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nevalex (talk • contribs).[reply]

Delete. Just did some searching and couldn't find a single newspaper article online or any reference in 90+ databases regarding this company. Unless someone can provide some, it doesn't meet our notability guidelines. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Itransition Company participates in the international IT exhibit CeBIT'2007 http://www.cebit.de/ held at Hannover, Germany. This will be the fourth time our company showcases its services at this major trade fair in the IT world. Nevalex 16:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Itransition Software was mentioned in top 10 Development Companies, that took part in The 2007 Global Outsourcing. This event was highlighted by Fortune Magazine. The recommendations and notifications were sent by Jag Dalal Chairman, The 2007 Global Outsourcing Judges’ Panel and Managing Director, Thought Leadership, IAOP... Nevalex 16:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please also consider our contributions to Wiki as an article on custom software development and nearsourcing I aslo plan to add some useful information to offshore software development and IT outsoursing themes which will be quite of interested for Wiki's readers and people involved. Nevalex 16:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Nearsourcing article is its own problem... No sources, no verifiable information that this company actually coined the phrase or the concept, and it may be a neologism as well.--Isotope23 16:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nearsourcing - is the concept, that was worked out by the company and it is company's property. There is no need to use any sources for brining out a new concept as the company has wide experience in the outsourcing and software development field and enough data to make its own conclusions - I think it is fair enough. One of Wiki's concepts - is to bring knowledge to everyone who needs it... Why not share our knowledge with other people? You stated right... that you were not aware of this term - so here is our contribution to the community. Regards Nevalex 17:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There absolutely is every reason why you need to use sources. Please take some time to read WP:ATT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isotope23 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I will repeat that again - the concept is brought within the company based on its experience.... Our company has its own data bank where it keeps all data, innovations, conclusions - you may call it Itransition's Wiki - we base on our own sources Nevalex 17:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I will repeat again, WP:ATT. Here at Wikipedia, articles must be verifiable by reliable 3rd party sources. You cannot base on article on your own sources; it needs verifiable 3rd party sourcing and ideally they should establish that the company meets our WP:CORP guideline. Right now that is simply not the case.--Isotope23 17:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I got it.... Please let me have one day to adapt the Itransition page to the WP's.... Nevalex 19:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs run for 5 days before they are closed, so any changes made in that time can be considered.--Isotope23 19:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 22:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in the Northwest United States[edit]

Delete, and maybe split some state lists into "List of shopping malls in (state)" articles. All malls with articles have been merged into List of shopping malls in the United States. "Northwest" is not good criteria for a list - countries, states, cities, and other whole political divisions should be used instead. --Vossanova ^o< 15:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but do not split. I agree with the notion that categorizing these by an arbitrary region (Northwest) is a bad idea. List of shopping malls in the United States is more than sufficient - splitting this up into smaller, state-by-state lists will only encourage looser inclusion criteria. Arkyan 20:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the arbitrary region. I don't think list by state is necessary.-- danntm ^T _C 04:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MakRadio[edit]

Non-notable Internet radio station per WP:WEB. No references or sources. Contested prod. RJASE1 ^Talk 16:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Station isn't even broadcasting any more, per article. Keep but source this article better; the new references which establish notability are not adequately incorporated into the article, and I have tagged it as such. ObtuseAngle 16:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. A few reputable references have been added. Station may not be broadcasting, but had a noteworthy impact on the industry, thus has grounds for inclusion. Additionally, more than 1,300 results found on Google when searching the term "makradio". Internetfignewton 17:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.58.71.75 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 1 March 2007.
— 71.58.71.75 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete-- article is promotional and self-serving, and much of the information about "awards" is incorrect and/or deceptive (two alleged "awards" mentioned in the article don't even exist as per se awards). As with many independent internet radio stations, particularly a bevy at Live365 and/or iTunes, there was no major or "noteworthy impact on the industry," or at least it would be more comforting to see specific empirical examples of things this station did that numerous other internet -based broadcasters DIDN'T do, have or accomplish. In fact, there are numerous longer-term independents at Live365 and iTunes alone (not to mention on other networks) that have more aggregate tuning hours, that got more involved in the community there, that lasted longer, that sacrificed both time and money in the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel hearings and other major historical events that developed the industry, etc. This one broadcast for a while... it got its share of listeners and a little publicity... then it went away. Welcome to the club of thousands of other such stations.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.57.33.217 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 4 March 2007.
— 66.57.33.217 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do not delete. The article as I see introduces facts and nothing more. They do not say, "this is the greatest station ever" or anything like that. While it does not exist anymore, significant information has been provided to show that they were well recognized while in existence. I would argue that those who use to listen may want to know what happened and/or what they are doing now. Just because a company goes out of business or a person of history dies, we do not erase them from the history books. This station was obviously more than just a flash in the fire. It appears from the article that those who were involved moved onto other stations as well. According to the articles history page, this article has been on Wikipedia since 2005, that too, should mean something. I say leave it here, its not doing any harm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.58.71.75 (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC).— 71.58.71.75 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep per the new non-trivial references (particularly the first two). In response to a comment, that the article is "promotional", I would like to note that the station is now defunct. What's the point in promoting it? Any misleading or POV-ish statements about awards or anything else can be excised from the article without having to delete it entirely. -- Black Falcon 08:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to Arthur Leopold Busch and keep. No real need to remove the redirect. --Core desat 22:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ARTHUR LEOPOLD BUSCH[edit]

~~It's a hoax; only one googlehit, and they're a school student.~~ Whoops; apparently I made a bad typo in my search. Neutral now. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~speedy delete~~ - per nom. Also WP:V: See Arthur Leopold Busch under google.com isn't a valid reference! Cate |_Talk 16:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ARTHUR LEOPOLD BUSCH ; wrong cases. Keep the moved page Arthur Leopold Busch. Cate |_Talk 22:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ - As nom, and above. Google is not a reference.--AgentCDE 22:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Arthur Leopold Busch - I'm changing my vote due to the information brought to light below - thanks, folks.--AgentCDE 19:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure what "one googlehit" the nominator is referring to; the only hit I get (apart from this AfD page) for the exact name of this article points me to this webpage, which is a detailed biography of the subject in question. Granted, a geocities posting may not be the most reliable source in the world, but that page does cite some sources of its own that perhaps deserve research, and which could be used to flesh out Wikipedia's article. I don't think this qualifies as an obvious hoax. Carolfrog 05:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article was nominated for deletion a mere 15 hours after its initial creation. Carolfrog 06:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Definitely not a hoax. See this official US Navy page on nautical engineering pioneers. I've added it to this article as a source. Carolfrog 06:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a naval ship construction pioneer, important in the development of submarines. Alternatively, weak merge into John Holland's article. But, uh.. retitle the page. :) --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 11:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. IMHO nobody should vote keep, but ev. move to the tight case name spelling. Cate |_Talk 12:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are both SO right. :) Move to Arthur Leopold Busch. :) —Carolfrog 23:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename then keep. And I renamed it, all set. - Denny 00:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaned up to this sourced version. Should be fine to keep now and continue on... - Denny 00:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carabinieri 15:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Sormani[edit]

WP:BIO Not a notable person. DavidCBryant 15:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The first criterion in WP:BIO is that at least one major work (or multiple small articles) should have been written about this person by someone else. I searched "Christina Sormani" on Google and I got 532 hits. I reviewed the first 100 of these. Not one of them was a biographical work about Christina Sormani, except for her C.V. The rest were links to papers she has authored, invitations to seminars where she has spoken, links to e-mail messages she has sent, etc.

I also point to WP:AUTO. Sormani herself apparently wrote this article. The only external link is to her C.V. The publications listed are her papers. Autobiographies of non-notable persons ought not be in article space. If she wants to put this on her user page, that's fine with me. DavidCBryant 16:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral ~~Keep~~ . I added the Mathematics Genealogy Project, a 3rd party RS frequently used in WP. The interpretation of about in science and academic life generally means citations. (Almost no academic gets a biographic article until they retire or die, and to have one is not the standard, as can be seen from most of the scientific bio articles in WP.) Unfortunately, upon looking for the number of citations in WoS, I find a total of 37, which is not very high, even in math, where citations come slowly. I therefore change the keep to a neutral She may not be notable yet, but she appears to be working on a very recently important topic, and the citations may be forthcoming. She is referred to as an authority on the interpretation of Perelman's work in many professional blogs, but they aren't sources. But its close enough to be worth the investigation. DGG 19:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't know what you mean by "professional blog", but I would find such references dubious. Sormani is most definitely not an authority on Ricci flow, let alone Perelman's work. In Sormani's own words, "I know a little about Ricci flow but have done no research in the area. I'm somewhat acquainted with the Geometrization Conjecture and Thurston's approach having read articles by Anderson, but have done no work in that direction either." [26] It's been several years since she wrote that, but it doesn't appear that she has pursued research in these directions since then. --C S (Talk) 00:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As DavidCBryant says, rules is rules. Gleuschk 22:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- David Eppstein 03:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. WP:BIO is only a guideline and horrid for judging the notability of scientists and scholars, who rarely receive mainstream press mentions. She has a reasonable number of citations for her field and is referred to as an authority in her area of expertise in published scholarly articles. Hardly non-notable for the field, but still an emerging figure. Vassyana 08:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wanted to point out the proper guideline is not WP:BIO, but rather WP:PROF. Apologies, as I should have mentioned that initially. Vassyana 10:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think it makes much difference whether one looks at "Bio" or "Prof" – those are just guidelines, and the judgment of whether a particular person is notable or not is always going to be subjective. Here's a more objective comparison for your consideration, Vassyana. Another mathematician was added to Wikipedia recently – the bio on Vera Pless was created 2/26/07. I ran an author search on her using Google Scholar. I got 64 hits, of which four were books (not articles). The search turned up 731 citations by other authors. I ran the same search for Christina Sormani, whose Wiki-bio was created 01/19/07. I got 13 hits, of which none were books, and 7 were preprints. I counted 53 citations in total (31, excluding the preprints).

I don't know exactly where an objective cutoff line should be drawn. I am asserting that a mathematician with so few published papers, with no books in print, and who is not the recipient of a major prize, is not notable by Wikipedia's standards. DavidCBryant 12:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vassyana, could you please comments where "[she] is referred to as an authority in her area of expertise in published scholarly articles" is based on? Thanks. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When one considers an article on an associate professor of mathematics, there has to be some sign this person is above the norm (relative to the usual associate professor) in terms of research or some extra-mathematical event (such as some kind of notoriety in the press). I see nothing like that. DGG's comments are reasonable (excepting my clarification above). If she is indeed an "emerging figure", I say let her emerge and then she can write a Wikipedia bio. Or even better, someone else will. --C S (Talk) 15:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy. Per DavidCBryant, DGG (who says "neutral" but whose comments point to "delete" in my opinion) and C S. There are hardly any secondary sources, and no critical secondary sources about Sormani or her work. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 03:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Marcotte[edit]

Contested prod - basically just a blogger who got fired from a campaign for blogging. Sourced basically only to the blogs (I have since removed all embarassing information about living people sourced unreliably) Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current version is all but unintelligible and probably does not make an obvious case for notability, but better versions exist in the history. This relates to a controversy that was picked up in print by National Review and other major publications. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event made the print news, and will almost certainly have some bearing on the upcoming '08 election. grendel|khan 19:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, first notable flap of the '08 campaign, will likely continue to be referenced in stories about Edwards campaign and stories about other candidates interacting with supporters using the internet. --Dhartung | Talk 21:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Depends on whether it can conform to WP:NPOV. Some editors are removing the information about Marcotte's comments about the Duke lacrosse and that people other than conservatives and Christians were offended by what she said. Goldfritha 01:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not just a blogger, this received mass media coverage. --musicpvm 04:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has served its purpose. Time to delete it. I am the original editor on the article - I created it. Delete. --AStanhope 22:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Her only notability is for the Edwards controversy, and while it was covered in major media, it was pretty much an ephemeral news story that should be a paragraph or so in the John Edwards/2008 Campaign article. --MCB 23:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This issue will continue to be discussed as the campaign goes forward, and it will be helpful to have a Wikipedia reference for the story. Its incomprehensible to me that someone would think this article deserves deletion. —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages--Kromagon 18:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC) comment was added by Kromagon (talk • contribs) 18:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. The multiple sources establish notability (even excluding the 2 Ms. Marcotte wrote herself). It may or may not be appropriate to eventually merge this into the 2008 Edwards campaign, but that's an editorial issue for the talk pages of the two articles. -- Black Falcon 08:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - some evidence of third-party sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. Also bear in mind that if this is deleted, the section on the Marcotte controversy under John Edwards may end up becoming unnecessarily long. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 23:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The White Rose Society (website)[edit]

Non-notable website per WP:WEB, no references or sources. Previous AfD debates were plagued by canvassing and sockpuppetry, maybe things have subsided enough for a real discussion. RJASE1 ^Talk 16:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Not notable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Edison 16:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - and your sources for notability would be...? RJASE1 ^Talk 16:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe it is notable, but there are problems asserting that notability. I spoke to BenBurch about adding a little to make the assertion better. He's a bit hesitant, because he might be accused of having a conflict of interest. I told him not to worry about that, and make a little bit of improvement. I believe that some of the content archived there cannot be founde elsewhere. Hopefully Ben will make some improvements shortly. Crockspot 17:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "some of the content archived there cannot be founde elsewhere" is a reason for deletion. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is it? It's my understanding that the material is archived with the permission of the copyright holders, who are generally notable people. I don't follow your logic. - Crockspot 18:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:N defines notability as being the subject of secondary sources. Now, since the target of this AfD is this website (and not the subject contained therein), we must be able to establish that the website itself is the subject of multiple, reliable secondary sources for it to stay on Wikipedia. For the life of me, I cannot find any other reliable references to this website. The only hits on Google are the website itself and this Wikipedia article we are discussing. In other words, it does not matter that the subject matter of this archive/website are notable and have given the website permission to archive their material. This website must, by itself, be notable in order to satisfy the notability criteria. L uis₁₉₇₂ (Talk • My Contribs) 21:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. L uis₁₉₇₂ (Talk • My Contribs) 17:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dino 19:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under WP:WEB. Article makes no claims as to why the subject is notable and provides no sources. Nuttah68 19:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not assert any notability. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 23:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chabakkuk (Jewish group)[edit]

This article, based on the group it describes, violates WP:NN and WP:NEO. Just a hodge-podge. Maybe in five years time it will become better known in the Jewish world, and worthy of an article. Judging by the one or two links on the page it's basically associated with the Breslov (Hasidic dynasty). IZAK 16:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 16:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Breslov (Hasidic dynasty). IZAK 16:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's no such thing really. The alleged component parts are notable but the whole is NEO. - NYC JD (make a motion) 17:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources per WP:A, and hence lack of verification of notability. Of the two sources currently listed, one is a listserv (not a reliable source for purposes of establishing notability), and the other is a survey form (not survey results, let alone independently published survey results) which, in addition to not mentioning the term, also can't be used for purposes of establishing notability. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shira and Izak. JoshuaZ 08:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect - As the author of this article, in retrospect, the comments made above are true. While it isn't notable enough for its own article, the term certainly does exist and a brief description should be merged into either the Carlebach page or the Breslov page. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 17:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, barely existant, fringe group. Avi 18:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have met a few of these guys and I think that hebrew wikipedia has an article on them. But since everyone disagrees I say Merge into Bat Ayin which is where the core of a few hundred families live. David Spart 02:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sources given are inadequate and do not establish notability. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 10:53Z

Colour of the Soul[edit]

Despite the fact that I created this article myself, since I have become more involved with AfD debates, I have come to realise that this article doesn't meet WP:MUSIC in so far as there are no independent on-line references to this band (other than one note at Cross Rhythms saying that the album is not available) and although I am certain there was press coverage since none of it is on-line it is possible that this article breaches WP:NOR as well. A1octopus 16:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedily as a {{db-author}}. It's nice to see people willing to admit that they've made mistakes. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even with sources there appears to be no claim to meeting WP:MUSIC. Nuttah68 20:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on a minute.....did they have any singles which achieved national airplay or charted on any national charts? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 01:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, just because a publication isn't online doens't mean you can't cite it. Go find some press coverage for this that isn't online-- maybe your library has newspaper archives or something-- and cite that press coverage. Crypticfirefly 04:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't cite it because I don't remember which publication, was probably Church Times but even then I can't remember which edition, it being 12 years ago. A1octopus 16:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And since Church Times has redlinked they probably don't count as non-trivial coverage anyway... A1octopus 16:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Golem. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 11:04Z

Golems[edit]

This article appears to be about a custom-made map that people play in StarCraft. Suggesting a delete and redirect to Golem. Dvandersluis 16:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect. Far more use as a redirect to an established term than a bit of computer game fancruft. -- Necrothesp 18:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect. I would have suggested a simple redirect but on second thought, I realize there would be no purpose in keeping the article history since the content has nothing to do with golem. Arkyan 20:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Golem as stated. No assertion or citation that this custom map has any notability -Markeer 22:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to redirect. Article was a redirect to golem until User:68.9.117.231 added the StarCraft content. -Sean Curtin 05:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 06:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

78 Records[edit]

- previous AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/78 Records

Advertisement. Concerns on notability, sourcing, and spam that were raised in the first AfD were never addressed. RJASE1 ^Talk 16:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has a reference to "Groove Magazine" which is online accessible and appears to have a reference to a newspaper article which does not have a convenience link. Content issues can be addressed via editing. Edison 16:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know enough about the topic to make an informed suggestion. If kept, however, I'd recommend moving to 78 Records (store) and changing this to a redirect to gramophone record, or if deleted, just changing this to the indicated redirect, as this term is a reasonable search term for those seeking information about 78 rpm records. 23skidoo 17:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion and that can be done anytime. Suggest waiting till this discussion closes though. —Moondyne 15:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It isn't immediately obvious that this is the article's second nomination for deletion and the fact is easy to overlook. That fact should be more prominent here. That said, I will vote delete per nom. The article reads like promotional material and makes a number of claims regarding importance and notability that are not sourced. The mention in "Groove Magazine" is the best that this article can muster, and as to whether that is a sufficient source to establish notability, of that I am highly dubious. If additional sourcing can be added to the article, AND it is massively cleaned up to read more like an encyclopedia entry and less like promotional materials I may be persuaded to support a keep. Arkyan 20:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notiability was previously established during last AfD, all issues raised were addressed then, Also AfD notified at WP Australia, and WP:Western Australia. Gnan garra 05:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The article is virtually unchanged from when it was AfD'd four months ago. The result of that AfD was a strong and clear consensus to keep. "Keep" means "keep", not "you have four months to improve the article or it will be deleted". Hesperian 05:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep (or else Strong keep if that's not possible) per Hesperian. Redoing AfDs because nothing is done about something or because you didn't like the outcome of the first one is not on. JROBBO 06:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with strong support for the sense of above keep - with concern that the second nomination is not actually kosher - per Gnangarra and Hesperians comments. Notability is definite - and the fact that the average editor has little understanding of where third party sources are sure to exist offline does not a delete make Satu Suro 06:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to suggestion by 23Skidoo. Comment, the 2nd nomination is by RJASE1. The first was by some newbie bozo. Sluggish weak support - Fr ed 07:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Fully support comments of Hesperian, Gnangarram and SatuSoro comments as above. The notability of the article's subject has already been well established and it forms an important part of the development of the WA music scene through those early years. If you are concerned about notability or other matters, use the propper method of tagging the article first and discussing your issues in talk before jumping the gun and moving to AfD. As for 23skidoo's comments, it might be appropriate for a disambiguation note to be placed at the top of the article as per his comments. thewinchester 08:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Clearly verifiable and notable from Western Australian sources, 30 hits on Factiva (which indexes newspaper articles by the West Australian and Australian) going back as far as that engine will allow. - it's a notable record store which has also served as a small venue for a range of artists. Article does need improvement on style and content, but AfD is not the vehicle to make that happen. Orderinchaos78 08:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been added to the list of Australia-related deletion debates. Orderinchaos78 08:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Keep. Notable and iconic record store and integral part of the Perth music scene. I am concerned that we're having this debate as it sets a bad precedent following the earlier Afd whcih closed as Keep. —Moondyne 09:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup, clearly notable, but sounds a lot like a press release or an ad. Lankiveil 11:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep SM BarnZy 12:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. DanielT5 15:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 11:07Z

Edward W. Baker[edit]

This person edits a newsletter about stick insects. Not even a scholarly journal, but a newsletter. Hardly a noted academic, I'm afraid. Thus seems no more notable then anybody else who edits a newsletter in a minority subject. Necrothesp 17:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Original research, non-notable and fails WP:BIO. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BIO unless multiple, independent reliable sources are provided. Nuttah68 20:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 11:06Z

Cleckheaton Lawn Tennis Club[edit]

Local tennis club. Sproughton Tennis Club raised a national champion. This club does not even have that claim to fame. -- RHaworth 17:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local organisation with no claim to fame. There are thousands of tennis clubs in the UK alone. -- Necrothesp 19:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. Nuttah68 20:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 11:07Z

Paul Taylor (Phasmid Study Group)[edit]

Another non-notable editor of a minority interest newsletter about stick insects. Necrothesp 17:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails both WP:N and WP:BIO. L uis₁₉₇₂ (Talk • My Contribs) 17:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Essentially a blank page. Fails WP:NN and WP:BIO. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dvandersluis 19:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BIO unless multiple, independent reliable sources are provided. Nuttah68 20:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 11:07Z

Michael Smith (Phasmid Study Group)[edit]

I'm not biased against stick insects, really I'm not, but editors of newsletters about them would have to have some pretty serious academic credentials before getting an article on Wikipedia. Necrothesp 17:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Essentially an empty page. Fails WP:NN and WP:BIO. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dvandersluis 19:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BIO unless multiple, independent reliable sources are provided. Nuttah68 20:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 10:52Z

Easy meat[edit]

Non-notable band; 'played numerous gigs around the London area' is horribly ambiguous and doesn't even prove notability. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Circulus while adding a line on that page saying that Parfitt was once a member of this band. A1octopus 20:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Someguy1221 00:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete

Carl M. Cox[edit]

Non-notable biography, most likely autobiographical vanity. Contains a bunch of original research, no other reliable sources. RJASE1 ^Talk 17:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advert for a non-notable small businessman. -- Necrothesp 19:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Advertising for a person. Contains no reliable references (they are not linked and who know what goes to where). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article contains no verifiable non-trivial sources of information for notability. Warfieldian 19:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he may be a splendid fellow and all these "facts" may be true, but for WikiPedia we need 3rd party reliable published sources and this has no refs and no evidence of notability. Put it on his website - I'm sure researchers can find that. I also do not like the unsigned "threatening" header above. NBeale 15:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn. This isn't a bio so much as a blurb about the company, not the person, and it is not written preperly for an encyclopedia article. That in and of itself may not be enough to delete, but aside from that, the sources are vague, and WP:MUSIC does not apply - many of the things he wrote were only published because of his position in the company, and the same goes for his recording credits. MSJapan 21:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article has serious issues with WP:ATT. Without citations to verify what it says much of this article has to count as Original Research. Blueboar 15:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It looks like the original author wants it deleted, and is repeatedly trying to blank the page. Of course that doesn't automatically mean it should be deleted, but it does mean that it looks like not even the original author objects to deletion. --Delirium 15:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The author is adamant at the start of this AfD that he wants the article kept and is now repeatedly blanking it, saying he wants it deleted. Jules1975 16:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - But let run course. I think the originial author is mad at wikipedia and is therefore trying to leave and clean up anything they left behind. However, I feel this article is an advert for a nn company and should go. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Removing conspiracy theory material leaves nothing that could be seen as notability, and no other sources were provided. --Core desat 23:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Standley[edit]

Article only created to POV push conspiracy theory about 9/11. Only barely notable BBC reporter. MONGO 18:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Change to redirect to Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#7_World_Trade_Center or 9/11 Conspiracy Theories It's notable enough to warrant a redirect. The reporter herself is not notable enough for an article. But, I could see people searching Wikipedia for her. Thus, a redirect seems appropriate and a modification to the location where the redirect goes to layout an NPOV statement on the point. --Durin 18:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Non-notable Vanispamcruftisement violating WP:NPOV, based on original research, and lacking verifiability. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. MortonDevonshire Yo · 19:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Tbeatty 20:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jane Standley has been an overseas correspondent for the BBC for over 10 years, covering most of the globe in this time. She has been providing editorials for the BBC since 1998. Additional sources need to be found but claiming the article has to go because she is connected to stories conspiracy theorists have taken up is ridiculous. Nuttah68 21:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She's a reporter. Should we include all reporters that have >10 years experience with their respective media outlets? She's not notable in and of herself. The theory may be notable. She is not. --Durin 21:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This, admitedly, proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (journalists) would disagree with you, as would many articles held under Category:Journalists. She is a correspondent with editorial input, not a staffer. The fact that a story she covered has got caught up with a conspiracy theory does not change the notability gained from being a senior BBC overseas correspondent for 10+ years. Nuttah68 21:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nuttah68. Additionally, a Google search using the term "jane Standley" BBC returns 15,300 results -- further evidence of her notariety.--MrEguy | ♠♥♣♦ 08:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - soapbox to promote the latest urban legend about the BBC reporting 9/11 twenty minutes before it happened. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is promoting the conspiracy theory instead of Standley’s career. It violates WP:NPOV bigtime along with other guidelines. Severe POV pushing = delete. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 00:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the wise and sagacious MONGO. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.The BBC has put up an utterly pathetic "defence" - even claiming that they have lost the original tapes! (Equivalent to "Please Sir, the dog ate my homework). It is provable FACT that Jane Standley reported WTC7 had collapsed 23 minutes before it did (and while it can still be seen behind her). That alone is quite a claim to fame and should ensure a significant place for her in the annals of broadcasting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viviners (talk • contribs) — Viviners (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Is it even provable that the video is authentic? --Tbeatty 05:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it certainly is. But that's not what we're debating or discussing here and now-- or is it? ;) --MrEguy | ♠♥♣♦ 08:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Viviners posted it was a provable fact about some BBC video (which is at the heart of the claims notability). That simply has not been done. But regardless of that, she is still not notable. And the single event people claim she is notable for she doesn't think it was significant enough for her to remember. Seems silly to create an entire biography around an event they don't even remember. --Tbeatty 05:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep I don't think it's POV pushing--I doubt this aspect of the article will convince anyone who doesn't believe it already. I think there's enough documentation that shes a notable reporter.DGG 03:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many people will likely be looking up Jane Standley, just as I did today, to learn more about her background in light of the recent controversy regarding the collapse of the Salomon Brothers (Building 7), being reported by her prematurely, in New York on 9/11. Richard Porter, head of News, BBC World, recently reported they "no longer have the original tapes" of their 9/11 coverage[27] adding further fuel to the fire. Standley is notable at this point in time and the article should stay. I also question the personal motivations of the individual who submitted this article as a candidate for deletion.--MrEguy | ♠♥♣♦ 05:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State your "question". Come on, out with it. MortonDevonshire Yo · 05:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The personal motivations of the person who wrote the article are what needs to be questioned here, not mine. This article misrepresnts the actions of this reporter anyway, and since that is a violation of WP:BLP, and she isn't very notable anyway, the article needs to be deleted.--MONGO 13:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. I don't see anything in this article that is remotely biographical. It seems solely created to push some kind of 9/11 conspiracy theory. --Dual Freq 05:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a valid biographical article, if you have concerns about POV it is a reason to clean it up (I have no objection), not delete. Nuttah68 08:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing notable about this journalist...WP:ATT...aside from a few evidences that she is a reporter, there is nothing notable about her. I suggest you and others wanting to keep such an article start writing articles on every reporter on the planet.--MONGO 10:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't look notable at all. I guess the only reason the article was even created is to promote conspriacy theories about September 11, 2001.--Beguiled 11:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would consider a redirect a BLP violation. Associating her with conspiracy theories is a 'false light' issue and should not be done. --Tbeatty 14:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Precisely.--MONGO 14:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an excellent point. Very excellent. --Durin 15:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Live coverage of 9/11 makes her notable in and of itself, similar to Wolf Blitzer becoming notable for his live coverage of Baghdad in 1991. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.29.43.3 (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC).— 128.29.43.3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Aude (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD A7, obviously not notable group. (The Defenders of Sovereignty has been a Star Wars gaming clan that was started on January 9, 2001. It is undoubtedly one of the longest lasting star wars clans.) - Smerdis of Tlön 19:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defenders of Sovereignty[edit]

Possible non notable clan, reads like a how to, no sources, clear conflict of interest Daniel J. Leivick 18:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Reads much like a personal web-site regarding a non-notale clan for a game. Contains zero sources or information relevant to Wikipedia. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Farewell speech. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 10:48Z

Farewell address[edit]

A dictionary definition in essence, but then with substantial (and substantially incorrect) material that is inherently POV. WP is not Wiktionary. Utgard Loki 18:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Essentially belongs on Wiktionary. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:WINAD is not a reason to delete or transwiki this article, because it's not a dictionary article. The article is about the concept of farewell addresses, not the term "farewell address." Pan Dan 19:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lean ~~keep~~ as this is a moderately well-known topic that could be expanded beyond politics and particularly American politics. One potential list[28] (though not WP:RS, it's easily enough verified elsewhere). Additionally, I disagree with the nom that the article is "substantially incorrect". --Dhartung | Talk 20:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "The first one" was Washington? <cough> The most important one was Washington? <sputter> No, it's substantially incorrect. The article is correct that a farewell address is a... well... farewell address. Past that, it's speculative and ill-informed. Utgard Loki 13:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It needs improvement, but "first"->"first notable" doesn't seem wrong as a gloss, and the GW Farewell Address of 1796 is widely considered to have been the blueprint for US foreign policy for a century and informs it even today. --Dhartung | Talk 08:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, I'm changing to merge to the slightly better (but sparsely linked-to) farewell speech. --Dhartung | Talk 08:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this topic is definitely worthy of inclusion. Needs expansion though. - Richardcavell 07:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, but expand. Just H^{editor review} 13:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with farewell speech, or weak keep as a stub, since it has potential as a full entry. A farewell address is more closely associated with politics than a farewell speech, so they may eventually merit their own full entries. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 11:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with farewell speech. A farewell address, due to its more specific association with politics, is a subset of farewell speeches. Until there is more information, no need for a separate article exists. Also, redirect per merge (GFDL) and plausible search term. -- Black Falcon 08:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 23:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoop whoop[edit]

Neologism, creator removed prod. FisherQueen (Talk) 19:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ObtuseAngle 20:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I highly doubt the term was "Originally created" so recently as the article contends. Unverified and, I suspect, unverifiable. In any event, Wikipedia is not for things made up in clay chooting club one day. Additionally, in the edit history the author appears to concede that the term is not notable, saying, "This will mean nothing to many people outside of the club..." ◄Zahakiel ► 21:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obviously a Jay-Z fan who has had the hook of the 1999 song Can I Get a... on his mind. TonyTheTiger 00:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT and WP:NEO. --Haemo 02:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but yell "whoop, whoop" when the deletion occurs. Ezratrumpet 04:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete – It obviously means something to the club members and if you look at point 3 has safety in mind when it is used. Think about it, it is a very identifiable term and the fact that it is said twice may emphasise its safety nature - If a shooter only hears part of it say the second “whoop” he will still be alerted to some element of danger.

Also think about the mechanics of the sound – it is one that is easy to repeat at the top of your voice and will carry well on the wind/air, quite important in the shooting environment.

Do Not Delete It is the offical callsign of the University of Plymouth Clay Pigeon Shooting Club, which can be used as above in a manner which befits the shooting environment and gives the club an identity all of its own.

Comment - Is there anything to verify that it is the "official" callsign of the club? Even then, it is probably not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia, but at least it would give the reviewing editors something to consider. As it stands right now, the article is in clear violation of a couple policies, particularly that no sources are given to verify its accuracy, and it does not provide us with evidence that it is notable outside a very small group of people. This last one is especially important since it is a generic term, and was certainly not "invented" by any recent individual. ◄Zahakiel ► 00:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is noting to say it is official as in documentation due to the phrase being introduced after the start of the year academic year (Sept 06 – Sept 07). The books/club material is distributed in sept each year to new members so it should go in for next year. As the phrase was widely used at the nationals many other clubs are aware of it as well as shooting elements around the local area of Plymouth and club member home towns. It tends to be used by younger members of the sport that know of it. As for the invented comment it is now quite clear that we are not the first to use it (so invented can be change to implemented) but…… as products can have patents obtained for different use or slight modification we are the first to use it in a safety sense or to signify an event. 04/03/2007 @ 13:30

Okay. Take a look at the article as it reads now. I removed most of the content which was specific to PUCSC, especially the list of PUCSC's achievements, which have nothing whatsoever to do with the notability of this term. What are you left with? A dictionary definition of the term, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This could be transwikied to Wiktionary, I suppose. ObtuseAngle 15:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rama's Arrow, copyvio. BryanG^(talk) 03:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flame Dream[edit]

unreadable textdump, seems copyvio, + author has been spamming around on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by LimoWreck (talk • contribs)

Weak Delete - asserts notability, but is unsourced, with no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources to establish notability per WP:BAND. Delete unless sourced by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless links to non trivial third party articles concerning this band are posted before the end of this debate. A1octopus 20:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, WP:COPYVIO. Here is the source. No judgement against future creation of an article on this topic. -MrFizyx 22:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Courtesy blanking

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free The Hops[edit]

Standard Afd header added only for article nomination by Walter Görlitz below. Tikiwont 14:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This appears to be a lobby group looking for publicty. It doesn't matter if their cause is just or not, just that this isn't what Wikipedia is for. See MGMbill.org and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MGMbill.org for more discussion on lobby and special interest groups. I would suggest that a brief mention of the group at an article related to beer, or laws on alcohol consumption would be sufficient. --Walter Görlitz 18:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I created the page. We definitely aren't "looking for publicity" from Wikipedia, and I can't imagine how this even qualifies as publicity. We are a citizen's group making a significant impact on the state of Alabama. That seemed to be something worth noting in an encyclopedia. It sure matters to the many businesses that will be affected by the outcome, to the tourism industry of AL, and to the many citizens of Alabama who will see hundreds of new beers become available. --Danner Kline

Comment - Please see the discussion about the other lobby group who were trying to make a significant impact on the entire United States. Their topic sure matters to just under half of current population, as well as doctors and religious leaders. The importance of your cause is not the issue. The importance of your group is. Please see that discussion. --Walter Görlitz 21:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Many other non-profit organizations are described in Wikipedia articles. For example, when I want to find out information about the American Cancer Society, I know I can go to Wikipedia to get information. Similarly, NORML, Parent-Teacher Association, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, United We Stand America, National American Suffrage Association, American Civil Liberties Union, Raging Grannies, etc., etc. etc. There are hundreds if not thousands of pages on Wikipedia that provide information about organizations around the world. I guess Walter could say these groups are just looking for publicity also, but I hope reasonable people will know better. There is a big difference between an article that provides factual information about an organization vs. a page that is nothing more than lobbying in an of itself. If the article at issue contains lobbying, that can be edited. But don't delete an informative article about the origin and activities of an organization just because the organization engages in advocacy. Review the discussion archives on Walter's profile page, and you'll see he's been a little too aggressive with his deletion activism in the past. Apparently, he's still at it. --Banjolawyer 19:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not to mention Mothers Against Drunk Driving. There's a lobby group trying to tighten alcohol laws. We are a group trying to repeal prohibition-era alcohol laws. Activities of a similar but opposite nature. They are national; we are limited to one state. Nevertheless, I fail to see how any argument made for deletion of our entry should not also be applied to MADD's entry. -- Danner Kline 20:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are differences between these notable NPOs and the one under discussion. Again. Please understand that wikipedia is not an advertising or marketing media, but an encyclopedia. If this group does something notable, then they deserve an article. So far they are just a lobby group. --Walter Görlitz 01:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Private (Java)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a textbook. All non-textbook content is redundant with Java keywords and Java syntax Selket ^Talk 21:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the article as such is unsuitable. However it is not redundant either, Data encapsulation is a distinct topic, which is passingly mentioned at separation of concerns and at information hiding but not really covered at either. I suggest the article be Renamed to Data encapsulation and made non-language specific. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Absent objections, or further comments, I suggest this be closed. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, likewise I agree the article Data encapsulation should be kept which is where this article is now a re-direct to. Mathmo ^Talk 04:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current article needs cleanup, but has moved to a broader and notable topic. Vassyana 07:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep new article. I'm surprised there wasn't already an article on this. –Pomte 09:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator, overwhelming consensus to keep the article. -- Longhair\^talk 12:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tjandamurra O'Shane[edit]

4.5 minutes of fame. Does this qualify as notable? I'm not sure, but I think it falls short. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep although lack of sourcing is a concern. Certainly at the time it was quite a notable event, and thus there'd be lots of coverage discussing him. The trick, of course, will be to find same - something I'll make an attempt at. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A well known victim of crime and a Google News Archive search provides some sources. [29] Capitalistroadster 02:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. -- notable and received lots of media coverage at the time. Requires expansion, not deletion. - Longhair\^talk 03:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple reliable sources qualifies as notable, it doesn't matter that he's not "famous" any more. Although Sophie Delezio is more notable as she was unfortunately injured twice, the media coverage at the time was about the same of Tjandamurra and his injuries. He was also one of Who Weekly's 50 most beautiful people in 1996, I believe. --Canley 05:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Embarrassingly, that rings a bell. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Racially-motivated attempted murder of a child, who is also a close relative of a well known Aboriginal magistrate... Notable, historically significant. Numerous, non-trivial sources will exist for the months this child was in recovery, the trial and sentencing of his attacker, and follow-up stories from the years after 1996, especially if the well-known alternative spelling 'Jandamarra O'Shane' is used to search. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 08:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, unless anyone objects? Ben Aveling 12:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natural History of South Asia mailing list[edit]

non notable MLs End33 21:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears non notable. I doubt we could find any independent source, but if we do than I would change my vote. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE, The article should not be deleted for reasons I have written about in the article because of the sheer importance of this list to the NGOs, but the article has to be improved, editors are welcome to improve this page and do more research and add independent sources etc.. This is a very famous list doing very important and urgently needed work. Thanks Atulsnischal 04:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable mailing list. Also, unencyclopedic. -Ragib 11:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments moved to talk page --Ragib 09:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 10:33Z

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Baka man 08:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unencyclopaedic. Gillyweed 09:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have rewritten the article and properly sourced it. I've added a section about a prediction of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake on the list that made headlines. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 10:30Z
Delete. None of the sources or references establish notability. utcursch | talk 13:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This was perhaps one of the first scholarly discussion groups that ever dealt with India. It has produced interesting debates in the past although it later became a site with rhetoric and it does have a large subscription and has lasted since perhaps 1995. The article is currently a mess including the title. If kept, it should be renamed, rewritten in a proper tone. It is perhaps not notable for those who have little to do with the biodiversity of India. With a narrow view like that there are probably more deletables around. Shyamal 04:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep - Well referenced after the rewirte.Baka man 02:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think references are a secondary issue here ... rather the question is whether a "mailing list" is encyclopedic enough to merit an entry. Are there any other examples of articles on mailing lists? --Ragib 02:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty Category:Mailing lists ! Shyamal 03:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 11:11Z

List of dead hockey players[edit]

Not appropriate topic for a list; explanation given on talk page protesting attempted PROD reveals intent is original research (ie, there's some kind of trend in how hockey players die, etc). ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per authors claim on articles talk page this is original research. Whisp e ring 22:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Send it to the penalty box. I wish people would learn that a list of dead people is NOT a good idea. --Hemlock Martinis 23:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everyone dies sometime, might as well be same as a list of hockey players in general. Booshakla 10:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete would be notable if it could be verified that dead people play hockey, rather than the unnotable that hockey players, like everyone else, dies. Carlossuarez46 01:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete. NYT reference helps a lot. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 08:56Z

Great Neck Village School[edit]

Unencylopedic, POV. Delete this and all associated images. RainingmySoul 20:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment This Afd was not properly listed, I have corrected it RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - notable allumni would make this school notable, but are the allumni themselves notable? I'm going to turn it into a stub however RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced. Concerning the notable alumni: An actress who "will star" in an upcoming movie, a TV chef, and a "former intern"? I'm not sure they make the school notable by association. Huon 22:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 22:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. With an enrollment of 40-50 students according to [30], this school does not merit an article unless it is historically significant in some way. The article is nearly empty anyway, except for the various lists and trivia. Rhobite 22:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed vote to keep due to NYT references. Rhobite 13:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep High schools are inherently notable, as I argue in my new, expanded essay here, but why is an intern on the Jon Stewart show notable? Is that item in the "Notable alumni" section a bit of vandalism or is the guy a character on Jon Stewart's show? Noroton 22:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article reads like a directory entry. There is nothing in the article to indicate that the school is in any way notable as required by WP:N. The notable alumni content would be best incorporated into an article on the village. Dahliarose 22:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Noroton. Nicely written little article shows the school exists and fills its mission in a way beneficial to it community. Also seems to have some notable alums, which common sense says makes it notable. I would have checked this against WP:SCHOOL but someone has tagged that as "rejected" and nothing at the supposedly relevant guideline WP:ORG addresses schools. Edison 22:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete High school's are NOT inherently notable and i'm sick of hearing that argument. I also don't think having notable alumni means anything. This is a non-notable school. TJ Spyke 02:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If editors keep nominating schools for deletion, the same arguments will be made.Noroton 03:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion that all high schools are notable is NOT policy or guideline, so it's not a valid arguement. Schools have to PROOVE why they are notable. TJ Spyke 04:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do town articles have to prove notability? If not, why not? Noroton 05:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: News flash Take a look at the Alternative school article in Wikipedia and what do you see? A picture of Great Neck Village School, put there well before this deletion discussion. Is there anything particularly notable about the school that gets its picture on that page? Well, yes: It happens to be one of the oldest alternative schools in the United States, founded in 1970. Read the first few lines of the Alternative schools article. So here we have one of the oldest examples of the type. I'd say that's pretty notable. I added a new third paragraph to the article to reflect that. Also, alternative schools tend to be small by design, so I don't think that should be a criterion for deletion. Noroton 03:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this changes things. It indicates that we don't even have to merge--having provided a convenient informal-appearing picture, its N has been incorporated. delete DGG 03:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the civil tone. Really helps to keep the discussion from degenerating into a nasty argument. Noroton 05:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this AfD will also bring some visibility to the contributions of User:209.177.21.6, who has added many dubious or unsourced statements to Great Neck school and other articles. She has said that she is a high school student there, and she was the one who added the 1970s text to alternative school. I am assuming she made up this "fact" on the spot, and chose this year because that was when the school was founded. Clearly we can't rely on this statement to conclude that Village School is one of the oldest alternative schools in the U.S. That claim would require some sort of scholarly reference. Rhobite 04:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just found a pretty good reference at the Great Neck Public Schools web site ("The Village School, which was established in 1970, is one of the nation's oldest and most successful alternative high schools."). Just follow the link in the footnote and you'll get to the PDF file. Noroton 05:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Village school is an important landmark in Great Neck and provides a small localized education for a smaller group of students. Alternative schools are always smaller then 'regular' schooling and would receive less publicity and less articles about it. If it was a significantly better school than Great Neck South High School then people would request to go there in greater numbers and it would be forced to become a 3rd main general ed high school in Great Neck, but it has a specific purpose and it does that purpose very well. MrMacMan 04:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable alternative school. I've added a citation to an article in the NY Times about alternative schools that spends almost half of the article talking about this particular school. Crypticfirefly 05:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cleanup isn't a cause for deletion. Just H^{editor review} 13:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. May just scrape over the notability barrier, but I'm not sure... May come back and review this opinion later. WMMartin 14:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable alternative school. --Masterpedia 18:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Weird Changes Being Made Alright people... a IP user 209.177.21.6 has been making massive changes to this article, deleting most of it's content. The user is also trying to delete the previously mentioned image on alternative school (village school image). Actually they are deleting all the articles associated with Alternative education. Check it out. MrMacMan 21:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to point out that this user has been deleting massive amounts of said article here again. So please look back and see the page beforehand. MrMacMan 23:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think Village School should be deleted because there's nothing important about that school. It's never been rated in Newsweek Magazine's recent listing of "America's Best High Schools". I feel that Village School is like in a complete different universe than South or North. Village School have different rules...first the students are allowed to be disrespectful to their teachers...i.e. calling their teachers by their first names...that's messed up...as children we were always taught to call teachers by their last names. And now the VS can do it...The Great Neck School district is a hypocrite...they teach us as children to always call teachers by their last names...if we don't it's disrespectful. Village School has no problem for students to call their teachers by their first names. What is this school district teaching our children? (209.177.21.6 - Talk)

Perhaps you want to mention that you just copy and pasted that entire passage that you says argues against the Village school article? Tons of schools aren't on the 'America's best high schools' list. Possibly disrespecting teachers cannot be argued by you since you aren't a teacher. Saying 'that's messed up' isn't a valid argument. Also, your not signed in as a user, and while this doesn't mean your opinion doesn't count, the WP:AFD says that "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons)." MrMacMan 02:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The standing as one of the oldest of its type, coverage by the NYTimes, and presence of notable alumni all demonstrate notability. Alansohn 05:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a landmark school covered by the New York Times, this subject is notable, just like another contentious article up for deletion right now featured by the NY Times. Silensor 05:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Weak keep~~. Notability largely established by being the oldest of its type, coverage in a book, coverage in the NYT, and notable alumni (considering the school has only 50 students each year). In fact, I've convinced myself to a keep. -- Black Falcon 08:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 23:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco DeParis[edit]

Insufficient evidence of notability. In addition, the page seems to be a direct copy and paste from DeParis Redinger, another page of questionable notability. The author removed the prod, so I submitted it to AfD. Strangerer (Talk) 22:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BIO. TonyTheTiger 01:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a lot of claims to notability but the lack of sources and 5 GHits on the full name make me doubt them. Nuttah68 09:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced article causing conflict with WP:BLP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alf photoman (talk • contribs) 22:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 08:53Z

Kyle Redinger[edit]

Insufficient evidence of notability. In addition, the page seems to be a direct copy and paste from DeParis Redinger, another page of questionable notability. The author removed the prod, so I submitted it to AfD. Strangerer (Talk) 22:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete many claims but no evidence of notability. 21 GHits implies there is not any. Nuttah68 09:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 23:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with particularly long titles[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Appears to be non-encyclopedic listcruft. Leuko 22:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT, also WP:NPOV as there is no possible objective standard to determine how long of a title is "particularly long." Otto4711 22:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The very title alone sets this into POV territory. 23skidoo 23:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems very slanted (POV) PTluw777 00:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, title of the article is inherently POV, and this is very much the definition of WP:NOT#IINFO. Krimpet 02:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia really does not need this. A list that stated something like "Longest Titled Singles to Chart in (country)" would just about be okay but "List of songs with particularly long names" is far to arbitrary. A1octopus 13:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious pointless drivel, unless we can also have an article called List of Wikipedia Articles with Particularly Long Titles. Oh, and it's OR, too. WMMartin 14:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total junk, and "long" is a matter of opinion. Booshakla 10:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-encyclopedic, POV, and criterion 'long song names' lacks notability -- RedPoptarts 14:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It interests me and I am more important than all of you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.193.136.234 (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC). — 128.193.136.234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
History: Once there was an NPOV list with a table here, then a debate in June 2006 moved it to a new title and another debate in October (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs with titles of twenty or more words) brought about its removal. Delete the current version as it is indeed POV and cruft, but I have to say I miss the old list even if it wasn't entirely encylcopedic. -MrFizyx 04:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know. I made this article just for fun and because there were several (dead) links to an article about extremely long songtitles to be found in other articles. To me, there is no difference between an article such as this and, say, an article about recorded extreme human longetivity. It's a source of information, nothing more, nothing less. And I think that 'a matter of opinion' being an ante seriously disables the very core of much information that is to be found on Wiki. In the end, all matter is subjective and depends on the eye of the beholder. But then again, it isn't an important article. So go ahead, delete it. :P Harachte 10:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Kendal. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 08:52Z

Kirkbie Kendal School[edit]

Buisness school of dubious notability, also tends to read more like an advertisment rather than an encyclopedic article. PC78 22:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless acceptable references demonstrating notability can be provided by the end of this debate. WMMartin 14:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the article can be written to incorporate suitable references. The school is potentially notable. The building itself is of architectural importance and is a Grade II listing building. See: [31]. If no one wants to do the job then merge with the article on the town of Kendal until someone is ready to expand the article. Dahliarose 20:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 19:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Per Dahliarose. Article needs suitable references. --Masterpedia 19:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per Dahliarose. Noroton 01:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article needs to be expanded and reworked. Merge/Redirect as an alternate. Alansohn 05:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per what has already been said above many times over. Silensor 05:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 08:51Z

Kirby Ian Andersen[edit]

Reads like an advertisment, and I'm not 100% sure but he doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria for musicians. PC78 22:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs cleaup, though. I think he passes WP:MUSIC, having garnered the reviews here and cited here. Ohconfucius 07:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but don't remove advert tag until it's cleaned up. A1octopus 11:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 23:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Mallia[edit]

The creator asserts on the talk page that there is sufficient evidence to show notability. I disagree. FisherQueen (Talk) 22:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article counts as an independent, reliable source and Google News seems to agree. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject appears to be a non-notable amateur. AlexTiefling 13:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fancruft article. Despite spirited defence on talk page, nothing there, or in the article, or in the references provided, is sufficient to prove that Mr Mallia meets the criteria set out in WP:Music. A1octopus 14:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ATT totally Alf^Photoman 17:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 08:50Z

Oasis Online Argentina[edit]

This article is about an organization that is not significant or well-known and is written like an advertisement. This article is very disorganized and has not been maintained since the cleanup tag is added. Stephenchou0722 22:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertising. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 03:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, for now, though ideally a new article on Energy drinks and alcohol should be created, and this redirected to it. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 08:50Z

Vicious vodka[edit]

Not sure if this counts as a notable company/product. Probably not but putting it to an AFD anyways Sasquatch t|c 23:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The article is terribly written but it does have a verifiable claim to notability. Mystache 00:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looked it over again and theres no proof it is the first caffeine vodka. Further looking into it shows the brand wreaks of NN. Mystache 00:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. `'mikka 00:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kimbo Slice[edit]

This article is about Internet phenom Kimbo Slice, a streetfighter whose videos are quite notorious. I acknowledge the popularity of these, but there simply is not enough verifiable information about "Kimbo Slice" for a proper biography. I have found exactly five reliable sources that mention Kimbo Slice. These are:

This Rolling Stone piece. Pretty good, we get the age and occupation of Slice, and he is named "King of Web Brawlers", but that's it.

The next four are all Boston Herald pieces centered on Sean Gannon (fighter), a Boston cop who defeated Kimbo Slice (and directly because of this was picked up by the UFC). But these pieces have only trivial mentions of Kimbo Slice:

"Brawlin' cop goes extreme; Caught on `ultimate fighting' video" (2004-12-03), Boston Herald
- Mentions: "Seven-year Boston police Patrolman Sean 'The Cannon' Gannon and Miami 'pro streetfighter' Kimbo Slice beat each other to a bloody pulp in the vicious eight-minute video for sale on extreme fighting Web sites." and says Kimbo's brother is a pro boxer.
"Cop buddy backs brawler while brass broods" (2004-12-04), Boston Herald
- Mentions: "On the tape, Gannon and 'pro streetfighter' Kimbo Slice trade vicious bareknuckle punches, elbows and knees until both are bloodied."
"Taking it off the street; Ultimate Fighting Championship has become all the rage" (2005-10-07), Boston Herald
- Mentions: "Gannon drubbed a notorious street fighter named Kimbo Slice", and UFC president Dana White calls Slice "a very famous street fighter".
"Ultimate cop bashes rules, back in ring; Brawling cop back in ring despite rules" (2005-09-16), Boston Herald
- A trivial mention of Gannon fighting "street brawler Kimbo Slice".

There are no reliable sources to corroborate Slice's real name, jail time, family, income, training, etc etc. All the descriptions of his videos are original research. The "best" version of this article (mostly verifiable information) is here, and even that has some poorly sourced content based on Gannon's post to Sherdog's message board.

This article survived an earlier AfD here. -SpuriousQ (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, satisfies WP:BIO--Vintagekits 23:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How? WP:BIO requires "at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works". I don't believe the sources above satisfy that. -SpuriousQ (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, Revert it back to the suggested version which I agree is the best. User:DHollerman
- AfD is not a vote. What is your rationale for "strong keep"? -SpuriousQ (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "AfD is not a vote." I'm going to have to roll my eyes at that typical display of Wikiholic condescension. Anyhow, I vote strong keep because:

http://ufcmania.com/2007/01/26/final-thoughts-on-ufc-fight-night-8/ http://ufcmania.com/2007/01/10/former-ufc-fighter-buentello-wants-kimbo-slice-and-cro-cop

UFC Mania is directly connected with the UFC.

-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHollerman (talk • contribs)

- - - Didn't mean to be condescending—bare votes like that are (or should be) typically discounted. Anyway, thanks for the additional explanation, though I'm not too sure of UFC Mania's affiliation with UFC. -SpuriousQ (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Say what you want about the sources, but the guy exists, he has verifiable videos and you can piece together enough biographical info (interviews, etc.) to warrant a page. His fight explanations are narratives of what happens on the video. If you want to take down sublimedirectory.com, just use the YouTube links. Fact is, a lot of sites link to Kimbo's entry, including blogs and message boards. He has a very strong cult following, and the information reflects this. It basically compiles all of the info -- fact or myth -- into one central location. Isn't that what wiki is for? If I want to quickly find out who Kimbo is, I can do that via this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kslice (talk • contribs)
- I wouldn't say that the purpose of Wikipedia is to compile myths. This is more of a fan page than an article, and it's blatantly biased. I don't think this article does anything more than a fan page could, so my vote is a strong delete. MatthewLiberal 03:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no, compiling "fact or myth" is not what Wikipedia does. The sources absolutely determine what can be put in the article, and the only sources we have are not sufficient for an article. The Internet videos are primary sources and hence the "explanations" of them are original research. Other sites linking to this article and a cult following do not change the fact that there are not enough independent, reliable, non-trivial sources about Kimbo Slice. To quote WP:ATT, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." -SpuriousQ (talk) 06:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete appears to be an internet phenomeon yet has remarkably few google hits. Hardly a notable fighter or he'd have TV coverage, or internet references at sherdog, or one of the MMA organisations. MLA 11:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after reverting to this version, improving sources and deleting removing unsourced material. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 16:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Even that version is on shaky ground. The sources cannot be improved; that's the best we have. We'd have to remove Gannon's post to the message board. The table of fights I suppose is tolerable although not attributable to any reliable source and backed only by Internet videos. There is still no reliable source backing SublimeDirectory.com as the official source of the videos, and I'm not too comfortable with the methodology used (by myself) to justify linking to it. We have these few facts:
- Biographical details: an inexact birthdate, a Miami location, a pseudonym, a vague employer (porn empire)
- Notability: Rolling Stone calls him "King of Web Brawlers"
- Accomplishments: fought someone who was subsequently signed by the UFC. Defeated "Rasta", "Byrd", "Afro Puff", "Big Mac" and some other non-notable unknowns.
- Those who come looking for the truth about Kimbo—what can be gleaned from message boards, etc.—will be disappointed at what they find here. Those looking for an encyclopedic treatment will find only a tenuous one. This is directly caused by the unfortunate fact that there are no non-trivial, independent reliable sources about Kimbo Slice. -SpuriousQ (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great way to limit the knowledge of wikipedia by deleting articles for no reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.102.208 (talk • contribs)
Very Weak Keep. There are admittedlsy several problems in fleshing out Kimbo's notability as discussed in the nomination. However, the article in the Rolling Stone does point to at least some notability inasfar as him being an Internet Fighter. Perhaps the article can only contain his fights and the verifiable information. Otherwise, I'd reluctantly support deletion. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure what you mean here by "only his fights and the verifiable information". Right now, the article has just this: all the verifiable info we know and a table of his fights. Do you mean we should give narratives of the fights? The problem with that is it's content based on primary sources—not very encyclopedic. But just listing the fights themselves is equally silly since no one knows who his opponents like "Afro Puff" and "Big Mac" are. -SpuriousQ (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry for the lack of clarity. I am endorsing the current version of the article as the one to keep (but just barely). Also if there is verifiable biographical information it could be added. However, I suspect that over time there will probably more additions of unverifiable information. If the article continues to go in that direction, then it should be deleted as unverifiable. FTR-- I agree that the names of the opponents are silly since no one know's who these people are outside of the Internet Community that follow Kimbo's fights. But I confess I am not impartial here. I follow Kimbo, so I'd like to keep the article in some form despite the obvious and admitted warts with it. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, I understand now. Thanks for the clarification. -SpuriousQ (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:37Z

Satlan[edit]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. War wizard90 23:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NFT junk. JuJube 00:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete protologism. Author was apparently satlan when he wrote this. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ezratrumpet 04:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Billie Joe Armstrong. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 08:37Z

Andy Armstrong (athlete)[edit]

Armstrong was a minor league baseball player of no particular accomplishment, as well of the father of Green Day lead singer Billie Joe Armstrong. Baseball "andy armstrong" gets 702 Google hits, a number of which aren't about this Andy Armstrong. Maybe redirect to Billie Joe Armstrong. The two sentences that make up this article should be, and are, in that one. Djrobgordon 23:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I'm really partial to keeping Andy's article, here, but I agree with you. I think if Andy's part in Billie Joe's article was elaborated on more and this article was deleted, that would be fine by me. Redirecting it to Billie Joe Armstrong would do it a lot of justice to his memory, therefore that's my vote.--Jude 13:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Add to Billie Joe Armstrong There's definatly a lot more info here on Andy Armstrong then there is on Billie Joe's own article. We can simply add some of the info here onto his article. FinalWish 01:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Billie Joe's article says that his father was a baseball player and died in 1982, and the song is mentioned. That's everything in this article.--Djrobgordon 02:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The only thing that could be added was that Andy was a jazz drummer. That's how most people remember him anyway. It's in the Billie Joe Armstrong article, but not this one. Therefore I think that the Billie Joe Armstrong article has more information than this article in the first place.--Jude 03:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing else, just delete it, all the info is in the right article now. Booshakla 10:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the this should be merged and redirected to Billie Joe Armstrong. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 10:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 08:35Z

106 & Park Countdowns[edit]

Cable television countdown show - not in any way an official music chart measuring airplay or sales. This show has been on for years so there is no way this could possibly be comprehensive. And even if it was, how is this even notable? It's filled with tons of question marks already. - eo 23:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, page could be improved on. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 23:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surely it violates copyright of some sort to reproduce the exact video countdowns of one specific show? Even if it did not, it's not exactly encyclopaedic information. GassyGuy 04:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MakeRocketGoNow 15:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 08:30Z

Asbury Forever[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; no evidence given that the film is, or will be, notable Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of any info about notability. janejellyroll 01:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability has not been established, and movie has not even been produced yet. --Nevhood 05:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by CesarB . —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-05 10:36Z

Filo and Peri[edit]

Non-notable biography per WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, and WP:WEB. Contested prod. RJASE1 ^Talk 00:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undoubtedly taken from another website, without assertion of permission. Also violates WP:SPAM. Speedy delete per G12. Ohconfucius 07:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nomination has zero basis in Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and even a modicum of research reveals, as pointed out below (and indeed as pointed out in the article), that there is no shortage of sources upon this subject. I also caution 207.62.186.233 (talk · contribs) to refrain from personal attacks against other editors, such as exemplified below, and also to read our policies on Wikipedia not being a soapbox and the Neutral Point of View. Wikipedia is not here to promote the personal viewpoints of its editors. It's an encyclopaedia. If you want to argue a case for your personal views of the merits of this subject, please do so in an appropriate venue, such as an article published in a relevant scholarly journal, not here. Uncle G 01:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misandry[edit]

Delete - Misandry is just an artificial construct of the Patriarchy created because they hate it when feminists assert themselves and try to deconstruct the Phallocentric male-female power dynamic. -207.62.186.233 23:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Article on a notable topic of recent political/academic interest, verified through reliable sources. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid rationale for deletion. Shimeru 00:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - dunno that this qualifies for speedy but if so, then speedy. Nomination is nonsensical. Otto4711 00:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Anon, unknowingly or not, is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point.--Djrobgordon 00:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Although it could stand to be revised for a more neutral POV, the topic is notable and the page is informative. --Strangerer (Talk) 00:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why is it when a Feminist wants to discuss something, all you misogynists come out of the woodwork with your "Speedy" and "Strong" Keeps? -207.62.186.233 00:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because this isn't the place to discuss whether or not misandry is an artificial construct. This forum is for discussing whether the concept of misandry has been discussed and written about enough that is should be defined on Wikipedia. I think eugenics is garbage science, but that doesn't mean we should delete the article.--Djrobgordon 00:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article clearly has problems, not the least of which is its overreliance on a single, controversial book. However, a review of Google Scholar will show that there are other sources that use this term. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. WP:POINT Dragomiloff 00:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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