Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 1 March 3 >

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]

Furniture (band)[edit]

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

May I ask why this page is up for deletion? I cannot see any reason why it shouldn't be on wikipedia, unless I'm missing something obvious?

I feel that it should stay, but it is technically a higher being's decision...

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; the best idea I see is to merge with Sex-selective abortion and infanticide to a new article, possibly named Selective abortion. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:57Z

Prenatal discrimination[edit]

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

A term about prejudice against fetuses. Well, initial flabbergastment aside, there's not much of an article here, and 73 unique Ghits suggests it's not a notable topic anyway. Prod removed by author. JuJube 00:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable neologism. --Strangerer (Talk) 00:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • After the author's comment on my talk page, I did a google search. I had previously based my answer on the lack of sources cited in that article. If the citations are expanded, I change my answer to Delete - WP:WINAD--Strangerer (Talk) 00:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. --Meno25 00:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete It isn't particularly notable, but the phrase is used in some online academic papers. So its not a neologism. The stub looks like it could be fleshed out into a decent article. --Spoisp
  • Don't Delete It's not a neologism. I know it looks kind of extraneous at the moment but I'll add to it. Besides there isn't a comparable page to and it is a legitimate phrase just not used very often. If nothing else it could just be left as a stub for later development. --jfraatz
  • DeleteMerge I'm familiar with some of the discussions on the topic and never heard the term; it is not explanatory anyway. I think it should be merged but not stand alone. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 01:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is very stubby, but could be fleshed out. —Carolfrog 01:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable neogolism. Leuko 01:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google scholar shows 24 articles with the term "Prenatal discrimination". Of the dozen or so relevant hits, almost all involve sex-selective abortion procedures. PubMed doesn't show the phrase[1]. I'm leaning towards weak delete as it's not an established term, and the article exists as little more than a definition from a dictionary, which Wikipedia is not. If some encyclopedic content can be added to the page, I'll reconsider. -- Scientizzle 02:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep viable stub. John Reaves (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NG. I would reconsider per User:Scientizzle's comments. Ezratrumpet 04:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I got 125 google hits for the phrase. Of those, almost all used the phrase as a descriptor, rather than as the name of a concept. At most, this is a dicdef. None of the keep votes even attempt to counter the arguments for deletion.--Djrobgordon 04:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change vote to keep, due to sourcing. I'd prefer there was something we could redirect this to, but as another editor pointed out, Sex-selective abortion and infanticide doesn't and shouldn't cover disability as a motive. If someone has a better article to redirect to, maybe I'll change my vote again.--Djrobgordon 02:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not appear notable. I can't conceive of any way this could be fleshed out into anything save a dicdef, and those opposed to deletion have not advanced any rationale to that effect. --Haemo 04:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At most, include a section in the Abortion article about prenatal discrimination. The term is not notable enough by itself. --Nevhood 04:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Sex-selective abortion and infanticide already covers this topic with a much less provocative tone. Krimpet 05:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This article isn't just about sex selection but also about disability selection. --Richard 07:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merge into another article would also be feasible. -Yupik 11:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This phrase might merit a mention in Sex-selective abortion but the existence of the latter article makes this one redundant as an article in it's own right, in my view. Jules1975 11:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge There doesn't seem to be much of a reason to delete it, however I do see how it could be viewed as kind of a weak basis for a stub. I think that if it isn't kept it could be merged with another article under a prenatal discrimination subsection. --Rdjohnson
    • Note This user's only edits are to this article and its AfD.--Djrobgordon 02:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and transwiki: Merge the information into another article and transwiki this to Wiktionary. The information would be a reasonable section in another Wikipedia article, and it seems to fit Wiktionary in its current state. Pyrospirit Flames Fire 16:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Looking through the footnotes, there is only evidence for this terms existence (outside of wikipedia) from the European Blind Union. However, I did not read through the University of Washington paper extensively. If the term is used exactly, I would say that it barely passes "multiple secondary sources" (with a grand total of 2). However, from a brief skim of that article the phrase is not used, and I'm assuming a delete for failure of WP:N-Markeer 17:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Keep It does seem there is more encyclopedic substance to the article now, which can be built on, and it is no longer merely a definition. There are only three sources at the moment although I googled it and more sources can definitely be added. Also I do not see how it could be merged any longer as the article it would most likely to be merged into ie. (sex-selective abortions) would not contain information on disability related abortions which this article does. It might however be possible to merge sex-selective abortions into this article since that is a subtopic here. --Rdjohnson
  • KeepDespite my original feelings I'll have to vote to keep it for the following reasons:
    • It is fleshing out with more encyclopedic content than I originally thought it would, and isn't just a dictionary definition anymore.
    • It isn't used much but it apparently does have legitimate usage among scholarly papers.
    • I don't think it can be merged anymore since it is a distinct topic of its own, even though it is definitely relatable to other topics.--MegaMind
    • Note User's only edits are to this article and its AfD.--Djrobgordon 02:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      So, don't bite the newbie. It's probably a good faith first try. --Richard 07:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has been significantly expanded and sources provided. I feel the presence of multiple sources (including academic papers) lays to rest the question of the concept's notability. -- Black Falcon 21:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first ref just uses the words as a descriptor not a defined term per se so is not a reference for the term as such, just a discussion which would be a more proper ref off abortion or disability or something else. It has clearly been put in to justify having this article. The whole topic can and should be discussed under the other topics already listed such as aobrtion on the basis of sex or disability. I'll have a look at the other refs now... cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 21:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly refs 2 and 3 .....cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see sources such as [2] and [3], which explicitly discuss the issue in the context of "discrimination". The sex selective abortion article moreover does not discuss disabilities. I would support a merge of this into another article, but that would require it to survive deletion first. -- Black Falcon 22:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it's grasping at straws a bit but I do agree on the merge, as tehre's a little extra to add on the topic which is clearly integral to the other discussions - in fact I'll vote that above if possible. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 06:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with sex selection Wl219 07:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What would you suggest doing with the material about disability-motivated abortions?--Djrobgordon 07:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Topic is notable even if the title is a neologism. Consider moving the article to selective abortion per User:Scientizzle. --Richard 07:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to somewhere people can actually find it. --Dookama 12:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it should probably be linked to the see also sections of related topics.--Spoisp
  • Comment Since this article encompasses sex-selective abortion we could just merge it under this article under a specific sex-selective abortion sub-heading instead of creating a whole new article for it. That way we could also expand the article in ways that might not necessarily involve selective abortion per se but perhaps involve prenatal discrimination in other areas like opposition for healthcare rights for pregnant mothers and their offspring or economic discrimination against pregnant mothers with fetuses. I don't know if that's relevant but I just thought I'd toss it up there as a possibility.--Spoisp
  • Another possibility: prenatal discrimination and selective abortion might also work as a merge page if we do decide to merge it. --Spoisp
  • Comment Possibly I don't know if selective abortion should necessarily be in the title then though if that kind of material is added. On the other hand I think you definitely have a point about creating a sex-selective abortion subheading although I think a selective abortion subheading would be good as a title or part of a title for the first part of the article. I also thought it might be a good idea to include material regarding attacks on pregnant women motivated by reasons for attempting to end the pregnancy based on the spouses or grandparents economic or social motivations not to permit a delivery. I do definitely think that including the information in the sex-selective abortion article in this article would be a good idea whether or not we decide to merge it. --jfraatz
  • Comment - The article brings together two kinds of selective abortion, sex and anti-disability selectivity. Both are notable, but they need to be linked to articles on the individual subjects (using the 'main' template, or some other). Selective abortion might be a better title. Peterkingiron 00:23, 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, vandahoaxlism. ~ trialsanderrors 00:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zartez Sol[edit]

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

An extrasolar planet around which astronomers have somehow discovered 13 moons, including "Agamemnon a magnetic rock and Atlas a giant globe of Copper Sulphate crystal". Wikipedia is not for planets made up in school one day. Prod deleted as the only edit of a brand new account, so here we are. —Celithemis 00:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google brings in zero hits. Great name for a Superman villain, not for a planet. --Ozgod 01:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: WP:HOAX --Strangerer (Talk) 01:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I only see Google hits in German (Zartez Sol), and only 14 at that. This looks like a hoax to me. --Transfinite 01:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, though there's a fine line between hoax and patent nonsense. I've removed the CSD, not that it'll make any difference in the end. EliminatorJR Talk 02:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need to get that policy changed. Obvious hoaxes are a waste of time to send to AFD. As such, delete --Haemo 04:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, hoaxes can be speedy deleted, although maybe not as "nonsense." Most of the time, they're vandalism. They're not "simple vandalism" (putting "PENIS" all over an article), but they are still vandal joy. At least that's what I've seen in the past. Utgard Loki 13:29, 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 06:50Z

Shartak (second nomination)[edit]

Shartak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Shartak-front.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Shartakscreenshot.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Game was previously nominated here with no substantial discussion- people bounced around Google Hits and Alexa rank and then bickered a bit about WP:SOFTWARE and WP:WEB. Anyway, I believe that there do not exist enough reliable sources for attribution. Google does not bring up non-trivial third party referencing. The game fails WP:WEB or WP:SOFTWARE (take your pick). Wafulz 00:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If NationStates can have their own entry, then this game should have one, too. Cman 01:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "If article x exists then article y should exist too" is not a valid argument. The only way to keep this article from deletion is to provide reliable sources. If Jennifer Government doesn't provide reliable sources, then it will be deleted as well. --Wafulz 01:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I withdraw my keep vote and change it for delete. This was done because Alexa traffic ratings were too low for this site. Cman 01:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability, proved by the number of Ghits for a supposedly popular MMORPG. EliminatorJR Talk 02:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no references that support notability, and article does not meet WP:ATT. Fails two key Wikipedia policies - unless someone can produce references that remedy this issues, it should not be included in Wikipedia. --Haemo 02:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article makes no claim to notability and provides no sources. Nuttah68 09:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No references, so fails WP:RS and WP:V PeaceNT 16:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Similar game, 'Nexus War', had its article deleted as well. Scalene•UserPage•Talk•Contributions•Biography•Є• 22:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. The Kinslayer 11:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Not even the faintest assertion of notability, and fails WP:WEB by a country mile. The Kinslayer 11:28, 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 06:49Z

Immaculate Rejection[edit]

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

Delete - even though this coinage has been around in this context since 1999 it does not appear to have passed into wide usage, thus apparently running afoul of WP:NEO. There do not appear to be any sources of which this is the substantial or non-trival subject. The article is sourced by a Green Bay Packers page, which is not independent, and an article which mentions the blocked kick in a sentence or two as part of a much larger article. Other sources appear to make the same sort of trivial mentions (noting that fans coined the name but nothing beyond that. And technically the "supernatural speculation" section appears to qualify as original research. Otto4711 00:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I agree with the AfD, but perhaps it will be better to merge this information as a piece of Trivia or Note to the Chicago Bears article? --Ozgod 01:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the Bears article, it has no trivia section, I assume because the people who maintain it don't want one. This is one play out of a nearly 90-year club history. I can't see it as a part of that article, but even if it were it would still need to be properly sourced. Otto4711 02:17, 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 delete CSD A7. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 02:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Penglase[edit]

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

Non-notable person - only two Google hits. Guroadrunner 00:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy deletion per {{db-bio}}, borderling {{db-nonsense}}--Wafulz 01:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I concur with nominator and previous poster. --Ozgod 01:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as A7 and tagged as such. NeoFreak 02:17, 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, though as an organizational issue, until there is more information on both the book and the author, a merge is a good idea. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:48Z

Twice A Stranger: How Mass Expulsion Forged Modern Greece and Turkey[edit]

Twice A Stranger: How Mass Expulsion Forged Modern Greece and Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non-fiction book that was only published last year. We can't possibly have articles on every book. This does not meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (books) and is unlikely to do so unless it becomes a standard work on the subject in years to come. -- Necrothesp 01:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - Consider merging with its author, Bruce Clark (journalist) ? Guroadrunner 01:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the article's ability to meet the notability guidline for books is iffy (criteria 5) it is attributable and doesn't really meet the criteria for deletion. IMHO this is the type of borderline article we should be working to keep, not the latest, greatest and arguably notable Gundam battle suit. NeoFreak 02:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The author is international security editor of The Economist, not a particularly noted writer, so I really don't think even criterion 5 applies. He's probably worthy of an article, but all his publications aren't. Attributable does not automatically equal notable. Are you suggesting we should have articles on every book ever written? They're all attributable! Effectively this is advertising for a very recent book that has not yet established its place in history. Bear in mind that Wikipedia does not consider most academics to be notable, and if they're not then their works generally aren't, so why should this particular book be notable just because it's written by a journalist? -- Necrothesp 10:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with author. Given the newness of the book, this article can be little more than a book review. The author's article needs clean-up, but that I think should probably be kept in accordance with NeoFreak. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eldereft (talk • contribs) 09:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge, with author. At this point it would be challenging WP:CRYSTAL if one tries to establish the notability of this book. This article can be recreated once there are enough second party sources about the book AlfPhotoman 12:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources found by Black Falcon AlfPhotoman 00:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm not thrilled with the merging, myself, as this sort of kind of rewards the page rank pumping by creating a redirect, which counts as a link on a top-50 website. Utgard Loki 13:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agreed w/ Utgard Loki. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NeoFreak. Non-fiction book, not self published (I think).--Hobit 22:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
guess you thought right, published by Harvard University Press. AlfPhotoman 20:09, 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 06:45Z

Jimmy Boi[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Has self-released several mixtapes and one single. 274 unique Google hits (not all for him) with no independent, reliable sources that I can see. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A borderline article depending on wether or not anything in the external links section could be deemed a reliable source or "non-trivial". My gut feeling is no. I don't know much about the subject though and could change my vote by someone who does. As is it fails WP:MUSIC and WP:ATT. NeoFreak 02:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on no reliable sources to back up the claims. If some are provided I will reconsider. Nuttah68 09:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless claims can be backed up before the end of this debate. A1octopus 13:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Maxell recording artist. We get this and get this and get this. Vanity productions are like all other vanity. Utgard Loki 13:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nomination appears to arise out of dispute over Bill Mallia - see talk page - but the subject of this AfD is no more notable for that. AlexTiefling 13:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification I was not involved in the dispute over the Bill Mallia article. I simply noticed the argumentum ad Pokemon on the talk page whilst !voting in the AfD for that article, did some research and agreed Jimmy Boi was non-notable. That is the only sense in which it "arises out of" that dispute. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 14:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, pos vanity. David Spart 21:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources and not notable. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks sources to indicate notability.-- danntm T C 19:53, 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 06:44Z

GAR meme[edit]

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

Non-notable meme, fails WP:V and WP:NOTABILITY, possibly WP:NFT. Essentially 4chancruft. JuJube 01:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and reformat. Another cancerous internet meme article that is neither notable nor even close to meeting (or ever meeting) the fundemental attribution policy. NeoFreak 02:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not, and never will, meet WP:NOTE, like 99.9% of the memes 4Chan generates. --Haemo 02:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, highly unnotable "phenomenon," no notability whatsoever outside of a single internet forum. Krimpet 03:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Guts Delete, not notable and barring some sort of unforeseeable event never will be. --tjstrf talk 05:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd vote to delete on the basis of "meme"-hood alone, but this is a particularly isolated one. Wikipedia is not a web guide, and it is not a dictionary, and it is not a dictionary of web terms. Utgard Loki 13:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Utgard Loki. Captain panda In vino veritas 03:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a neologism without any attribution to support it's importance.-- danntm T C 22:24, 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 Redirect to George Dvorsky. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:43Z

Betterhumans[edit]

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

Non-notable website per WP:WEB. Sole reference is not reliable per WP:RS - it's a self-published interview. RJASE1 Talk 02:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I've merged the content of the Betterhumans article with the George Dvorsky article so the Betterhumans page will now redirect to it. We should close this AfD debate. --Loremaster 03:13, 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 by Rama's Arrow. --Wafulz 03:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garden City Anime Festival[edit]

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

Convention is non-notable: happened once and has since been cancelled...twice PatrickD 02:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Non-notable anyway, but hasn't even occurred since 2005 so can be speedied as A7 and so tagged EliminatorJR Talk 02:20, 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 06:42Z

Lil Coner[edit]

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

originally listed as csd, I'm not certain either way. Artist seems to be somewhat notable, however in my opinion this is borderline. Not sure whether to keep or delete.-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 02:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. When an "artist's" only ref or external link is his MySpace page it is usually an indicator that he fails the notability guidline on music. The fact that this article also fails the fundemental and mandatory attribution policy is a natural consequence of the previously stated condition. NeoFreak 02:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources, no article. —Carolfrog 02:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- Eastmain 03:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. When I see an insufficiently sourced article, I first go to Allmusic.com. In this case, I was able to find a listing, so I added it to the article. The next step would be to find a reliable source which specializes in "underground gangsta rappers". I tried http://xxlmag.com , but I didn't find a reference there. Perhaps there are better sources. In any event, this sounds like a case where reliable sources exist but may be hard to find. Are his albums on a notable independent label? If so, then he passes WP:MUSIC. --Eastmain 03:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: MySpace artists aren't linking to their labels. It's good to do extra research, but, given the ease of entry into the "rappa" market and the ease of production of CD's these days, we still need to look for those who are notable, which means standing out from the crowd, not standing in the middle of it. Utgard Loki 13:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thanks for the Allmusic link, Eastmain; that spurred me to find out more about the artist. He seems to have 5 tracks in Rhapsody, a notable subscription music service that doesn't seem to allow uploads - I haven't used Rhapsody, so I may be wrong. Mama Tried on the label Urbanlife is the only album on which Lil Coner is the solo artist; the other 5 are compilations by the label Connected Inc. One would think that his myspace page would give clues about his work, but he isn't helping us out there today. --Strangerer (Talk) 15:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • From a linked article on the artist's Myspace page, "Ya'll know and you know we dangerous even our logo has a gun, Connected Inc. My record label dropped its first album Dec 03' and now we on our seventh." I think this seals it as a non-notable independent label. Delete. --Strangerer (Talk) 15:38, 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 06:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloglines[edit]

No claimed/sourced notability per WP:WEB. Only one interview on a newspaper blog. RJASE1 Talk 02:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep. Just check google. Leuko 02:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Did a quick Google news search and turned up a bunch of information. It appears to be the third- or fourth-largest RSS aggregator out there. --Wafulz 03:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's just too short an article. There is no question about notability; there is a huge number of users. Josephgrossberg 03:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Invalid AfD? --Nevhood 04:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well known and notable, but the article reads as if it is unremarkable. The article needs more information, not deletion!--Xnuala 05:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. This is an example where a quick google and {{unreferenced}} should at least be tried before an AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 08:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've gone ahead and tagged it with {{unreferenced}}. The site is notable and should be kept. Koweja 15:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable site and product - article just needs upadted and improved. StuartDouglas 16:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and perhaps speedy keep I agree, nominators should do some basic attempt to survey notability before resorting to AFD. In this case it's trivial to discover that it is a huge and important website. — brighterorange (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Bloglines is among the most popular web based RSS readers and has thousands of users. The article needs work, not deletion. Rcade 21:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and reworked I have reworked this article and removed the {{unreferenced}}. Please consider closing this discussion and remove it from AfD. Minh T. Nguyen 23:24, 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, deleted by Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs) as "CSD G11". -- Scientizzle 02:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Down.We.Fall[edit]

Down.We.Fall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

De-proded. Article cites no sources for a straight-to-DVD "2008 film" that has several as-yet uncasted characters. Down.We.Fall Jake Burbage receives no Ghits and Burbage's IMDb page doesn't mention this film. This article fails WP:V, WP:RS, & Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Scientizzle 02:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and this article fails the mandatory attribution policy. Chances are even if this movie is made it still won't meet the notability guidlines. NeoFreak 02:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Speedied as G11 but fails everything, most notably WP:NFT. The fact the director is 14 years old tends to give it away. While he is notable as a child actor (if he is actually involved at all), this is surely pushing it.EliminatorJR Talk 02:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if the speedy doesn't go through. This article is a litany of violations, most notable WP:CRYSTAL. --Haemo 02:31, 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.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Ian strachan. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:40Z

Flora Klein[edit]

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

Artricle is unsourced, and reads more like something out of People magazine than an encyclopedia. Unsalvagably unsuitable for Wikipedia Nardman1 02:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now, but not speedy; this would need a complete rewrite in any case, it has zero sources, and the last sentence, PLEASE NOTE: THE AUTHOR OF THIS PAGE IS AN OBSESSIVE MANIAC WHO IS WALKING A FINE LINE BETWEEN FAN AND STALKER. WHEN READING THIS, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT HE IS A FRIGHTENED, LONELY MAN WHO EXPRESSES LOVE FOR AN ELDERLY WOMAN HE HAS NEVER MET.... well, that makes it seem like the whole thing is patent nonsense. I'm just recommending not to speedy in the spirit of good fairth to allow the author to come up with sources and for this article to be cleaned up, because I think it can be salvaged. (|-- UlTiMuS 02:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That last line is a vandalism edit. I've been eyeing this article for deletion for some time and instead of reverting the vandalism I decided to put it up for AfD. Nardman1 02:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sr13 (T|C) 08:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The mother of Gene Simmons? YGBFKM. --Dhartung | Talk 08:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gene Simmons, I suppose. The ohmygoshallinonebreath typing is a little jarring. Utgard Loki 13:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom StuartDouglas 16:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep If she has indeed been a primary subject of the books cited, she is notable enough to have an article, although a rewrite is needed. Edison 18:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, awful, awful prose that even if Klein is a notable subject, needs to be burned off the databases. It's an act of cruelty to allow anyone to clean that up. hateless 00:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability is not transfered through family. Besides, the current state of the article is not readily salvageable.-- danntm T C 01:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being mother of a notable person is generally not notable per se. Most of the references seem to be the sort of biographical stuff that a band spawns for publicity reasons. Having a biography written by her son similarly does not make her notable. It should be deleted, but re-creation should be permitted, if its sponsors can demonstrate nobability this time, and cite independent sources to verify that. Peterkingiron 00:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yikes! I'm an 'OBSESSIVE, FRIGHTENED, LONELY MANIAC"? Anyhoo - I am a big fan of musician Gene Simmons and I also have a great interest in and respect for those who were courageous enough to survive the Holocaust and continue to love others in spite of all the evil they experienced. The fact that this woman, Flora Klein, and HER experiences so profoundly inspired her son - who went on to profoundly inspire hundreds of future rock stars is, I firmly assert, notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. If I am outvoted on this, I will respectfully back off. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Originals (talk • contribs)

Sorry for forgetting to sign my comments. 'Originals' 209.78.98.26 19:10, 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 Keep, though until there is more information available, it would make sense to merge it to some list. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:39Z

Aasulv Olsen Bryggesaa[edit]

Aasulv Olsen Bryggesaa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy deletion. No notability assertion per WP:BIO, no sources. RJASE1 Talk 02:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep assuming that sources backing up the claim to his portfolio are provided. I'm inclined to say that that would be sufficient notability, but I'd like him to have done something more than just hold the portfolio if it all possible. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, unless notability can be established. Doing so would be difficult, a google search mainly results in copies of the article. --Nevhood 05:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete as above. Eldereft 09:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources from Norwegian Government and Prime Ministers Office added. Both from first 10 GHits. Nuttah68 09:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strøng keep Nøtåble. Referenced. Keep. --Dweller 11:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete References aren't articles, and articles have more than 5 words in them. If the author can't be bothered to tell us about the politician, then why are we supposed to take on homework from him or her? Utgard Loki 13:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless expanded by end of this AfD. A one-liner does nobody any good on wiki, those are available by the hundred on the net AlfPhotoman 13:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment an article being a stub is not a reason for deletion. Nuttah68 14:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ehm, yes but it nobody is expanding it, it is just a waste of storage space AlfPhotoman 14:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That, again, is irrelevent. Nuttah68 14:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being a stub is a reason for deletion, if it's a substub. See A1 in the category:speedy deletion. Some people think "Old Hickory is a stoplight" is a stub, and others think it's an A1 speedy delete. So, if something like that can be a speedy delete, then a totally uninformative article can be an AfD deletion. "Max is a politician (note.note.note)" is pretty darned uninformative. You'd pretty much already know that before you typed the name into the "Search" box or see it as a blue link. Utgard Loki 15:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please cast your eye over Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Problem_articles_where_deletion_may_not_be_needed --Dweller 15:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, "may" fr. OE moghte, "possible or conditional." Ok, now what was the point you were making? Don't we have to have an article to have an article to keep? Isn't an article a bit more than "Jimmy is the one who cracked corn?" I say this because, if he was, then I don't care. Utgard Loki 16:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only sources available indicate that he actually was a minister in a Norwegian government but evidently without lasting impact and/or notable laws passed during his tenure. I don't think that just doing (better said : holding) one's job is being notable (sorry, found this trying to expand the article) AlfPhotoman 15:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment One does wonder from your contributions here if you've read Wikipedia's notability guidelines. WP:BIO specifically states "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office" are notable. Even if he'd picked his nose for the two years, he'd pass our guideline. --Dweller 15:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and just because of that I provoke a little, those guidelines should be revised AlfPhotoman 15:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to involve yourself in a consensual debate about amending our policies, but we must follow the ones in being, not the ones you'd like us to have. Until we have them, if you catch my drift. Head on over to WT:BIO and make a proposal. --Dweller 15:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well lets see: (quote) This list is only a guideline, and should not be used an absolute test of notability; each article should stand or fall on its own merits.(unquote)
looks like I have been reading the guidelines in its entirety AlfPhotoman 15:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I referred to it as "guidelines", rather than "policy". Our policy is WP:N. That page doesn't deal with detail - it refers you to the guideline WP:BIO for the detail of current consensus of what kind of people are and aren't regarded as notable. Where WP:BIO is so very clear, it'd be very difficult for you to argue against applying it; an example might be someone appointed to minister of state, who died before taking office. That'd be arguable. This isn't.

--Dweller 15:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and that is interpreting the guideline, my example is adhering to them AlfPhotoman 16:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused - are you changing to Keep then? --Dweller 16:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
naturally not I am adhering to : This list is only a guideline, and should not be used an absolute test of notability; each article should stand or fall on its own merits. I really tried to find references about this guy, to the point that I Skyped a friend of mine who works in a newspaper in Oslo. He came up with one article mentioning this guy in passing as part of the report of the swearing in ceremony. After that zilch, nada ... not even that he inaugurated a public pissoir. AlfPhotoman 16:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I not sure how you, or your friend, looked for references but to help here is the first few results found by Google [4], [5] and [6]. My Bokmål isn't up to much but I'm sure your friend could get some detail from them to add to the archives his paper can access that aren't online. Nuttah68 17:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen those, and basically they confirm that Bryggesaa was part of a government as member of the liberal party. That is beyond discussion and that is basically what this article says. My point is that there is nothing more. If you want to say he is automatically notable, well fine with me but I beg to differ AlfPhotoman 18:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, fallacious nomination, government ministers are notable. Punkmorten 16:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Punkmorten. The Rambling Man 16:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Nuttah68. Being a stub is not the same as CSD.A1 (and should never be treated as such). CSD.A1, "very short articles providing little or no context" is for cases where we can't even make out who the person is and/or what s/he did. This is a valid stub article deserving of expansion. -- Black Falcon 22:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 22:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any minister in a national government is notable. I'm guessing that there just isn't a lot in English, and especially online, for this notable historical individual. This does not mean he's not notable. --Charlene 23:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I do not know anything of him, but even minor politicians at national level can be notable. What does the Norwegian Wiki say about him? Peterkingiron 00:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't make the Bokmål 'pedia say anything about him (a search yields a collection of what I take to be "List of Parliamentarians" or "List of Cabinet Ministers" or something like that). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:22, 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 Keep. Good sources added. Nomination withdrawn. PeaceNT 09:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Transhumanist Association[edit]

World Transhumanist Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not assert notability per WP:ORG. All sources are self-published.Withdrawing nom, keep due to additional references. RJASE1 Talk 02:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No GNews hits, no Google hits except from affiliated websites. Of course, this just means resistance is futile and I will be assimiliated. Keep in light of newer refs. I for one welcome our new cyborg overlords. ObtuseAngle 02:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous discussion (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/World Transhumanist Association). They have an annual conference, peer reviewed journal, and appear to be active with well-defined goals. Could certainly use some fleshing out, though. Eldereft 09:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All internal stuff and no indications that they have made a dent on the world. The high school glee club can meet at Denny's, but that doesn't make it a notable organization. We need some third parties noticing and discussing them. That's lacking now. Utgard Loki 13:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - This article did not fulfill WP:V in 2004, and it should only be kept now if reliable sources are actually provided to meet WP:ATT. --Tikiwont 13:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Aelffin for providing potential references even though it is not obvious which ones actually tell something substantial about the organisation WTA. In other words, we already have articles on Transhumanism which refers in a section to World Transhumanist Association as well as for the leading protagonists and journals etc. and many of the sources just reflect this interwovenness. A legitimate starting point for the article about the organisation would be references that do more than reporting standard WTA press info, but report e.g. specifically on the conference. I've added a source that I found myself and authorise the closing admin to convert my vote into keep if more pertintent citations are included in the article.--Tikiwont 20:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Bare minimum research shows why. Do a Google search and you’ll find the following in the first three pages of results alone:
Village Voice [7]
Daily Herald [8]
Worldwatch Institute [9]
Deseret News [10]
Society for Social Studies of Science [11]
RJASE1, can’t you at least consult a search engine before nominating an AfD? C’mon people, do a little research already. Same goes for the editors who wrote the article. Aelffin 15:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Articles by the Village Voice, The Daily Herald, and the Deseret News certainly make this a notable subject (not to say the others aren't; I'm just not as informed about those publications). A minor rewrite to incorporate these sources into the page and to replace buzzwords would turn this into a valuable article. --Strangerer (Talk) 15:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More references...
The Guardian [12]
Utne Reader [13]
Reason Magazine [14]
Nashua Telegraph [15]
National Catholic Weekly [16]
Raider News [17]
Friends of Earth [18]
Thomas More Institute [19]
TCS Daily [20]
McGill Daily [21]
CY Daily [22]
New York Inquirer [23]
Macomb Daily [24]
ThisMagazine [25]
Illinois Federation for the Right to Life Daily News [26]
The Quaker Economist [27]
Skeptical News [28]
Action Bioscience [29]
Council for Secular Humanism [30]
The Standard [31]
Radio Netherlands [32]
The New Atlantis [33]
Aelffin 16:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given above references. Page needs a LOT of work though --Hobit 17:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Sufficiently notable. — RJH (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. I've added most of the above references to the article. --Loremaster 22:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That's a lot of references. The article needs improvement, obviously, but deletion is no longer appropriate per WP guidelines. -- Black Falcon 22:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThere is no doubt that its notable, and with V sources. There are additionally a considerable number of related organizations , and a number of people connected with it, with articles in WP but that are much less N, and could usefully be redirected into this one. From checking their home pages, I think that this is probably the central one. I refrain from saying what I personally think of the movement. DGG 04:00, 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. — CharlotteWebb 06:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton Stands[edit]

Stub on a company producing musical instrument accessories. Speedy deleted under WP:CSD#A7 on October 31 2006. Overturned at deletion review. Technical nomination; I offer no opinion. GRBerry 02:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Well-known company among musicians. ObtuseAngle 03:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does a company that makes specialized musical equipment for 125 years get covered by independent sources? Certainly. Are those sources we can easily retrieve online? Certainly not. In the meantime, article is V/NPOV/NOR, subject is N, that's all that matters. ~ trialsanderrors 05:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per policies, per Trialsanderrors and per the fact that there is no deadline on Wikipedia, so we don't have to either have a perfect article or delete. Hiding Talk 10:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know what it looked like when listed for CSD, but it looks good now. If someone just typed "Hamilton stands is a music stand maker," it would have been garbage. The fact that the company is the #1 stand manufacturer in the US wouldn't make a garbage article a keep. It now, though, conveys actual information. It's a doodad, but it's an acceptable doodad. Utgard Loki 15:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. --Lukobe 16:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while the article could use fleshing out and more sources, the company is notable. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:39, 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?) 16:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admiral Ebrahim Shah-hosseini[edit]

Admiral Ebrahim Shah-hosseini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not meet the WP:BIO requirements. Ozgod 05:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No proof he even existed let alone accomplishments to pass WP:BIO. Retired in 1357??--Dacium 07:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a stub. Admirals are generally notable. Note the retirement took place around the year A.D. 1979 (sometimes written 1979 C.E.). 1357 would be the corresponding A.H. date (after hejira). --Eastmain 13:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some time back I tried to establish a criterion that all soldiers with ranks of general or admiral (and equivalents) would be automatically notable, but there was a strong argument that without an independent verifiable source no article could be written. What evidence do we have other than assume good faith, that this officer ever existed and attained the rank of admiral? At this point I am unconvinced either way. --Kevin Murray 19:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its probably because people don't realise how many generals there are. Like each division actually has a generalty and there are thousands of divisions in the world.--Dacium 01:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that would be a poor precedent. Most peacetime flag officers in any military would not be notable.--Dhartung | Talk 08:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete There should be sources to establish the reality of every one of them: for the UK, there is http://www.navylist.org/. For Iran, I haven't any idea what would be the equivalent, but others may . But this might be a good time to question that earlier assumption that they are all notable. In this case there are apparently not enough sources to write a meaningful article. A little odd, because the orig. editor was "AminSh," & this is his only article. DGG 01:33, 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, Eastmain 01:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since no sources exist. If sources exist, I'll reneg. --Wafulz 04:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 08:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pending addition of any information displaying his military (or other) notability, other than by dint of holding rank. --Dweller 11:26, 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 with Demographics of Hong Kong (and its sub-articles such as Culture of Hong Kong). Only a small portion of this article is actually about the name "Hongkonger"; the rest is about Hong Kong people generally. This article attempts to be an overview article, which is what Demographics of Hong Kong already is. Sections on "Names for Hong Kong people" and "Cultural identity" can be added to that article, using reliable sources. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:37Z

Hongkonger[edit]

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

Was put as CSD, I listed it here instead since I wasn't sure.-- Luigi30 (Taλk) 03:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles listed under CSD criteria using a CSD template, do not need to be re-listed under AfD. The CSD template will alert an admin to take any appropriate action required. Luke! 04:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know if it met CSD. Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article needs complete rewrite. Nearly no reliable sources, and most of it is POV original research. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NEO - avoiding neologisms, original research and high un-verifiable. Luke! 04:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Such an article is bound to become a personal essay.--K.C. Tang 06:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete On the one hand, we could save it by making it a dictionary definition (delete). On the other, it can be an essay (delete). It's an inherent delete. Utgard Loki 15:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge possible useful content into Demographics of Hong Kong. If this cannot be done, then leave it as a redirect in any case. I suppose it's a plausible search term, although I admit "resident of Hong Kong" was not the first thing that came to mind when I read the title. -- Black Falcon 22:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification. The Google results below show that this is indeed a plausible search term. So, I wish to slightly to my opinion above. I still think the article should be merged to Demographics of Hong Kong (they are essentially the same topic, but the "Demographics of ..." prefix is established on all country articles), but I strongly oppose deletion. Merge and redirect instead. If a quality merge is too complex (and it seems to be, given the multiple overlapping sections of the articles), perhaps move the content into a subspace of Talk:Demographics of Hong Kong, which can then be deleted once the merge is completed. -- Black Falcon 08:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The article is written by numerous editors and there is a large section of discussion on the article. Deletion is very inappropriate here. There are tons of research on Hongkonger in the past decades, and Google returns 191,000 on "Hongkonger", 40,800 on "Hong Konger" and 414,000 on its Chinese title "香港人". Think of improvement first even though it could be a big project. — HenryLi (Talk) 04:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I want to clarify that I don't mind re-creating this article if the content is well sourced and not just a bunch of original research like it currently is. But as it is, the article could use a complete rewrite. The issue of the fact that this article is poorly written was raised more than a month ago. Personally, I'm lost on how to save the article, short of a complete rewrite. Also, I'm sure the words "Hong Konger" or "香港人" can be found on a lot of webpages, so I don't think it's neologistic, but the term is hardly ever actually defined, and there is really very little resources for an article about this subject. Most HKers just have a general idea of what 香港人 means, but nobody ever bothers to actually define it in detail. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 10:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I guess many of us would be persuaded to keep this if there were already articles like "Shenzhen-er", "Shanghai-er" & etc. But no, we don't have them. And we should not have them. When we type Canadian, we will be re-directed to Canada; when we type American people, we will be redirected to "Demographics of the United States". That's probably the right way to do things.--K.C. Tang 15:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking at google the pages that say HongKonger are tabloid type articles or existing Chinese sites doing a translation cause they have no better word to use. This is a slang and the page is misleading people to think it is an official term. As an encyclopedia entry, the contents are way too off track. If there is a merge, can someone suggest which part? Seriously everything about politics, citizenships and writings are already in better articles. BTW survey results are opinions in number format. There is no room to improve on an un-referencable street term IMHO. Benjwong 03:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Do you read the South China Morning Post, for example? How do you come up with the conclusion that it is a slang and appears only in tabloid articles? - Privacy 20:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The crux of the problem is not whether "Hong Konger" is a slang. For example, "Canadian" is a formal enough word, but we don't have and won't have an article for that.--K.C. Tang 02:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup. This article is still useful to be kept in Wikipedia (at least the opening paragraph), though some sections may need to be removed, rewritten or just had minor edits, but on general the article itself should not be deleted. --Raphaelmak 15:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask why?--K.C. Tang 02:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and better clean up. - Privacy 20:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Comment You need to think in reverse... Imagine looking up information about people in New York. You get 2 pages, Demographics of New York and New Yorker. The demographics page has real info. The new yorker page is survey opinions and totally unreferenced sources. That is what the Hong Konger page is right now. Benjwong 00:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
where's the New Yorker page with survey info? I can't find that. Anyway such a page should have been deleted if it once existed.--K.C. Tang 02:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. There is no such thing. That is why Hong Konger page should do the same. Benjwong 14:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I haven't taken a good look at the New Yorker article, but I don't think its existence should necessarily lend reason for Hongkonger to exist. Maybe there're some good sources for that article. Or maybe that article also needs to be nominated for AfD. Regardless, Hongkonger is just an article full of original research right now. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am saying there is no such thing as a survey/opinion page for New Yorker. Why should there be one for Hong Konger. That's what I was bringing up. Benjwong 14:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up per above. Passer-by 19:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Just need rewrite. No political reason pls. Matthew_hk tc 02:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not a majority vote. If you insist on rewrite, please flag the article "under construction" and do so with references. Or advise to others on how to rewrite. I am ready to delete this and merge maybe 1 paragraph into demographics of Hong Kong any minute. Benjwong 02:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not do anything unless a clear decision is made. Do not give other editors any form of pressure. - Privacy 07:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I lean towards a keep since it has been written by numberous editors, it might just need a lot of cleanup. Abstrakt 05:20, 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. — CharlotteWebb 06:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Krauss[edit]

Not sure if notable or not.-- Luigi30 (Taλk) 03:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 05:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I was the user who originally nominated this for speedy A7. Considerable content, I believe establishing notability per WP:BIO, has been added since. --Selket Talk 04:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The references add up to notability. --Eastmain 04:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable scholar of ancient Judaism; wrote the book on the ancient synagogue according to a later scholar, pioneer of Talmudic archaeology according to another. Thus passes various Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria. -- Kendrick7talk 05:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With addition of sources, appears to be a notable, scholar, mentioned in the Jewish Encyclopedia article and cited by various other scholars. --Shirahadasha 05:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as being a major editor of the Jewish Encyclopedia as described in article makes this person notable. By the way, this is the first time I have seen a nominator admit that they are "not sure if notable or not" -- for heaven's sakes, if one is "not sure" of anything about an article, the last thing to do is to nominate that article for deletion because AFD's are serious matters and are not guess-work games for people who know nothing about the subject they are nominating. Sheesh. IZAK 05:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it perfectly reasonable to nominate when unsure, and have the article visible, and see what the interested editors think. The alternative is to have people nom for prod, which gets much less exposure--or--very much worse--to simply list it for speedy and decide on their basis of their own partial knowledge. (Of course, another alternative is to not nominate the articles that one thinks dubious--this does not lead to the improvement of WP. DGG 04:05, 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 speedy delete. – Steel 12:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby's Dream World[edit]

Kirby's Dream World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fan-game, no notability asserted. Also, delete this template: [34] A Link to the Past (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable fan game. You might want to add Template:Kirby's Dream World as well. TJ Spyke 06:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fangame, the end. JuJube 11:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not "the end". A fan-made game can certainly attain notability (I don't have any specific examples off-hand, but the possibility is there) --UsaSatsui 12:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability, reads like an ad. --UsaSatsui 12:48, 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 Merge to Donkey Kong Jungle Beat. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:24Z

Donkey Kong Jungle Beat bosses[edit]

Donkey Kong Jungle Beat bosses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A list of bosses in one somewhat popular game with a minor plot does not warrant an article. A Link to the Past (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with List of Donkey Kong characters. TJ Spyke 04:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well if anything gets merged, it should only be a partial merge of descriptions, not specific Kongs and Rocs and etc. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per A Link to the Past's suggestion above. Article a bit too fancrufty @ the mo. Suriel1981 12:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not sure what's missing from the List of Donkey Kong characters that makes this a need. Listing bosses is really better done by game sites. Utgard Loki 15:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. GarrettTalk 20:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of non-Kremling Donkey Kong enemies. -- Lord Crayak
  • Merge into an appropriate "List of characters" article. I have no knowledge of DK and am thus not sure what the appropriate article is. However, WP:FICT specifies that content on "minor characters" should be merged into a "List of characters" article. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 22:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge into the appropriate article. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with either the DK:JB article or the non-Kremling DK enemies list.DreamingLady 09:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To all suggesting a merge... why? Do we ever see articles that have a list of all bosses in a single video game, notable or not? This list should be deleted to create a precedence against boss lists that don't use any discrimination besides how specific the list becomes (series, game, etc.). - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to WP guideline, minor characters for fictional works should be lumped into a "list of characters". -- Black Falcon 00:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not precedence to have an article. That says "if minor characters have ARTICLES, then merge them into a list." It doesn't say to make a list for every game with minor characters. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are right, but no one is calling for us to keep this article. And the fact that there already exists a list to which this can be merged makes the matter less complicated (in my opinion). Also, as JackSparrow Ninja has noted below, the boss battles are a key part of the game, so it's not like these are completely minor characters. -- Black Falcon 00:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • They are major characters in this game. JackSparrow Ninja 00:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Kind of like Moldorm in Link's Awakening. Do they HAVE characters? Or are they JUST characters? It's rare to see a list of bosses for one video game, or even for a series of them. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Donkey Kong Jungle Beat. Boss battles are vital part of the game, and an explanation on them is nothing more then normal. JackSparrow Ninja 23:49, 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) 2007-03-07 06:21Z

Gate32[edit]

Gate32 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Gate 32 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

I have been watching this article for several days now after watching edit wars on Recent Changes. I have listed the main issue I have with the article on its talk page: The only sources listed are 2 MySpace pages and a Greek website. The other issue is that another user has mentioned that he believes the group Gate32 is a hoax. While this cannot be proven 100%, the author has not attempted to prove that the group is not a hoax. Instead, the article's original author, who is also named Gate32(contribs/talk), simply removes the Hoax and Prod tags from the article without any discussion on the talk page. This has happened 4 times now. The last Prod tag was dated 2/24/2007, and the 5 day waiting period expired without the author addressing the issues with his page. That is, until he removed the tags this evening. Since the author will not cite his references, the group mentioned in the article is dubious, and the author continues to vandalize and remove relevant tags, I figure that the article is more of a nuisance than informative. However, if the author will actually cite relevant and appropriate sources for the information, I see no need to remove the article. Mec modifier (talk/contribs) 04:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no relevant Google hits, appears to be a hoax. John Reaves (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources that either assert or support notability, or attribution. Appears to be self-promotional in nature, and probably is a hoax. --Haemo 04:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads like propaganda if anything else. "...prominent Greek businessmen and politicians are in fact Albanians." IntinnTalk! 09:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To me, it reads like excitable boi stuff. If they rise to the level of terrorism, then they will be appropriate in a discussion of ongoing terrorism. At present, it looks like 'street cred' in a weird form. Delete as essay and failing WP:V and not establishing notability of the group. Utgard Loki 15:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence that this group even exists, let alone is notable. -Elmer Clark 05:24, 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 Keep, but remove images. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:17Z

Artwork of Isaac Mendez[edit]

Artwork of Isaac Mendez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page is a gallery of copyrighted images, and the rest of the (little) content of the page is nothing other than info on a fictional character. Phuzion 04:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't even remotely fair use. Read WP:FU for the acceptable uses of copyrighted images. In no way does adding comments critical of the images in question fall under the guidelines therein. This is not fair use. --Haemo 07:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it appears that all non-FU images have now been deleted. However, this article now has little to no content, and should be merged to Isaac Mendez. --Haemo 07:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge after. IntinnTalk! 09:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Isaac Mendez. In the context of discussing the character and the TV series, this is entirely appropriate (at least until such time that Wikipedia policy forbids such articles). Fair Use is better supported by presenting the screenshots (for that's what they are) in the context of the character article; and this is fair use because the images are being used for direct discussion of the images. The Mendez article is not so long, nor is it likely to become so long, that this section needs a separate article. 23skidoo 12:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, either copyright violation or someone to stingy to get his own web-gallery. In either case there is no place on wiki AlfPhotoman 14:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm curious if the above editor is aware that Isaac Mendez is a fictional character and that his different paintings are critical to the plot of the television series Heroes? 23skidoo 17:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does that imply that nobody has a copyright and that nobody is interested in displaying his work? AlfPhotoman 19:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S with nobody I mean Tim Sale naturally AlfPhotoman 20:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft + copyright problems. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The images are clearly a copyright issue. However, the descriptions might have a place on the Isaac Mendez page.Chunky Rice 18:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Isaac Mendez if fair use rationale can be applied. Otherwise, delete. However, speedy deletion on the basis of copyvio is inapplicable unless copyright infringement is proven by reference to the location of the original copyright. -- Black Falcon 22:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to: keep or merge without most images per below. -- Black Falcon 18:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without most images I support keeping this article because although the paintings are all from one individual, many of the paintings actually affect major events in the show. In addition, the article provides information on how the some of the artwork is produced for the show. After reading Wikipedia:Fair use, I can agree that many of the images would not fall under fair use because they are not iconic. The only artwork that might be considered iconic in terms of the show is the nuclear explosion on Issac's floor, as this painting drives a main story arc throughout season 1 and is repeatedly referred to by various characters. As a side note, Artwork of Isaac Mendez is actually more of a Wikipedia:Lists than a standard article. This article's layout and style is closer to featured list Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc than to a featured article. If this article's information is merged back into Isaac Mendez, it will likely return as a list in bullet or table form instead of becoming prose. - fmmarianicolon | Talk 23:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per fmmarianicolon. Some of the images are okay, while I do agree that some don't fall under fair use.. A lot of these paintings are critical to the plot of Heroes. ♣Tohru Honda13♣ 00:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per fmmarianicolon and User:Tohru Honda13. dposse 16:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per fmmarianicolon, 23skidoo, and Tohru Honda13 arguments. 66.109.248.114 00:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above articles, and maybe rename to something like List of Artwork Pieces by Isaac Mendez. JQF • Talk • Contribs 03:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Borderline meets the FUC, needs more prose however, also should certainly not be tabulated. Matthew 13:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Matthew, but I don't understand what you mean by "tabulated". Can you please clarify? - fmmarianicolon | Talk 22:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per fmmarianicolon and User:Tohru Honda13. A rename/reformat of the page would be acceptable, but there's no need to delete. There is enough content in the descriptions (which provide insight into the plot of the show) to warrant its own page. Also, how is it not fair use if the images used are screenshots from the show?  Anticrash  talk  14:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see hwo this can fail to be copyvio. StuartDouglas 15:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, but remove images. It was agreed to split this from the Isaac Mendez.--Ac1983fan 17:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we remove most of the images to avoid copyright violations. Otherwise, Delete. Valaqil 19:46, 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 a no consensus mess, default to keep for a bit. We can revisit this after, say, a week or two, when the dust settles, but this article has changed so much since this nomination was opened that people aren't even talking about the same article any more. If there are still notability problems in a week (unlikely, with ABC News and many others picking the story up) we can do this again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay[edit]

NOTE: Article has been renamed to Essjay controversy - C.m.jones 11:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC) updated link (→Netscott) 21:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not a notable person (to anybody outside Wikipedia, that is), and doesn't have many, if any, reliable sources. For the people who don't know, the subject of this article is User:Essjay. PTO 04:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note from the nominator - The article has changed extensively since it was first nominated (along with at least 4 moves), so this nomination is essentially obsolete. People participating in this discussion need to read the article before commenting. I can't stress this enough. Cheers, PTO 03:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

***NOTE:Due to the immense size of this debate, it is no longer being transcluded on the main AFD page, please see

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essjay for the debate.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:14Z

Slave insurance in america[edit]

Slave insurance in america (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reads like an essay. Also has POV issues. Real96 04:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely reads like an essay, especially like an essay full of errors! --Nevhood 04:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unsalvagably incoherent. Gazpacho 07:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope someone who wants to keep this is going to research and rewrite it, because there's nothing here to keep. Gazpacho 17:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Reparations against modern companies for who directly benefited from or were complicit in exploitation and slavery are an interesting issue with continuing relevance (I believe Chicago recently declared that they would not do business with JP Morgan until they came clean). As best I can tell, 19th century insurance records are being used to establish such a link; except the third paragraph, which seems to have no relevance whatsoever. If the article can be repurposed to explain clearly the historical interest and the modern relevance, this would seem notable. It may, however, be necessary to discard the current version. Eldereft 10:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it may not be the theme, but the article really needs some work if kept. Maybe deleting and recreating at a later point in encyclopedic fashion would be the best way forward. AlfPhotoman 12:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, albeit somewhat weakly. I think that the topic of insurance policies on slaves is one that can support an article. The text now here is hard to follow and needs cleanup, but I do not think it is totally useless to someone who wants to improve it, or needs to be wiped from the history. If kept, it should move to Slave insurance in the United States. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've begun some basic cleanup on the article, which right now focuses on California legislation, which is apparently unique. Some more information on the contents of the policies themselves might be of interest, and there are some leads there in the California Dept. of Insurance websites. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
if you have a sturdy helmet you could propose it as policy. But you've got something there AlfPhotoman 13:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Edison and Smerdis. Also, a request: please do criticise articles with "has POV issues" without actually stating what you think they are. Thank you, Black Falcon 23:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --MaNeMeBasat 16:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough per above statements. Captain panda In vino veritas 22:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with something else This is a strange article, since it largely talks of recent California legislative activity about archives, rather then the apparent subject of insuring the slave-owner's property in his enslaved workers. Is this a fork from soemthing else, or is it is news item resulting from an archival discovery? Peterkingiron 01:15, 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 Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:13Z

Gun violence[edit]

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

*Delete. Has POV issues. Yaf 05:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Delete as it presents a POV that guns are only associated with violence, instead of with self-defense, sport, and other legal uses. Yaf 05:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Keep. Many of the POV issues have been addressed, and the article has grown from a dictionary definition to the beginnings of a real article. Yaf 03:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this one-line article may be a pitiful stub right now, since the former article was rightly moved to Gun violence in the United States, but gun violence is a very real and highly debated issue, and this has potential for expansion to incorporate a worldwide view on the subject. And honestly, I don't see any POV issues in the single sentence that currently makes up this article: "Gun violence is deadly force through the use of firearms." Krimpet 05:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a very important subject, a pity that this article is so short. It is not POV to say there exists violence related to firearms. 96T 08:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. IntinnTalk! 09:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable and POV issues are not a reason for deletion. Koweja 15:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Now that some stuff has been added, I'll change to a weak keep. Delete - An article with no content is useless. This one shouldn't even qualify for a stub. It's more of a dictionary entry. The old article was moved because it was U.S.-centric. Any new content in this article is likely to follow the same path I think. (I don't think that the title of the article pushes a POV. Violence does sometimes involve guns. That's just a fact. Vehicular homicide doesn't imply cars are only murder weapons, does it?) —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 03:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Issues resolved. Article has meaning and usefulness now.Delete - per Thernlund, the article is a definition and contains no useful information otherwise. Perhaps until the article has been rewritten with actual content redirect to Gun violence in the United States. - (Ninsaneja 18:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete unless expanded to at least a referenced stub While I doubt anyone will dispute that Gun Violence isn't a significant topic of discussion, this article isn't a discussion on the topic. It's not even a stub and it doesn't even have any references. It's just an unreferenced single sentence. Delete for now unless the article is expanded to at least a minimal level of stub-like info, and has at least some minimal references to show that it's not original research. Of course, that wouldn't preclude a good article on the topic being written down the road. Dugwiki 20:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I expanded it to a couple sentences with references, to describe the scope of the topic and what it encompasses. Krimpet 03:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. If there is Gun_violence_in_the_United_States then this can't be controverial. David Spart 21:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Has POV issues, lacks sources, etc.--Mike Searson 23:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Yafs comments above. --Spoisp
  • Delete. Dicdef and redundant to gun violence in the United States. Dragomiloff 18:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Gun violence is a basic and highly notable topic, with no shortage of reliable sources (UK Home Office, U.S. Department of Justice, Canada, Australia etc.) Right now the page serves more as a disambiguation page, until time that more substance is added. --Aude (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This article has been listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Articles_up_for_Deletion. --Aude (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#New articles. Yaf 04:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If more info is added, it can be a pretty good article. Captain panda In vino veritas 22:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has grown from to the better since the nomination and has the potential to be a interesting artcle. Rettetast 21:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per nom withdraw. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 12:23, 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 no consensus -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opportunity rover timeline for 2005 April[edit]

Opportunity rover timeline for 2005 April (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

list format of article, and notability for Wikipedia's purposes (the article content is more in line with those highly interested in the project) Guroadrunner 05:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the Rover's exploits on Mars are historic. Nardman1 05:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are companion articles to this one that were formerly deleted. I have listed them at DRV because this article is not meant to be seen by itself. The month-by-month log is linked off a main page. Nardman1 05:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this is kept, it should be moved to "Opportunity rover timeline for April 2005". TJ Spyke 08:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move. Needs cleanup though. IntinnTalk! 09:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; while this mission is highly notable, we already have in-depth coverage in the proper format at Opportunity rover; a detailed diary from NASA like this isn't really encyclopedic (but might be a good candidate for Wikisource.) Krimpet 15:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Opportunity rover timeline. The previous AfD was inappropriately closed (the admin admitted that the consensus was to merge, but chose to delete instead). -- Black Falcon 01:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move this and similar pages to subpages of Opportunity rover timeline. Too much content to merge into one page, but is also not a standalone article. Perhaps subpages are the solution. OscarTheCat3 21:48, 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 after a particularly vigorous discussion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cattle in popular culture[edit]

Cattle in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article starts out with the unverifiable, OR claim that "cattle are thought by many to be inherently funny" due to the likes of their "propensity for flatulence," and dives headfirst into a long, indiscriminate list of movies, TV shows, songs, and commercials that happen to feature a cow in some way or form, some of which are very questionable (honestly, would a TV commercial for cereal really have a joke about masturbating a steer?). A very good example of where an "in popular culture" article is not justified. Krimpet 05:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Waaaaaay too undefined of a list. This will get very huge very quickly with no sign of stopping. Violates WP:NOT. --Wafulz 05:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, an article detailing every cow joke ever is just what we don't need. --tjstrf talk 06:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This one is just an indiscriminate list. Other "in popular culture" articles have analysis. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 06:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear god, that is to say, delete - indiscriminate list of any time a cow appears in any setting. No no no no no. Otto4711 06:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I must go on record to say that this is a topic that could be useful for research. If the article seems indiscriminate, clean it up. - Richardcavell 07:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:USEFUL is not a compelling argument. Otto4711 07:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is, really. This article contains information that is genuinely useful to cartoonists, scriptwriters, advertisers, and so on. I see no reason to delete. The argument given in WP:USEFUL applies when there is a better place for the information (eg phone numbers should go in a phonebook), but I see no better place for this article than wikipedia. - Richardcavell 07:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete according to WP:TRIV. Cataloguing pop culture references is the lazy way to show the significance of something. Gazpacho 07:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per being unverifiable, subjective, OR that is patently unencyclopedic. --Haemo
  • Delete -wow.. What next "Horses in popular culture"..--Cometstyles 08:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all aforementioned reasons. IntinnTalk! 09:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to be a violation of WP:OR --K.Z Talk • Vandal • Contrib 09:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might support an entirely rewritten, referenced analysis article The main problems that I see with this article are that it isn't referenced, it makes some questionable original research sounding claims (like the line about cows being inherently funny), and it presents all its information in a bullet list of snippets. So as it stands it's not a very good article. For me to support it, it would have to be repurposed and rewritten, basically talking about cows as they appear in popular media in a more encyclopedic manner (eg convert bullet list facts into a more comprehensive analysis and paragraph format) and has to provide at least minimal secondary sources to show the analysis isn't original research. FYI, note that it looks like this article was split off from Cattle#Cattle in popular culture Dugwiki 21:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, how is this any different from Lions in popular culture or Coyotes in popular culture or Frogs in popular culture or Manatees in popular culture or any of the other articles in the "animals in popular culture" category??? The article could sure use some clean-up but that's not a criterion for deletion. Cows are infact quite prevalent in popular culture... right now there is an annoying ad on TV for a ringtone featuring a dancing cow singing "I like to MOO MOO! I like to MOO MOO!" --Candy-Panda 02:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of those other "(animal) in popular culture" articles are just as bad for the same reason: nothing more than indiscriminate lists of times that animal is mentioned in some song or TV show. Of the examples you cited, the only one of encyclopedic caliber IMO is Lions in popular culture, as it cites numerous cultural depictions of lions in mythology, literature, heraldry, etc. that are all quite historically significant. Dancing cow ringtones are not historically significant. Krimpet 02:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS --Action Jackson IV 04:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete listcruft. I jokingly made reference to The color blue in popular culture in an earlier AfD - little did I know that there was an equally ridiculous and real list out there. --Action Jackson IV 04:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you've got to admit, cows are inherently funny, which is why they are so prevalent in popular culture. It is also the reason why nobody is taking this AfD seriously, and everyone is calling the article's subject "ridiculous". --Candy-Panda 06:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cows are prevalent in our culture because mankind has domesticated them as livestock for food, dairy, leather, and such for thousands of years, not simply because they are "inherently funny." And the article's statement that "many people" find cattle funny is a clear-cut example of weasel words and OR; who finds cattle "inherently funny," and where can I find reliable published attributions to confirm this? Krimpet 16:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, 132,000 google hits [35] would agree that "cows are inherently funny", and 1,300,000 would agree that "cows are funny" [36], 1,290,000 like "cow jokes" [37], 1,480,000 like "funny cow pictures"[38], 1,850,000 watch the "I like to MOO" dancing cow video [39], 2,070,000 like to tell "You have two cows..." jokes[40] and 2,010,000 say "holy cow!" [41] --Candy-Panda 06:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to correct the searches that Candy-Panda did above, note that you searched for things that include "cow", "funny" and/or "are" in any order anywhere on the webpage. That's why you have hundreds of thousands of hits. When you search for the exact quoted phrase "cows are funny" you get 119 hits. Dugwiki 16:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. definitely a notable topic (cowbell, Elsie the Cow, ...). A brief summary of cattle in popular culture in the main article, with a detailed subarticle is entirely appropriate in this case. --Aude (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Regardless of the question of whether it is possible to meaningfully talk about "cattle in popular culture", there is no attribution of the opinions in the introduction, and the rest of the article consists of a list that shows little potential of being synthesized into something from which meaning can be derived. Dekimasuよ! 13:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, perfectly legitimate subject for an article, can be cleaned up. No need for deletion. --NinjaBunny 05:11, 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 06:10Z

Overwhelming Evidence[edit]

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

Site fails WP:WEB no reliable sources other than blogs and itself also has very little user traffic and usage. Most of the discussion of it on other sites makes fun of its lack of users and contents. Tmtoulouse 05:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. IntinnTalk! 09:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -Yupik 11:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. Mkdwtalk 00:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --J2thawiki 19:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. The article looks like an attempt to drive Wikipedia traffic to the website. SheffieldSteel 20:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete SeanMD80talk | contribs 00:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the nominator themselves says there is coverage of this site elsewhere. And just because it has been negative coverage is not a reason for deletion. What next will this train of thought lead to, deletion of Mike Tyson because of the hugely massive amount of negative coverage he has had? Mathmo Talk 04:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There maybe coverage of the site, but none of it is WP:RS there are no reliable citeable sources outside a few blogs here and there and itself. Tmtoulouse 06:27, 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 Redirect to Lawrence v. Texas. No reason to delete history. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:09Z

Roger David Nance[edit]

Roger David Nance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not sufficiently independently notable, and while there is some information in this article that is not in Lawrence v. Texas, there's nothing particularly worth having. Delete and then redirect to Lawrence v. Texas. --Nlu (talk) 06:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Lawrence v. Texas He is not notable by himself. TJ Spyke 08:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Nlu IntinnTalk! 08:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Lawrence v. Texas. I am confused, however. Why would you request that it be deleted, then redirected? Why not just redirect immediately? -- Black Falcon 01:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason why I think it should be deleted first is that there's nothing worth having right now, content-wise, anyway. A simple redirect unnecessarily preserves the history. --Nlu (talk) 02:23, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NFL on Christmas Day[edit]

NFL on Christmas Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete - is "so what" a reason for deleting? The NFL scheduled games on Christmas. Big deal. Nothing indicates that playing football on Christmas is so culturally significant that it needs its own article. Otto4711 07:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable as above Jimp 07:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Otto4711. Sr13 (T|C) 07:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. IntinnTalk! 08:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. -Yupik 11:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is fun... please can we have articles on every professional sport in the world that plays on New Year's Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, during Chanukah's 8 days, Ramadan's month, Chinese Year of the Golden Pig... --Dweller 11:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Arkyan 15:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable........I dread seeing all those articles you mentioned being created though Dweller.......and some smart alec will.....Jcuk 20:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It IS notable. How else you can explain that only 14 matches were played on Christmas Day in the league's 80-something years history?--Nitsansh 21:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is notable & culturally significant. It explains why in the article. Professional sporting events was a cultural no-no when they ran the first one in 1971 & it was so controversial that the NFL refrained from it until 1989. And the fact that so few have been played in 80 years is of cultural significance. Face it, the NFL is a part of American Culture.--Hndsmepete 04:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cacophony 08:20, 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) 2007-03-07 06:07Z

NBA on Christmas Day[edit]

NBA on Christmas Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - there is nothing culturally signficant about playing basketball on Christmas. Otto4711 07:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not notable as above Jimp 07:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Otto4711. Sr13 (T|C) 07:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Alternatively merge all "... on Christmas day" into a "Sports on Christmas day" article and expand it. IntinnTalk! 08:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. -Yupik 11:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per arguments here and at the similar afds listed today. --Dweller 11:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Arkyan 15:54, 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) 2007-03-07 06:04Z

PBA on Christmas Day[edit]

PBA on Christmas Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete - playing a basketball game on Christmas day is not so culturally significant that we need an article about it. Otto4711 07:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable as above Jimp 07:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Otto4711. Sr13 (T|C) 07:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. IntinnTalk! 08:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. -Yupik 11:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh Delete. For goodness sake, we don't even have an article about the legendary football matches referred to in our article on the Christmas truce of 1914. --Dweller 11:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Leaving articles like this hanging around will set a bad precedent for future trivia articles. Arkyan 15:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. --- Tito Pao 16:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Berserkerz Crit 16:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 08:53, 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) 2007-03-07 06:03Z

YACHAD (Germany)[edit]

YACHAD (Germany) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
YACHAD Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Yachad (germany) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

This one-line stub is about a new not notable organization that goes against WP:NN. Basically any mention of it on the web is from sites that mirror this Wikipedia entry. No notable or newsworthy achievements beyond a desire to publicise that they exist that violates WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. IZAK 08:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 08:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for above reasons. IZAK 08:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment May I suggest to get someone from the WP:LBGT project to check it out and fix it so it passes the WP:NN criteria and/or it can be merged with another article? IntinnTalk! 08:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't exist on the German wiki in spite of the iw link to it. Perhaps this can be merged with some other article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yupik (talk • contribs) 11:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC). (Sorry, the sig seems to have dropped off. This is my comment -Yupik 11:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete, verifiability issues. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Delete - not notable. - Richardcavell 01:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Kazanas[edit]

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

"biography article" on a WP:NPF teacher who published a couple of papers. Created to push ideological fringecruft. Kazanas' notability can be fully addressed in the articles on the subjects treated in his papers (out of India and indigenous Aryans). dab (𒁳) 09:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This Indologist has published in many peer-reviewed journals like ABORI and JIES. The nominator of the deletion does not assume good faith when he claims the article was "created to push ideological fringecruft". Dbachmann is himself at least aware that this Indologist has published in JIES and was reviewed by others, including Witzel and Parpola. This seems all part of an effort to paint everybody who has written on Indo-European/Indo-Aryan theories related to India from a non-mainstream view as Hindu Nazis or to delete articles on people who have written on such things. --RF 13:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • re "Indologist", a Master's degree clearly doesn't establish any sort of notability as an academic. His papers are citable; not evey author of a citable paper is notable enough for a biography article. dab (𒁳) 13:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have written in the article that he has a Master's degree, but this site [42] describes him as Dr. Nicholas Kazanas. I do think that his publications and to a lesser degree his work at the Omilos Meleton institute establish enough notability. --RF 14:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • sigh, a PhD would also not establish sufficient notability (but we won't take a voiceofdharma.com page as evidence, I think). He would need tenure at least if you're going to claim he is notable as an academic. I think you should concentrate on arguing he is notable as an author. oops, no ISBNs, just a bunch of journal articles. Maybe his article can be merged with one on his organization? Well 123 google hits (including its own homepage) doesn't seem that convincing. I think you'll need to think of something else yet (such as WP:ILIKEIT). dab (𒁳) 14:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He has also published articles in edited books. Anyway, Wikipedia is not paper, and Kazans is clearly notable at least in the field of the IAM debate, with reviews by Parpola, JP Mallory and Witzel. I don't know how much notable his works in other fields (such as Greek and Indian philosphy) are. --RF 14:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If there are enough papers and cited enough, they establish N. There are other roads to learning than a PhD. Agreed its unusual, but its an unusually impressive list of publications. The fact that the theory is a s minority position and involved political matters is all the more reason to include it, to avoid the possibility of POV.DGG 04:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to one of his homepages, he does have a Ph.D. --RF 13:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonnotable academic. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In his particular niche it would be diffuclt to claim that he has no notability, having been reviewed by Parpola and JP Mallory.RF 21:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • He meets the primary notability criteria: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other." --Rayfield 19:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His contribution to Indology is similar to Michael E. J. Witzel although on the opposite side of argument. Sbhushan 19:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kind of like your trolling on this afd eh?Bakaman 23:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable academic who is only "interesting" because he supports a nationalistic fringe theory.--Berig 20:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe he is for some people only notable because of like you say "nationlaistic fringe theory", but that he is only interesting because of that is pure pov. RF 21:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • AFAIK, there are no policies against voicing "POVs" during votes, so I fail to understand your objection.--Berig 21:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • RF, notability is unrelated to POV. He wouldn't be notable even if I thought his work was brilliant and he was a fabulous cook and a great guy to have a pint with. dab (𒁳) 22:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have you read our comments? I criticized him because he said "interesting", not because he said "notable". I must say that I find his works on philosophy more interesting than his works on Indo-European issues, even though he probably is more notable for his works on Indo-Aryan topics. --RF 23:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • He meets the primary notability criteria: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other." --Rayfield 19:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RF. His work has been published in multiple academic journals.Bakaman 23:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Multiple publications don't make one notable unless they are significant or well-known. In this case, the only publication that comes close to being important is JIES; and in my personal opinion, it's not sufficient to earn this person an article on Wikipedia. utcursch | talk 11:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which one? He had at least 3 publications in JIES. (Or to mean to say that JIES is the only important publication where he published? In Indology (not general IE Studies), Indological publications like ABORI are at least as important as the general IE publications. --RF 13:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • He meets the primary notability criteria: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other." --Rayfield 19:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. His foray into the JIES merits at best a footnote. rudra 21:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I don't understand is that a main proponent of the OIT should not be notable enough for its own article, while an article about claims on the ideological motives of said theory should be. --RF 23:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • He meets the primary notability criteria: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other." --Rayfield 19:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • he does not. the phonebook is a reliable secondary source, yet we don't allow articles on anyone just on grounds of being listed in the phonebook. That Kazanas is the "main proponent" of the "Out of India" theory speaks volumes about the notability of that, but this is the Kazanas AfD, not the OIT one. dab (𒁳) 12:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Bakaman 23:12, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surrey Stingers[edit]

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

Not noteable, Not Referenced, Likely to be Unreferencable, Non-Neutral Point Of View, Not noteable, Limited (And poorly written) Content(And unlikely to be improved given the rarety of edits), insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject, self promotion, and also Not Noteable. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#The_primary_notability_criterion Was proposed for deletion previously and the tab removed with the reasoning that there are several other football pages out there. See also the 'Bellsprout' debate and remember just because a similar page exists doesn't mean that page SHOULD exist.Simondrake 09:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Emphatically Delete Six simple words THIS SPORTS TEAM IS NOTE NOTEABLE.Simondrake 20:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you are the nominator, it is generally assumed that you support deletion. It is alright, though not necessary to write "delete" once again. I only note this because you did the same to Jskivington, so, for consistency. -- Black Falcon 01:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep member of the British Collegiate American Football League, a notable league that conveys notability on its members. MLA 11:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The group may be noteable but this team is not... see the Surrey Stingers Discussion page for an explanation of why this is an important distinction.Simondrake 20:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have asked an Advocate to help with this situation, hopefully that will clarify why the Stingers are or are not Noteworthy.Jskivington 21:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons mentioned by MLA. The article's stub status should not be held against it. -Masonpatriot 15:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis site is the only reliable record of team history, as the league page is constantly down.Jskivington 16:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI have just added more information, and referenced everything I could.Jskivington 17:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You may only vote once, your additions did not make the page significantly better and did not address the main concern that the team are not noteworthy and do not deserve a page. Also, because you want some information to be preserved somewhere does not mean it should be on wikipedia.Simondrake 20:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. What are the criterion for British American Football teams anyhow? I know with Football its the first ten layers of the pyramid or something like that, is there similar rules for American Football? Jcuk 20:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per inappropriate nomination. I checked the version of the page that Simondrake nominated for deletion, and I have this to say: listing every policy in WP with the idea that one or more may fit is not the way to go. Allow me to address the points raised in the nomination.
  1. Not noteable. Valid criticism. See comments by other users above.
  2. Not Referenced. Valid criticism. Sources have been added.
  3. Likely to be Unreferencable. Questionable criticism. Sources have been added, thus proving this notion false.
  4. Non-Neutral Point Of View. Invalid criticism. At the time of nomination, the article contained 2 sentences (both of which are factual) and an unverified list of the team's record (hardly POV).
  5. Not noteable. I will assume good faith and say "not notable" was rewritten to add humour to the nomination.
  6. Limited (And poorly written) Content(And unlikely to be improved given the rarety of edits). The quality of the writing seemed OK to me (in any case, the nom's comment is not in line with WP:CIVIL). The average # of edits for WP articles is around 14 (including vandalism). The # of edits for this article prior to its nomination for deletion was exactly 14 (thus, average), not counting vandalism and the proposed deletion. -- Black Falcon 01:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject. The article identified the team as a member of BCAFL and also had an infobox for further clarification. Insufficient context criticisms are applied to cases where the identity of the subject of the article cannot be adequately determined given the existing text.
  8. self promotion. Really? The article only identified the team as a member of BCAFL. There was nothing of the nature: "Best team in the world!", "A superior coach!", "Motivated players", and so on.
  9. Not Noteable. See my comment for the second "not notable".
Given that the only delete so far is the nom's own, I suggest speedy keep. -- Black Falcon 01:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to begrudgingly accept your verdict on most of the disputed matters for the sake of a civil discussion but you've still not addressed the primary concern, this team is not noteable according to wikipedia's rules on noteability. The only reference given is the team's own website not an external source. You say it is part of a noteable group and it gains noteability whenever the group is refered to, like a magazine might have the article: "The BCAFL, whose members include the Washington Tigers and the Surrey Stingers, will be sponsoring a team in the marathon to raise money for lukemia." That would be a trivial reference, nothing to do with the team itself. If you can prove that Surrey Stingers is noteable by it's own merits, rather than just because it's part of a group then I'll stop complaining and let it stay.
Comment I think it's pretty presumptuous to say that even though you're the only one who has a problem with the page, you get to decide whether to "let it stay". Sometimes people don't agree with you (in good faith). Tone like this does nothing to win support for your argument. Masonpatriot 15:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This just seems to contradict the rules of wikipedia. Homer Simpson gets his own page but Apu's children do not get individual pages because they are not noteable, they are part of a combined page. Perhaps a few BCAFL pages should consider being merged into, say, Minor teams in the BCAFL?

I do aknowledge the comments about my tone, and I appreciate perhaps it should have been a little more civil. But so far the only three reasons given to keep it are:

  • I want the information to be kept...somewhere. (Dissobays wikipedia's rules, wikipedia is not an indeascriminate collection of information)
  • The group is noteable so the team must be. (I think this is illogical, by the same token every branch of Tescos, Sainsburys and Argos could have its own page)
  • You were quite rude when you suggested it for deletion. (Maybe I was, maybe I wasn't but that doesn't change the article and it's the article we're here to discuss)

So I'll say this one last time. I do not think the Surrey Stingers are noteable enough to warrant a page on wikipedia. Can anyone find proof that they are?Simondrake 13:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Ok, here are some external sources that publish Stingers information (I have linked specific pages when possible:
  • http://www.britballnow.co.uk/History/Britball%20Teams/SURREYSTINGERS.htm This is a 3rd-party site with Stingers news and information.
  • www.hot-iron.co.uk A website about Scottish teams, but it does include information about opponents.
  • www.touchdownclaymores.com The former Claymores website contains a lot of BCAFL information, mostly in the forums.
  • www.nfluk.com The British NFL page, it also contains lots of BCAFL information in the forums.
  • Lastly the magazine First Down features news and game reports for EVERY TEAM in BCAFL, they do not have a web page but I will buy an issue and scan the Stingers page if it will calm you down.

So I will say this again: Why have you singled the Stingers out for this treatment? There are several other BCAFL teams that are even less notable than them but you have left their pages alone. The fact that you are a Surrey student makes this seem like a petty vendetta against the Stingers American Football team.Jskivington 15:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This debate is a mess, it's become more about my tone and calling me petty than it is about the page. The bottom line (And the top line, if you'll look at the topic instead of worrying about my tone) is that I do not think this team is noteable on its own. The fact that there are other pages out there that are less noteable is a topic for another day, this discussion is about Surrey Stingers.Simondrake 16:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, this line of inquiry could be considered relevant if there is a possiblity that you are approaching this discussion from a position of bad faith. Regardless, it seems like closing this issue is in order given the path and results of this discussion. Black Falcon seems to tie things up nicely. Masonpatriot 01:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, one last time. Despite my tone, faith or creed, despite me - Are Surrey Stinger Noteable?Simondrake 03:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you are the one that brought this issue and the article has existed without problem for well over a year, I would think that the burden is on YOU to prove non-notability. Plenty of points have been made above by MLA, Black Falcon and Jckivington to support notability. Are you saying that just because you want to disregard their arguments, you're right? All you've said is that the Stingers aren't notable, but haven't said why (except to dismiss what others say and post blanket links to wikipedia policy). I don't see this as unreasonable. Like I said above, though, this seems to be a dead issue at this point. -Masonpatriot 04:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Their evidence of noteability is not valid according to wikipedias rules, which is what I said from the start. No one has provided evidence that is valid by wikipedias rules on non-trivial external references and the incredibility of forums. I'm just going to give up now because this is getting rediculous. It seems like a simple logical connection, this page is not noteable by wikipedias rules so it should be deleted unless noteability could be proved according to the rules.Simondrake 04:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You keep on saying according to Wikipedia rules, but you are yet to note a single rule that this page does not conform to despite numerous requests, you keep on going "aginst the rules, against the rules!!". When someone stands up in court they are charged with an individual law violation not just "he broke the law". You also said "I do not think that this team is notable on it's own" which implies that your arguments are not based on any rules but a dislike for this individual page or team. This amuses me given the fact that you falsely claimed that this page is non-neutral, but that is a much better description of you.Jskivington 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep. The team is very minor, but given that they are part of this: British Collegiate American Football League, and that the article forms part of a very complex whole, the nomination to delete is highly unlikely to succeed. An argument might be put forward that all the teams should be mentioned only in the parent article - however, there is already enough information on each of the teams to justify a split off. The amount of information on the League is sufficient to justify its existence on Wiki. The only debate would be as to how the information is organised. And it seems from looking at the matter, that the information is organised in the most helpful manner at the moment. All that this discussion is doing is causing upset. Simondrake clearly felt the article was worth a discussion to see if other people felt the same way as he did. That's fine. I would agree the article needed testing. It has now been tested and found satisfactory. It is clearly going to become even more satisfactory (rather than less) as time goes on. SilkTork 22:22, 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 keep and cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Online newspaper[edit]

This is basically someone's personal essay on the phenomenon that newspapers have websites that allow people to read their articles online. >Radiant< 09:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's plenty to say on the subject of on-line newspapers:
    • Herre van Oostendorp & Christof van Nimwegen (September 1998). "Locating Information in an Online Newspaper". Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 4 (1).
    • Foo Yeuh Peng; Naphtali Irene Tham & Hao Xiaoming (1999). "Trends in Online Newspapers: A Look at the US Web". Newspaper Research Journal. 20.
    • Wendy Dibean & Bruce Garrison (2001). "How Six Online Newspapers Use Web Technologies". Newspaper Research Journal. 22.
    • Jane B. Singer (1997). "Changes and Consistencies: Newspaper Journalists Contemplate Online Future". Newspaper Research Journal. 18.
    • McAdams, Melinda (July 1995). "Inventing an Online Newspaper". Interpersonal Computing and Technology. 3 (3): 64–90.
    • Hsiang Iris Chyi & George Sylvie (1998). "Competing With Whom? Where? And How? A Structural Analysis of the Electronic Newspaper Market". Journal of Media Economics. 11 (2): 1–18. doi:10.1207/s15327736me1102_1.
    • CARINA IHLSTRÖM; MARIA ÅKESSON; an STIG NORDQVIST (2004-07-07). "FROM PRINT TO WEB TO E-PAPER — THE CHALLENGE OF DESIGNING THE E-NEWSPAPER" (PDF). {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
    • Hanluain, D. O. (2004-02-13). "Free content becoming thing of the past for UK's online newspaper sites". Online Journalism Review.
    • Hsiang Iris Chyi & Dominic L. Lasorsa (2002). "An Explorative Study on the Market Relation Between Online and Print Newspapers". Journal of Media Economics. 15 (2): 91–106. doi:10.1207/S15327736ME1502_2.
  • That's just for starters. Fixing the article is a matter of removing any original research and introducing material based upon the above and many other sources. Uncle G 13:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/rewrite It'd be fine with less original research and more sourcing Whilding87 15:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/clean-up Per above and from the references in the article it looks like this is a case for a cleanup instead of deletion. Would suggest keeping the article and discussing what parts need to be deleted or modified on the article's talk page. Dugwiki 21:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uncle G. --- RockMFR 22:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/rewrite per Uncle G. -- Black Falcon 01:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is very important to see the difference between blog and forum sites as to newspapers. Newspapers are written by professionals and are moving from hard copy to soft. This is a very impotent development for the industry. This below is some one who is not 100% as to what it is he/she is talking about. This is not 1 posters comments and this topic is very important! You have posts about online radio, online TV etc. It would be silly to remove it. Just look at the posters tag, that says it all! If electronic pager can stay, so can online news! It is people like this chap who has flagged this up who make Wikipedia loose its credibility.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martin-jj (talk • contribs).
  • Who posted this silly thing saying the online papers not being important? I am doing research about a UK based newspapers for a TV program later this year on the BBC. Very silly this. I found this site through google... well I know about it, but I have not used it until now. I was looking for a website I have been asked to do the background on and spotted that this site has information on. So logged on and the first thing I see is that things are to be deleted with out research being done. I will be adding this fact to our program notes. If wikipedia wants to be taken at face value, it should not allow the public to pick what is kept and not kept. The public should submit information and then staff on the site should check it out! I have spotted huge holes and lots of information being cut, due to it not fitting the editing system. This post should be kept as it is! I am not going back on here as it has lost credibility to me. I know what the facts are and this post is spot on. Lots of information, ok needs a bit of a clean up, but DO NOT delete, just because of that! --Fm-jessamine 19:49, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hucko[edit]

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

No wp:reliable sources, so very probably wp:non-notable. See related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multi-level cosmology. — coelacan talk — 10:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as nom. And yes, before the fanboys show up, I'll just say it: the Earth is flat. — coelacan talk — 10:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - No reliable assertion of notability. Google search for "Mark Hucko" returns hits mostly based on this article and Hucko's own websites. However, I'm prepared to be argued down and to that end, will post at the Languages ref desk to see if any linguists have heard of him. --Dweller 11:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Deferring to linguistic expert, User:N-true, below. --Dweller 23:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. All the sources are self-published; the acadamic library I'm in doesn't know him, he can't be found in the dead tree and digital archives. If we have a slavic message board of some sort around, we could ask them to weigh in too, but it looks like this is self-promotion. - Mgm|(talk) 12:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, he has some notability as the creator of Slovio, which we've had an article about for almost five years. If kept, though, the article shouldn't describe him as a linguist; conlanger ≠ linguist (quite the contrary!). —Angr 14:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, and adhere to the opinion of Angr. If the language is notable.... on the other side, this article should be sourced and referenced properly AlfPhotoman 17:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable independent of the conlang. No independent biographical sources. Come to that, Slovio has no independent sources either. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's the creator of a relatively well-known international auxiliary language (Slovio), so I don't see the reason why his biography should be deleted. We have articles for the creators of such minor IAL projects like Novial, Interlingue and Solresol, do we? So why not him? And in case you're wondering, Coelacan and Dweller; I am a linguist and I'm not in the least a fan of Slovio. — N-true 22:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Useful thanks. Amending my !vote. --Dweller 23:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree, however, that most of the article's content is not really notable (immortality stuff and whatnot), but maybe I just say that because I'm not superstitious. ;) — N-true 23:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: In "relatively well-known international auxiliary language" the word relatively should be be stressed. If anyone heard about it then as a curiosity. Pavel Vozenilek 16:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Slovio may get notable in the future but Hucko should stay out of WP, as the stereotype of unappreciated genius tells. Few sentences on Slovio page should be enough. Pavel Vozenilek 16:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per N-true. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 03:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonnotable crank. Mark Hucko has become known for his Multi-Level Universe Cosmological theory and for his pioneering work in life-extension and immortology, unsourced claims of persecution, etc. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:21, 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. Despite the massive amount of argumentless keep votes (which hold no weight as AFD is not a ballot), the concern of the nomination (verifiability) was not addressed. This article is a POV fork, and no relevant, reliable sources or any other material were presented that could make this not a POV fork. --Coredesat 03:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North America (Americas)[edit]

North America (Americas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Point-of-view fork of North America (which is well sourced), confusing the topic. As well, the sources listed don't generally support the content: the English Encarta reference[43] indicates that North America is a continent which is also comprised of Greenland, Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, and Bermuda and then goes on to indicate that it sometimes includes the region of Central America and the West Indies; the Spanish version[44] may indicate it is instead a subcontinent with the same constituents. The Crystal reference[45] indicates too that it is a continent that also includes the West Indies. (Throughout, Canada, the United States, and Mexico are included.) Article content (even if one believes that there are other continental models) may be added or carried over to North America, where the creation of this article was neither discussed nor consensually agreed to, but I do not believe there is anything not already at North America or cannot be. Corticopia 10:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: POV FORK page states that:
"POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus."
This is not POV forking about North America, since the article was not created based in a disagreement in that article. As a fact, the article North America has no debate going on. This article was created to provide a link for the Template:Regions of the world that had a link to North America (as a continent). North America (continent) and North America as a region/subcontinent are two different concepts. North America as a region/subcontinent is a valid term used in Latin America, parts of Europe (including Italy, Germany, Portugal, Spain) and Asia, under the single American continent geographical model.
This page should not be deleted because it deserves an article on its own, just as Middle America (Americas), another region of NORTH AMERICA has its own. Middle America/North America are also regions within the Americas and both in the North American continent.
About the sources, this is a new article (just 2 days old) and I was working on it, it was not completed yet. I have added more sources now, as the AfD tag indicates I can improve the article. If this was the case for nomination, then you should have asked for more sources, not nominate it for AfD. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 18:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above and below: of course it's a fork (regardless of recent additions), and the decision to nominate it well considered and not at all hasty. Nor was this article based on a consensus, since the North America article (as you put it) has 'no debate going on' -- so it isn't based on any agreements, either. While definitions of this and that may vary, I did not agree to the creation of this article. I defer to other comments herein. Corticopia 18:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, this article was not created because of a disagreement with the current article North America, so it is not POV forking according to its definition, nor it was based in "personal views" since the souces provided clearly indicate the existence of North America as a region. There is a WP policy called Be bold, so I created this article based in that and most importantly, to provide a link in the Template:Regions of the world that had no link to North America as a region, but a link to North America as a continent. This has nothing to do with the article North America.AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 13:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With your phrase "I did not agree to the creation of this article", you want to give the feeling/impression that we were having a disagreement about North America, which is false and very low from you. We never had a disagreement about this theme. In fact, when we were discussing "Middle America (Americas)" and I conceded, we both agreed that there are several geographical models applied to the Americas.AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 18:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion -- what else would you call this but a disagreement? Read the very content you added about forking above. There may be other models, but that doesn't mean creating a fork is at all a way to deal with the topic. I may believe that North America is part of the American continent (particularly if you heed the Olympics), but North America should be updated instead. Middle America is well-sourced (hell, pull out a dictionary) and different. I will not respond to other notions in your prior comment. Corticopia 18:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As well, AC's recent source additions do not validate the article. In the Broadband reference (emphasis mine), for example, it notes "considerable variation [in networks] between the three major countries comprising North America: Canada, Mexico, and the USA." Read: major (in population, area, economy), while not discussing the minor ones that are also part of the continent. Corticopia 18:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When NA is defined as a region, it sometimes includes St. Pierre and Bermuda, as clearly indicated in this article. However, it is very important to note that the title of the study mention REGIONAL and it only comprises US, Can and Mex, proving that NA is also a region. However, there are more important references listed! AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 19:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This proves nothing: the title notes both 'regional' and 'country' and, as above, the content notes the continent. And you still have not reputably sourced when it IS defined specifically as a region -- if it is as you say, it shouldn't be difficult to cite. And this can still be incorporated into the bona fide article Again, straw man arguments don't justify this fork. Corticopia 19:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as nominator. Corticopia 10:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary duplication of the North America article. 23skidoo 12:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is enough evidence about the existing North American region/subcontinent in the geographic model that divides the Americas in North, Central, Caribbean and South. In the same way the article Middle America (meaning Mexico, CA and the Caribbean, parts of the North American contient) is based in the model Northern, Middle and South (and strongly supported by Corticopia). Corticopia's nomination seems to me like the real POV forking, in what I would call a campaing against this model, please see Talk:Mexico, Americas (terminology), Middle America. Also, the Template:Regions of the world lacked an article about the North American region, instead it wrongly had a link to North America, a continent. There is a particular Template:Continents of the world. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 14:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Other than being a veiled ad hominem argument, there is a key difference -- the content regarding the sub/regions of Northern America (which is not merely a UN construct; see article) and Middle America are well sourced, while that of the 'region' of North America isn't. This doesn't deny other continental models, but no sources have been provided that clearly delineate what the model upon which the nominated article is based. Corticopia 13:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: so basicly I think you were hasty by nominating this article for deletion, since, according to you, it only "lacks references" but this doesn't "deny other continental models" (North America as a region is part of a model). Perhaps a tag about the "lack" of sources would have been enough. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 14:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: not at all hasty -- it is a fork and should be deleted, and/or redirected to North America where the information (based on reputable sources) should live. Corticopia 14:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ugh - this is such a difficult issue. I actually suggested to Corticopia this might be a WP:POVFORK, and I'm still not entirely convinced either way. In a lot of ways, it seems like it, but it's not impossible to argue it's not, and I have not convinced myself which is true.
The real problem here is that America Central is not part of Nortamerica while Central America is part of North America and this a very subtle nuance of translations that gets missed by editors not paying attention to the details. So there's a lot of fighting going on across a few geography articles. Plus, for some reason there's a few Latin American editors who really like Manifest Destiny so they go across articles changing the Americas to America and insisting they're American. Which pisses off that hoser crowd that's actually proud of our national identity eh? So emotions are high and there's one or two shit disturbers about.
Ultimately, encyclopaedias are bad sources. But not unusable ones.
So what we have here is a fork from a very similar but not quite identical article. Does this deserve a split? I have no idea.\
I hate the title - it sucks the sweat off monkeys' balls. But that's not an issue for AfD.
Despite being intimately involved in a lot of the relevent disputes and articles, I'm restricting myself for now to no vote, even though AfD is not a vote. I'd rather have disinterested observers give their opinions - I think I may not see the forest from the trees. WilyD 14:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I honestly think what makes this not a POV fork is that the article was not created to split North America or because of a disagreement with other editors in the article North America. It was created to explain North America as part of another geographic model that consider it a region/subcontinent. Finally, I created the article when I saw the Template:Regions of the world lacked a link to North America as a region. Other regions where there, such as Middle America, the Caribbean, Central America and South America (that doesn't seem to have the same problem as NA). AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 15:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The is absolutely no reason to have two articles on North America. siafu 15:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, puzzling POV fork that serves no useful purpose. Krimpet 15:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge whatever is useful in the article and put it on North America. Alex, just relax and calm down. Sure, there are plenty of websites that backup your claim, but it would not worthwhile to just duplicate an article then add your sources in. What I would suggest is maybe put in a small blurb in North America about this difference of view and why it is so, making a whole article out of it isn't the way to go. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge appropriate content into the North America article. I don't think this debate is as clear-cut as it might appear at first glance - my initial reaction was to say to delete this as unecessary duplication of information, but that is not the case. I understand the issue of there being a geographical entity, the continent North America, and then a distinct geopolitical entity, the region North America (particularly in the context of Latin American politics). However I think the existence of a seperate article lends a lot of confusion to the issue, and it would best be served by some discussion in the main article rather than creating an inherently POV fork. Arkyan 16:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There can be no confussion, that is what I also created the article North America (disambiguation). AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 16:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can you outright dismiss concerns regarding confusion? The article itself states Using this geographical model ... with absolutely no attempt to explain which geographical model "this" refers to. The overwhelming consensus in the world is that the term North America refers to a continent as described in the North America article. The issue of there existing an alternative, minority definiton of the term warrants inclusion in the North America article, but not a standalone entry of its own. Arkyan 16:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you check the interwikis of North America, you can see the world using North America as a whole continent AND/OR using North America as a region which includes just Canada, United States, Mexico, Greenland, Bermuda and St. Pierre and Miquelon. JC 2 March 2007, 10:16 (PST)
Comment: And in recent edits to the 'Regions of the World' template, the link to the continent was previously replaced with the one to the region/fork (while retaining South America), as if the continent is not a region in and of itself. If this isn't proof positive of forking/POV-pushing, I don't know what is. Corticopia 18:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: South America is a continent (two continent model) and a subcontinent/region of America (single continent model). South America doesn't need to have 2 separate articles as North America does (continent and region), because in both geographical models, South America comprises the SAME area. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 18:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no need for separate articles, and the creation of a fork signals either an inability to incorporate content in that article and compromise and, since there has been no recent discussion on that talk page (as you say), an attempt to confuse and conflate the issue. Again, it's a fork, plain and simple -- right intent, wrong method. And that's it. Corticopia 18:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They are evidences in English to support the existence of the North American region/subcontinent. JC 2 March 2007, 10:08 (PST)
    • Then by all means present them. That aside, even if there are "evidences", this does not provide any justification for forking the article-- it is information that can and should be included in the main article on North America. siafu 20:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.--Umedard Talk 05:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One thing is NA as a continent and another very different is NA as a region, Wikipedia already has the first article I mentioned but it doesn't have the second one, therefore it is not a duplicate, instead it is a whole different article about a whole different thing, one is about the Continent and the other is about the Region. AlexCovarruvias, has given consistent evidence supporting the existence of such region and the integration and interaction between Mex, Can and US. Supaman89 20:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well first of all the continent and the region are not "a whole different thing." The differences are minimal can w/o a problem be mentioned in the North America article. Signaturebrendel 19:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - while I still feel that this article should be merged into North America per my previous comments, I have to say that IF the consensus on this does end up going toward a keep, I would suggest a move to either North America (region) (preferable) or North America (subcontinent) (acceptible) as being more consistent with the spirit of disambiguation than the current title. Again, let me reiterate that I am NOT endorsing this article for inclusion - I feel the information is best handled in the main NA article - but should it be kept it really needs a new name. Arkyan 20:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC) edit Apparently North America (region) redirects to this article - the other way around makes more sense. Arkyan 20:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Ricardo Ramírez 21:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - This page is being spammed at es.wiki: list example. (I do not know your policies, maybe this message is unsuitable here). Chabacano 22:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the page hasn't been spammed, El_bart089, was simply asking to users in the Spanish wikipedia, to give their opinion into this discussion. Supaman89 22:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the above cited example example very clearly asks the user in question to come to this debate and vote keep so long as they have an English language wiki account and edit history. It says nothing at all about asking for an opinion - it's a request for a specific vote. If that's not WP:CANVASSING, I don't know what is. Arkyan 22:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per Arkyan ... and, of course, the account was created today in what is arguably an attempt to stack the poll. An uninvolved administrator needs to get involved here. Corticopia 22:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, a little bit of investigating shows that Supaman89 and El_bart089 are the same person. Arkyan 22:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You wish. I only asked some of my fellow editors of Wikipedia for their support in this case if they also happen to be active colaborators in this project. I have the same username in all the projects I colaborate with. I don't know who that other user is. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 00:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, now I know who that other user is, Supaman. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 00:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree that North America is a subcontinent of America, the same as Central and South America. In my opinion, the word Americas is kind of confusing and does not reflect what everyone knows about the existence of only five continents in the world (without considering Antartica). History facts reveal the discovery of one sole continent, America. Besides, that happened in La Espaniola, Dominican Republic. We have also been informed of a most archaic term for America; the West Indies (or Indias Occidentales in Spanish). This applies to everyone and most importantly, everywhere. Cultural differences, however, have contributed to the separation of the continent once known as America. For instance, when most of southern United States was under Spanish and Mexican power and control, America still remained being the common usage among the people of this present area. We also make differences between Latin and Anglo-Saxon America, but, we must keep in mind that those terms comprehend a cultural ending, not geographical. Americas, in this sense, refers only to those regions of America that are separated by different types of things, such as language, economic development, culture, traditions, races, and society. In conclusion, I agree that North America should not be mistaken for a continent, when history, and geography do not do so. The same happens when we separate Europe into Western and Eastern Europe, which does not mean that they ought to be considered as two separate continents, for the same reasons explained above. Nevertheless, my advice is to correct the already existent article, by putting subcontinemt instead of continent, and delete the present one or, ultimately, join both articles and make one out of them. --Gustave - May I help you? 23:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC) PS: I'll copy and paste this message in North America article.[reply]
  • Comment - Corticopia, are you insinuating that AlexCovarruvias and I are the same person?, I just created El_bart089 account, because I didn't have one in the Spanish wikipedia, and I needed to talk to Spanish-speaking users to explained the situation, and ask them to support me if they felt like doing so, so this discussion wouldn't be influenced only by English-speaking users' point of view.
Anyhow, I'll repeat what I said in my previous comment:
"One thing is NA as a continent and another very different is NA as a region, Wikipedia already has the first article that I mentioned but it doesn't have the second one, therefore it is not a duplicate, instead it is a whole different article about a whole different thing, one is about the Continent and the other is about the Region. AlexCovarruvias, has given consistent evidence supporting the existence of such region and the integration and interaction between Mex, Can and US. Supaman89 23:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Editors can make whatever conclusion they wish, particularly in light of the explicit canvassing of 'keep' votes elsewhere. Administrators will be notified; otherwise, I defer to my prior comments: once a fork ...Corticopia 00:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - contains no useful material that could not be merged into North America, and appears to simply advance one POV in an academic argument. Also, the WP:CANVASS violations are really offensive, and degrade the Encyclopedia. Anyone engaging in such practices should be ashamed. --Haemo 00:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Frank --> (Opinión) 00:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with contingencies: it should be renamed "North America (Region)", and North America should be renamed "North America (Continent)". It should also be re-written because it's really confusing as it is now. If these conditions can't be met, then I vote delete. --MPD T / C 01:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MPD01605, though if said conditions are not met, merge as a separate section in NA. JackSparrow Ninja 01:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, simple POV fork. --tjstrf talk 01:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Look people is as simple as this, we all know that there is a North American Region as well as a North American Continent, Wikipedia already has an article about the Continent, but it still needs an article about the region, so I don't really see why some users think we should delete it, some of them assume that it is just a duplicate, but as I explained before it's not, it's a whole different thing, it's like proposing to delete the Western Europe article, just because some Europeans think that is irrelevant to create a article about that Region. Supaman89 02:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the article is not clear enough on what you're talking about. If it were, it wouldn't be up for deletion. It's very confusing, and took me about ten minutes to figure out what the difference is. It's also poorly titled, as I stated a few lines above. It makes it seem as if you're referring to the North America in the Americas as opposed to the North America in Eurasia. The problem is that the article is very short, and needs to be beefed up. It makes sense that there are two main regions of North America: Central America and Mexico-north. So an article on North America (Region) is expected. Unfortunately, you can't put a lot of information in NA(A) that isn't already in NA, as that would make it seem more of a fork. Unlike Central America or Western Europe, which all have significant regional histories and specific qualities, NA(A) doesn't have anything that isn't already added into NA or the country articles. If there is something that truly makes NA(A) stand out from North America, add it to the article and prove me wrong. --MPD T / C 02:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, it may not be so simple. As proof-positive of the agenda behind this article, let's not forget that there is a strong argument for a 'region' of the Americas entitled North America that includes just Canada and the United States (akin to Anglo-America or Northern America) -- as opposed to Latin America -- which are bound by history, language, culture, economy, military, etc. Even if I were to believe that (and a number of sources do indicate that), though, such notions should be added to North America -- actually, they already are. Corticopia 06:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: maybe we should keep this article...User:Envidia --
  • Redirect There's really nothing there. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 06:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Not to deleted but to combined with the first article with the same name North America. --Joseph Solis in Australia 06:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, relevant information should be on North America. CenozoicEra 06:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing here that can't be adequately covered in North America and other articles. The duplication will cause needless confusion in an already confusing area. At the very least, the article should be renamed to something like North America (region). older ≠ wiser 15:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since this article was considered for deletion, the author AlexCovarruvias couldn't finish it, he was still working on it, and I'm gonna say it once again, the North American Region has nothing to do with the North American Continent, just as Western Europe has nothing to do with the rest of Europe, they're different articles, or would you support the idea of merging Western Europe into the Europe Article?? or even worst to delete it?. Supaman89 17:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEPthis article has correct information User:Envidia, 20:12, 3 March 2007.
    • Yes it has some correct info in it but is not needed by itself. All the "correct information" here can be mentioned in the North America article. Signaturebrendel 19:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment User:Envidia also commented to [maybe] 'keep' this article a few lines above. Corticopia 22:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're really pathetic, first you move Envidia's VOTE (Why? only you know...) and now you try to invalidate it. Or what is the purpose of your comment? One thing was Envidia's comment (maybe he didn't decide his vote yet) and then another thing is his vote. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 23:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Because, amidst all of this text and users who excessively comment, it may be difficult for an editor or admin to discern Envidia's 'Comment' from their vote lines below. And 'flattery' will get you absolutely nowhere, and will not be indulged. Keep up the good work. Corticopia 23:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The question is, do you know what flattery is? Because you're the one that always use personal attacks/profanity as stated here. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 14:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No comment regarding continued ad hominem arguments/edits. Corticopia 14:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Supaman89's comment. I also agree with the renamings proposed by MPD01605. 24.107.194.216 19:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: anonymous IP, started editing on 26 January 2007. Corticopia 22:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No vote. Due to the canvassing of !voters for this AFD on external sites, I have semiprotected this discussion. If you are an editor with a very new account then you may voice your opinion on the talk page of this discussion. Neil (not Proto ►) 21:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Of course we have to rename the article, but just because it is wrong-named, doesn't mean that we have to delete it, I'm also aware that there are a couple of mistakes in the article, but they can't be fixed cuz it's protected, anyhow, coming back to the same example that just mentioned in my previous comment, do you think we should select the Western Europe Article, for deletion, or merge it within the Europe article?? or is it that some users just don't like the idea of having a North American Region in Wikipedia?, and about me, bringing user to from the Spanish Wikipedia to collaborate in this discussion, I already explained that was because I don't want it to be influenced only by English-speaking users. Supaman89 23:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, the article can still be edited and enhanced by registered users. Corticopia 23:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, any confusion between continent, region, whatever can be handled on North America. If we want an article on the geological continent, we have that. But this article isn't about that dichotomy, I just wanted to point that out. I see no reason why this exists. At the very least, the name is atrocious. --Golbez 00:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I disagree that this is a POV fork, but anything in this article should be discussed in North America -- we don't need two articles on topic -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 01:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article and North America (disambiguation) as they are indeed forks. This article duplicates information already found on other pages (see North_America#Usage_of_the_term, Americas (terminology), and Americas#Usage,) and seems to provide no new information. Some people consider the Americas to be one continent, and some consider them to be two, and the North America article talks about both points of view. How many articles do we need on this subject? Confiteordeo 01:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article is clearly about the "North America" region and not about the entire continent. It is rather well sourced as well. Cavenba 02:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, is there a difference. The maps on the this article indicate that it is talking about the same geo-political concept as the North America article. Second, even if this article was to talk about a "sub-region" or alternative definition of North America, such ought to be mentioned in the North America article. Signaturebrendel 19:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is nothing here that could not be included at North America. If it stays, the name has to be changed, and somebody should explain why a topic with so much overlap is necessary. - Cafemusique 02:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per above and what is the point of having this article? There is a North America article and really no need for this one. Signaturebrendel 07:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: there is a difference between a place's geography (countries, continental plates, etc.) and its social sciences aspect. i.e. what makes it a region such as interconnected economies, histories, cultures, etc. by virtue of its geography, not the physical geography itself. I agree with the notion that it should be renamed as 'North America (region)'. At a very minimum, it should be merged, but I favour 'keep'. It is a little light on information right now, but as already noted in another comment, the article is quite new. Let it evolve a bit more while keeping an eye on it to make sure there is no unreasonable overlap with the geography oriented article that already exists.

Theshowmecanuck 16:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • The sociological aspects of North America can without a problem be mentioned in the North America article. Also the "social science aspect" of life in North America are covered in many articles, as there is no unified North American culture. Again, there is no need for a seperate article. Signaturebrendel 18:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can answer the question about this being a POV FORK. There was no dispute on the page North America, but this does clearly stem from a dispute on the page Central America, on which there was heavy dispute between AlexCovarrubias and Corticopia on the subject of what is considered Central America, balancing popular perceptions, geographical definitions, and political constructs. In a way, that debate has spilled out into this. I have to say that this page, although perhaps unintentionally so, functions as a POV Fork, as it is based on general disagreements about the handling of pages on multinational regions with complex definitions. I think it's clear that North America is one concept, one idea, one article, with multiple definitions that must be resolved within a single article. To do otherwise would be confusing and a disservice to anyone trying to use either article for research. Who, after all, thinks of North America in two separate ways? Who says, "no, I meant North America the continent, not the region." It's one thing to be thorough, but it's another to overcomplicate a subject to the point of confusing readers. Feeeshboy 16:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:You're wrong. The debate in Central America was not the inclusion of Mexico in the region (we know that physiographically/geollogically a southeastern portion of Mexico is in CA), but the inclusion of all the definitions in a very NPOV wording. That debate ended days (if not weeks) ago, and the result was the inclusion of all the terms in the usage section. I only created this page to provide a link in the Template:Regions of the world, in which "North America" linked to the continent, instead of the region. That's all. This page should not be deleted because it deserves an article on its own, just as Middle America (Americas), another region of NORTH AMERICA has its own. Middle America/North America are also regions within the Americas and both in the North American continent.AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 17:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, I think he's nailed it. All things are not equal: please note that Middle America (Americas) -- with a number of reputable citations to specific definitions about the region that it is a region -- rarely includes Colombia and Venezuela too. As well, it is not to be confused with Mesoamerica (generally, culture region within 'MA') or Middle America (region, constituency) in the US separate of the others -- all of which are not generally synonymous. Anyhow, these are dealt with elsewhere (e.g., Americas (terminology) etc.) too. This article implies that the there is a fundamental difference between the continent and the 'region' that may already be addressed or can be expanded upon in the North America article (e.g., usage section, etc.), if needed. This article promotes the very confusion it may be intended to clarify. Corticopia 17:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nom. -- Jeff3000 16:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I agree with User:Arkyan. Anything like this could be covered in the North America article until there is sufficient evidence and support from other Wikipedia users to create an article like this again, if at all, with a name like North American (region) or something similar. Disinclination 18:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; confusion: how many "Americas" articles are there? It's getting really confusing for me to know what the difference between any of them are, and the naming is horrendous. North America is a continent, but in that there is Central America, of which there is also Middle America which is the same place, then there's North America which doesn't include Central America, and then there's the United States and Canada which are also North America, and within the United States there is also a Middle America? Is there a Northern North America, too? Is it Canada, Greenland, and SteP&M? I'm changing my vote (see right below) --MPD T / C 20:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Too many articles covering too many things separating too many other articles into a big confusing mess. All of this should be in a central location (e.g. North America) so that any confusion can be hashed out. Central America is fine as it is. Western Europe is fine as it is. But both North America (Americas) and Middle America (Americas) should be merged into North America (and/or South America, whatever). --MPD T / C 20:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a duplicate article.--Jersey Devil 21:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How many times do I have to explain that it is not a duplicate, let's keep things simple, there's a continent called North America, that same continent is sub-divided into different regions, (Central, Northern, Middle, etc.) each of those regions have articles on their own, so why is it that the North American Region shouldn't have his own article as well??, some users say that we should merge it, then do you think we should merge all the other regions that I mentioned before within the North America article?? --Supaman89 22:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Language matters. The other regions of North America have different names. It would be one thing to have an article called Northern North America, if people used that term, but no one does. The difference between North America (as a region consisting of the US, Canada, and Mexico) and Central America/Middle America is that the latter two aren't also the names of something else. What you're saying is that there should be a page for North America, as defined as a region of North America. Wouldn't it just be easier for there to be one page that states that "North America" is a term used to mean both a continent and a region consisting of the vast majority of that continent? If there is in total too much content for one page, then I could see a case for separate pages, but it would be easy to merge in all of the unique content of this article. Feeeshboy 22:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Let me tell you why, because when you go to the Regions of the world template, you see that there are 3 options for the Americas, one is North, one is Central and the last one is South, so when you go to central or south, everything’s fine, but when you choose North, it sends you to the continent, not to the region, because we don't have an article for the North American Region... well, I mean, now we do, but we won't if we delete it. Supaman89 23:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Your reasoning makes sense, but I don't think we should be creating articles purely on the basis of a scheme created by other articles. If you reach North America (the continent article) when you clicked on a link to a region, the continent page should definitely explain the use of the term as both a region and a continent, but I'm fine with that explanation, rather than an article that says "North America is a region of the continent North America." Feeeshboy 23:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, there are now eight major regions in the 'region' template pertaining to the Americas (all not mutually exclusive, and appropriate since it's plural): North America, South America, Middle America, Central America, Northern America ('northern' North America), Anglo-America, Latin America, and the Caribbean. There is a useful article (well) at Americas (terminology), with definitions and maps to clarify. As well, I compel anyone to produce a definition (from a common compendium like an encyclopedia, for example) of North America as a region -- you likely won't find one because they invariably refer to it as a continent or maybe a subcontinent. Corticopia 02:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Puh-lease; so there's more than one view as to what constitutes North America. Fine, I can buy lots of arguments as plausible. Put them all in one article ferevvin's sake. Note: the same could be true for Europe/Asia (or are these really 2 continents) etc. We cannot have multiple articles of each continent pushing its own view as to what's in or what's out. Carlossuarez46 00:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No one is saying that we're gonna have "multiple articles of each continent", basically, the problem here seems to be that both articles have the same name "North America", despite of the fact that they're totally different things; there are lots of places that have the same name, throughout the world (i.e. London, EN. and London, CA), but it doesn't mean that we're gonna merge them together just because they have the same name right?
This article wasn't created on the basis of the other article (regions of the world), that was just an example, we all know that there's a region called North America, and I think it deserves an article on its own, just as Middle or Central America, had their own, the only difference here is that this region shares it's name with the continent it is located on, but that's why there is the "disambiguation" Example. Supaman89 01:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a fork, period/full stop. Alternate/differing views of what is covered by the phrase "North America" belong in one place, at (wait for it) North America. --Calton | Talk 09:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete: I don’t think that there should be a North America (Region) article because I don't Think that there should be and article about Countries That Have Green In Their Flags. There should not be articles about arbitrary regions that incluse arbitrary countries with no similarities. And Mexico have little to do with US, beside its borders. There was an old division of the American continent that was thought in Brazilian schools with North America as Canada, Mexico and US. But nobody see this division been used anymore. The problem that I saw here is that people think that North America is the parallel to Latin America. The most correct way to divide America is the cultural division and should be Latin America (countries with Latin traditions or more specific iberic traditions) and Anglo-Saxonic America (countries with British traditions). The other way to split America is (or better saying, used to be) South America (with everything below Panama), North America (Canada, US and Mexico), Central America (with everything between Panama, including, and Mexico, excluding) and Caribbean (with every isle in the Mexico Gulf that does not belong to another country). The current concept of North America (as a synonym to Anglo-Saxonic America) came to simplify the term and with a discordance of Canada, that would prefer that it was called, Franco-Anglo-Saxonic America (and making this tradition interesting because France is also a Latin country), and making things even harder. So to make things easier to say, they call the Angle-Saxonic America, North America. The fact is that nowadays the world recognize two Americas, Latin America, including all countries of Spanish or Portuguese traditions (know to be a poorer America), and North America, that include Canada and US (marked by well developed countries). Truth is that Mexico have more to do with their Latin countries than with US. The entire Nafta concept is pointless in this discussion since it was created to flood Mexico with American products, increase the American influence in Mexico (collaterally sinking Mexico in deeper poverty) and have no cultural support. I think there could be a topic on the North America article about the old (geographic) division, like in a history topic, but creating a new article about it, is an overshot for a term that is no longer used. I think that there might be a national interest in Mexico to be seen closer to US, but political issues should not reflect in the Wikipedia content, by giving more importance to a subject than it should. Alvaroludolf 12:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue, of course, is that in English (the language, not the culture) when you divide the Americas by geography, you get North America and South America, and when you divide it by culture, you get Latin America and North America ... herein lies the problem... WilyD 15:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you read the references in this article. The argument that America as a single continent "was" a model not currently in use is false. It is currently still being taught (Latin America, some parts of Europe and Asia). Also there are several ways of dividing the Americas, geographic terms, geophysical terms, geopolitical terms and cultural terms. North America as a region/subcontinent is part of the single American continent, a valid and current term. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 15:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I live in Brazil. No geographical division here are thought on geography classes (beside a quick note on the history of america, maybe), people on the streets might still talk about the old way but the press, new books and quality materials all talk about latin america because it makes more sense to divide Ameria this way. I still think that the old geographical division are in use in Mexico only to force a detachment to the rest of the Latin America. But this is my POV. Alvaroludolf 17:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to North America. Merge any content not present in the latter.--Húsönd 15:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit break 1[edit]

  • Keep, as per various editors, SqueakBox 16:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are lots of different ways of dividing America, each one is used for different purposes, the 3 most common ones are:

Linguistically:

Continentally:

Regionally:

All of the above have their own article, I don't see why the North American Region shouldn't have his own as well. Supaman89 02:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment let me again point out that North America is the only thing you've listed as two separate things that have the same name.
Furthermore, let me point out that this discussion has gone on too long and the entire premise is silly. Feeeshboy 02:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, South America is in fact listed twice as well. --theDúnadan 19:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And to my knowledge, there is only one article for South America. Feeeshboy 00:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The concept here has been distinguished from the other use of "North America". I think there may be an element of cultural perspective at work here, although I can't say for sure. The article can be improved by providing sources that discuss the concept directly instead of serve as examples of sites using the concept. I am certain such citations exist. I think AlexC is capable and motivated to continue to improve this article. Edivorce 03:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a text book Merge. This is well done, but belongs in the main article about the continent. Just Heditor review 19:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep I agree with Alex,this article is not a POV, this article is just showing another meaning of "North America". Mexxxicano 21:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think all this matter is fault of political attributions that began centuries ago. And the responsible are the USA calling themselves "Americans" or "North Americans". However, their own division of North America caused the addition of northern countries to it and therefore causing an economic change as that of South America. Also I agree with Lancini87.--Fluence 00:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no offence to the editors, but the article does in part read like a fork. For instance, "single continent model is taught in almost every non-english-speaking nation", which is unsourced and conflicts with the continent article. More to the point, I'm not convinced the existing North America could not be structured to cover the varying usages of the term, or exactly what unique content could eventually be added to justify a separate article. - David Oberst 00:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whether North America is a continent or half of a continent, an article already exists on the topic Alcuin 01:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why is people here always trying to erasse other's work?? This page has enough value to be kept Lefairh 19:17 pm, 8 March 2007
  • Merge I find it usefull. And... I see a bit of heat in some of the comments written so far. We should be discussing here with facts and proven issues, not opinions. The thing is this: The Spanish speakers (or as t has become custom to call us: "latinos") have always been told that geographically, Mexico is part of North America. (Please... look at a map). No only us Spanish speakers in Latin America, but non Spanish speakers in Europe, Asian... Wow... now that I think about it, its probably just the USA (and possibly Canada) the only countries stating that Mexico isn't part of North America geographically speaking! We as Mexicans (I am a Mexican) do not eagerly await to detach ourselves from Latin America. The thing is... Latin America is a linguistic division, not a geographical division. Get it? We aren't talking about races, religion, ways of living, or languages... we are talking about geography! Therefore, by looking at a map, you might see that if you cut in half the entire continent of America, you might see that Mexico ends up in the same half as the USA and Canada. As wikipedians it is our duty to discuss matters not from points of view, but from stated facts. Really. We ought to stand higher than this. I say: use what's relevant and usefull from both articles and make a really good article about North America (including the fact that most of the world thinks Mexico is part of it). --Valdezlopez 02:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Valdez Lopez[reply]
  • Comment Who says that Mexico is not part of North America? So far as I know, schools in the US teach that it is. Also, comments like those by Fluence really illustrate what a POV fork this article can be if left separate. Feeeshboy 03:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Geographically, nobody. But what's called Anglo-America here is often called North America in casual speech. WilyD 14:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: You're right, that's why in the disambiguation page that I created for North America (disambiguation), I included the usage of the term "North America" meaning Can+US. As I repeatedly say, I did not create this article based in a disagreement, this is not a POV forking. Jesus, please read the definition of POV Forking in Wikipedia policies! AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 15:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment AC, please remember that you persistently/previously removed cited information in the 'North America' article which directly supported the NA=Canada+US assertion, and (despite references) IMO have only thrown it into this article as an aside. The introduction still reads like a subjective assessment of what the 'region' of North America is: i.e., what is there to support the 'traditional' definition as including just the countries listed, and not just the two? And there's no reason, Jesus, why this information shouldn't reside in North America (or be enhanced, since it is already there) instead of in what remains a fork. Corticopia 15:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: Again, you're using your vague language in order to confuse what really happened. I did not erase information about NA meaning the US+Can (as in denying such a region exists). Such a reference has always been there since the article was created. The real problem was that YOU included irrelevant information about Central and South America, in the section "Usage of NA". So, I shortened your reference because, again, it included information that was not about the usage of the term "North America", but about Central America and South America, information that logically didn't belong there [46]. Finally, that information about C and S America was deleted, because of the debate in the talk page [47]. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 15:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment Through vagaries and obfuscation, your first (without comment) removed this information and then you removed the citation information, after claiming to have checked it ... like it wasn't valid even without the citation. It was later pruned to suit your perspective. How is including usage information about the Americas irrelevant? And you further demonstrate in why this article is a fork, since you are either unwilling or unable to embrace these various points of view where they belong: North America. That's all. Corticopia 15:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment: Again, trying to give the false impression. I was not the only one saying that Fowler's was not enough reference to beat the multiple others, [48]. Your edits were not made to clarify the use of North America (meaning US+Can), because that information was already there and sourced, by the way, with a reference to Fowler's. Your edits only included irrelevant information about Central America and South America, in a "Usage of NORTH AMERICA" subarticle. And most importantly, this article was not created as a result of that "debate" nor the result of another "disagreement" as you falsely try to give the impression of. This article was created to provide a link to North America as a region in the Template:Regions of the world, just as the other regions have separate articles Northern America, Middle America, etc. by the way, both regions of North America. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 15:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment The more you comment, the more you are demonstrating why this article is unnecessary. Notions about the usage of the term 'America' (and those constituents of the Americas/North America), obviously, are directly relevant since they go to the heart of this entire discussion/'dispute', which have resulted in this fork. That doesn't allow nor justify the creation of a fork. Corticopia 16:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The more I read this article, the more I find that it is a contradiction in terms. In one sense, it argues that North America is a region consisting of the US, Canada, and Mexico. In another sense, it suggests that some people consider Mexico not to be part of the region. This definition I find dubious and in need of a source. Furthermore, if the US and Canada are to be described as a region, then Anglo-America suffices for this purpose. Finally, in a third and even more confusing sense than the others, this article contends that North America is a region that includes Greenland and Bermuda. I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks of either of those when discussing North America as a region. They're much more in line with the idea of NA as a continent (they sit on the NA tectonic plate). Greenland and Bermuda seem to have been trotted out to justify the article itself, somewhat reminiscent of the coalition of the willing ("You forgot Poland!"). So aside from POV problems, this article is flawed in its failure to clear up the distinction between NA as a region and as a continent. If this article can state that there are multiple ways of looking at North America, why can't the original North America article be tailored to do so? Feeeshboy 16:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue, of course is that when Canada and America are described as a region, North America is the term used, in real life. Realistically, North America the continent is well defined, except around the fringes (for example, whether it includes all of Panada, or just until the canal). North America (the cultural region) really is more poorly defined, so you should expect any article that is free from original research to reflect this confusion. North America the cultural region includes:
  1. America (always)
  2. Canada (almost always)
  3. Bermuda (Rarely explicitly, but usually)
  4. St. Pierre and Mickey (As Bermuda)
  5. Greenland (As Bermuda)
  6. Mexico (less commonly, but still sometimes)
  7. Possibly other places with decreasing likelihood.
You simply can't avoid that you're trying to deal with a poorly defined subject, so your article has to reflect this. The only other option is to engage in a bunch of original research, which is right out. WilyD 16:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:What you are forgetting is that this article is not about the "cultural" region of North America, but about the geographical region/subcontinent of North America. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 16:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's plainly a problem, given that no such thing exists. WilyD 16:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The article info North America and Delete the disambiguation page. All that's needed is a section in North America that states that definitions of the term vary depending on whether its in a geological or a geopolitcal context. Caknuck 16:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistically:

Continentally:

Regionally:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Supaman89 (talk • contribs)

Merge, rename, redirect, disambiguate. Wow. I came across this just randomly checking AfDs. I had no idea there were [insert number here] different concepts of North America. Which, to me, means that an entire article should exist simply to disambiguate these. Perhaps North America (and not North America (disambiguation) itself should be such a disambig page. The lead would state that NA may refer to x under schema q, y under schema r, and z under schema s, and go on to briefly explain schemas q, r, and s. In any case, however, the title North America (Americas) makes absolutely no sense to me, an outsider. I'd never type that into a search box. OscarTheCat3 22:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To 'disambiguate' the various regions/meanings, there is Americas (terminology). Corticopia 22:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Americas (terminology) is an article about the different concepts (geographic, cultural, geopolitical, linguistic) or terms used to divide and study the Americas. I agree with Oscar that we need an article specifically about North America. Also I see that a lot of people complain about the name of the article. Let me say that I chose this name based in Middle America (Americas), in order to preserve similar names for all the regions of the Americas. However, I could be changed, of course. AlexCovarrubias ( Let's talk! ) 22:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that Middle America (Americas) (the mid-region in the Americas) was chosen in preference to Middle America (region) since MA is also a region/constituency in the US Middle America (United States), but nothing is set in stone (compare with Australia, Australia (continent)). Corticopia 23:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for me is a good article. --Battroid 01:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Look at the article for Anglo-America. It succinctly states that the term is used in two different contexts a) Canada and the United States and b) all of the predominantly English-speaking nations. As far as the differing definitions of "North America" and "Central America", Americas (terminology) handles that relatively well. As it stands, North America (Americas) is a needless article because it duplicates information already found at Americas (terminology) and North America. As for the merits of the article, I have serious problems with a WP article whose first cited references are WP articles from other languages.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, patent nonsense. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earthism[edit]

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

Currently original research by User:MahargJG, no sources. The previous version was about a neologism without any evidence for its use (and no sources, of course). Google produces results such as "Flat Earthism", "Mother Earthism" (which is probably closest to the article's content) and even "Google Eartism", but no reliable sources. Previous version deprodded by User:MahargJG. Neither the previous version nor this one are notable or verifiable. Earthism was once before deleted, but at least one of the two current versions can't be a repost, so speedy deletion probably doesn't apply. Huon 10:42, 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 Amen. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 06:02Z

V'Imru[edit]

V'Imru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Word from the Hebrew prayers, generally prompting the community to respond Amen. Was listed for PROD but notice was removed. Hence listing here. I'd say delete; we're not a Hebrew dictionary. Alternatively, Amen or Kaddish would be good recipients for a merge & redirect. JFW | T@lk 10:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 10:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simply not notable. Even if this were an encyclopedia of Jewish liturgical terminology, I'd tag it for deletion. Amen - notable. This ain't. --Dweller 11:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non notable. S.D. 13:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Amen or Kaddish per nom. Agree not independently notable. --Shirahadasha 18:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally silly. It's word. Don't merge. This is completely unencyclopedic. - NYC JD (make a motion) 18:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What is next "Es"?!?! Avi 18:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Amen (info in that article already contains enough mention of it). --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to either Kaddish prayers or Amen in Judaism (to be charitable), but Wikipedia has long-ago decided not to have entire articles for Bible-verses, so it makes no sense to have articles for single words plucked randomly out of entire prayers. By the way, the way this article is presented is very faulty, which is why it will probably get deleted since it makes no sense to present half a function or activity, or in this case, a single ancillary word, and then procced to "explain" it. A word cannot be grasped in mid-air and flung at the reader. It must be presented with its related words and in a context that makes rational sense and then (perhaps) worthy of an article. IZAK 10:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would therefore vote redirect. I feel it is an important artlce on its own, but the concencus seems to be otherwise, moving this to Amen then would make more sense Epson291 19:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into, and redirect to Amen#Amen in Judaism, à l'IZAK. Tomertalk 01:35, 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. There are no sources, so it cannot be attributed, and being nominated for an award doesn't qualify under the notability guidelines. Trebor 18:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secret of Mana Theater[edit]

Secret of Mana Theater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Deleted once Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret of Mana Theater as failing to assert notability, now asserts it but without establishing it. No reliable sources (comixpedia is user-updated), not won an award or anything. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Guy, your comments are noted and agreed with, but the article is in its infancy, so all I'm asking for is some time to find references and pull them together. Thank you! -- MegaLegoChai 01:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reliable sources. (And isn't that: Oh my god you killed **** a plagiate from South Park ? ) AlfPhotoman 14:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alf, parody usually involves some semblance to the original material, however, that is indeed a poor choice for an image. -- MegaLegoChai 01:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I second that, it was a parody in the first episode, the image has been replaced and I also agree that it was indeed a bad choice for the image. -- 69.180.162.212 18:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm apologize to the mod know as Guy, I did not reinstate this article. He was kind enough to move it to my user page for editing after the initial article was speedy deleted. Hoewver, there are people working on it but we're busy people. Please give those of us who are editing it a little time to edit the article for criteria. I would very much appreciate this, thank you! -- MegaLegoChai 15:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC) moved over from first nom where it was accidently added. Koweja 17:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, Webcomics do not have significant enough presence on Wikipedia to date despite being a widely spread medium and even the gateway for some independant artists into the world of printed distribution (see megatokyo, Inverloch, etc). Secret of Mana Theater is a prime example the animated webcomic genre and in quality even up there to the likes of Homestar Runner and similar widespread flash based comics. Secret of mana theater has won an award, keeps a constant presense in buzzcomix top 100. Usually top 30 when updating and top 15 on update days. Secret of Mana Theater is also referred to and commended by various sources, most recently Bob and George. Secret of Mana theater has had ongoing presence at many anime conventions and will be at the upcoming Anime Central alongside 9th elsewhere as well. Also the article will be able to cite more sources as it grows. --69.180.162.212 18:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. It has been finalist competition for clearly notable entries such as Homestar Runner. It ranks sporadically among the top webcomics on sites tracking such information. However, it's prominance seems to be fading and assertions of notability need to be backed up. Vassyana 07:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I did a search and determined that there is not sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about this topic. Since the topic fails WP:Notability, the article should be deleted. (I am very impressed by MegaLegoChai's politeness and civility, however.) -- Jreferee 18:00, 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 after sources and notability were added. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Pizza[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a chain of 30pizza restaurants. No assertion of meeitng WP:CORP, no evidence of those multiple non-trivial independent sources we all like to see. Oh, and it sells "sandwhiches" - which is of course why you never starve in the desert. Guy (Help!) 11:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - no evidence of multiple coverage in third-party sources to establish notability per WP:CORP. Delete unless sourced by the end of this AfD. Walton Vivat Regina! 11:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm quite sure this can meet WP:CORP. A Google News archive search turns up about 169 hits for "extreme pizza" - of course, some of these are trivial, or about a different company. But this Seattle Times article, for example, (which describes the chain as "hottest pizza franchise in the West") seems to fulfill the notability criterion in WP:CORP. schi talk 22:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, with this link here and the Seattle Times article, there seems to be enough meat for a decent super-stub. hateless 00:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have added a number of sources to the article, specified instances when it has been recognised, and generally expanded the stub. It should satisfy WP:N now. Oh, and one other thing: there is no need to make fun of the editor who misspelled "sandwiches" -- it happens. -- Black Falcon 02:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The added refs are pretty weak, in my opinion -- local business papers and local restaurant reviews really don't cut it -- and unless something stronger shows up, it's down to the trivial WSJ bit and the number-crunching of Inc.. Also, the pizza? Not so extreme. --Calton | Talk 07:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please clarify your argument? The sources themselves are reliable even though the newspapers are not that notable. However, WP:N does not require that sources themselves be notable; it is about the subject of an article only. Thank you, Black Falcon 07:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's pretty much hairsplitting if I've ever heard it. Since these are all local newspapers whose coverage boils down to "Hey, lookit this new pizza place what just opened", that's pretty much testifying to the non-notability of the business is if that's the only sort of media coverage that can be dredged up. --Calton | Talk 06:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Extreme" keep, very notable pizza franchise. Newsbank has over 150 citations of mainstream newspaper articles referencing Extreme Pizza, many of whose primary subject is Extreme Pizza. I've cleaned up the article and expanded it with 11 more references:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of locations in Artemis Fowl. — Rebelguys2 talk 22:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Police Plaza (Artemis Fowl)[edit]

Police Plaza (Artemis Fowl) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The police plaza in Artemis Fowl is a place in Artemis Fowl. It is the police plaza. And there you have it. The infobox is bigger than the article content. Maybe merge to a list of locations in Artemis Fowl? No sources, naturally. Guy (Help!) 11:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good call. Anyone wants to close this on that basis I'll not object. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 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 04:44Z

Nasir Naqvi[edit]

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

A medical student. Has published a PHD thesis but not a lot more. Nowhere near meeting WP:BIO in any form Nuttah68 12:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not a reason to delete, there are notable students, or people who were notable as students AlfPhotoman 00:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. But this chap has no other attributes other than being a student! -- Necrothesp 01:43, 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 keep. In the light of substantial refs provided by Quarl (good work) the nom has been withdrawn. The only "weak delete" was if refs weren't found, which they have been, since which unanimous keeps. Tyrenius 03:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Harrison[edit]

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

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:BIO. No major press coverage or critique of works. Nv8200p talk 15:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. Article has been sourced to show notability and should be kept. -Nv8200p talk 03:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - no evidence of multiple coverage in third-party independent sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. Delete unless sources are added by the end of this AfD. Walton monarchist89 15:36, 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) 09:39, 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 04:38Z

Major discoveries[edit]

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

I really don't know what to make of this. Firstly, the page title (Major discoveries) is not what the page is about, as is made quite clear in the introductory sentence: it's meant to be a list of people who have made tow or more discoveries. Secondly, no definition is given of 'major discovery' leaving it so vage as to be useless. Thirdly, no edit has ben made since the page was created on 17 November 2006 (and what's there is not exactly meaningful). Fourthly, I do not see how this can properly develop into a useful page beyond the trivial. Emeraude 12:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The stated aim of the article "List of people who have made major discoveries in two or more fields (archaeology, literature, science, mathematics, etc.) or multiple discoveries in one field." might be worth an article. However:-
    • The title of the article does not suggest that it is about people who have made multiple major discoveries
    • There is a problem deciding what counts as a "major discovery".
    • In fact the article is not about this at all but discusses mostly underwater archeology.
    • The creator of the article appears to be the Dr Spence referred to in the article and therefore it appears to be a vanity article. His claims to fame are unverified.Jules1975 12:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Jules1975 StuartDouglas 14:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article lacks focus and inherently forces itself to violate neutral point of view by defining a "major discovery". Leebo86 14:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jules1975. A list of individuals who have made discoveries in particular fields would be more encyclopedic. -- Black Falcon 02:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what's wrong with this article is larger than what's right. The name doesn't match the content. Someone's POV has to define what discoveries are major and whether the fields are sufficiently distinct to merit inclusion. Also, what do people who do make "major" discoveries in two "different fields" notable as a group? It seems trivial and subject to all sorts of interpretations: Hitler discovered that you could stage all sorts of monumental parades and get people all hyped up (Psychology), he also discovered that Stalin and the Red Army were tougher than anyone thought (Military Science). Carlossuarez46 00:59, 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. When nominated, this was about an athlete, now it's about a porn star again. If someone thinks that person is nonnotable, they can renominate the article for deletion. Sandstein 18:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Andrews[edit]

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

Looks to be a biography of a thus-far non-notable individual and appears to be vanity. I would have nominated it for speedy deletion, but it seems to have an extensive edit history. Thisisbossi 04:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I had considered userfying it, but with the edit history (which includes an apparent variety of editors), it just seemed odd that it would be such. Also, I can't tell if the ongoing edits by individuals are vandalism or not... everyone seems to change the entire context of the article and its very basic facts each time around. Not a single source when at least something is dearly needed. This seems to fail the Google test -- definitely doesn't seem notable. I'm somewhat thinking that all the editors may be personally involved with the individual which the article references. --Thisisbossi 04:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep: lots of Ben Andrews', but nothing as best I can tell relating to a guy from Portland other than the Wikipedia article, which tops the results. It's a relatively common name -- I know a Ben Andrews myself (though certainly not the Portlander)! --Thisisbossi 05:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First of all, up until February 20, the article was about a gay porn actor of arguable notability. Then someone added something about a British businessman[49]. Earlier today someone replaced the article with the Portland HS athlete[50]. I believe we should revert to the porn actor and discuss notability for that version. --Dhartung | Talk 05:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the present person--his HS athletic accomplishments if real are probably N, though the bio is Vanity. There are 2 independent sources although not of high quality on Google, after searching for "Ben Andrews" Parkrose. His MySpace page link doesnt work. Per Dhartung, it does seem like someone is playing an elaborate multipart hoax at out expense, looking for different people of this name. First step is to change the titles so we can tell them apart, and relist. Alternatively, just delete this and watch if they start again. DGG 08:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 12:36, 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 per WP:NOT#CBALL. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York Anime Festival[edit]

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

Delete - Annual event that hasn't had it's first show yet, so no notability at all. No sources, no non trivial independent third-party media mentions, vaguely crystal-ball like (although it's not making predicitons, it IS assuming that the event is going to become notable), Prod was contested, although the issues raised were not addressed, so this is AfD is next precedural step. The Kinslayer 13:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm an anime fan, but I can't argue with The Kinslayer's reasoning here. It hasn't happened yet, and there are no third party sources. I would not be opposed to recreation in the event that it does achieve substantial notability. Leebo86 13:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Crystal ball and all that... I'd bet this will eventually warrant an article, but certainly not until after it happens. --PatrickD 16:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure it meets any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Crystalballery is part of "What Wikipedia is not", but the CSD explicitly states that being something being on that list is not a criterion for speedy deletion. The article makes a weak claim to notability, which is why discussion here is better. Leebo86 16:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources covering this future event -- Whpq 20:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - Looks legit, and there was a link at New York Comic Con. NoseNuggets 5:21 PM US EST Mar 2 2007
    Comment - I don't doubt that it's a legitimate convention and will take place, but please read this to understand why it doesn't warrant an article yet. If anything, New York Anime Festival should be a section on the New York Comic Con page until it warrants its own article...but not until after it happens. --PatrickD 22:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, should there be a "merger" tag then on this article? NoseNuggets 10:48 AM US EST Mar 3 2007
    You could put one if you want, or change your decision in this topic to "merge". The legitimacy is not the question here, it's the notability. Leebo86 17:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks like within it's genre news sources, it's getting coverage--comic book news sources, even the Science Fiction channel has a bit on it... also, some international coverage from all the way in New Zealand. Seems to pass the bar, will just grow with each later show. [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58]. - Denny 20:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I don't doubt that it would get a mention in a variety of news outlets, but does the mere announcement of this event make it notable with no actual details yet available about it? It seems that you are presuming this will be notable just because some news sites picked up on the announcement. --PatrickD 04:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - If those sources are all just basically passing on the announcement, then they fail WP:N, specifically "Independence" excludes all self-publicity, advertising by the subject, self-published material, autobiographies, press releases, and other such works affiliated with the subject, its creators, or others with a vested interest or bias The Kinslayer 09:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - The listed references consist of mentions in passing, short press release type announcements, and event listings. None of the references provided are what would be considered articles about the anime festival. -- Whpq 14:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The only thing the sources verify is that the convention will happen, and they all are based on the same press release. The one source that isn't a reprint of the press release (Sci-Fi Channel) is a clear misprint. --Farix (Talk) 12:34, 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 Speedy keep. I'm sure the nomination was done in good faith but there are no grounds for this article to be deleted. —Moondyne 14:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Carpenter[edit]

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

This article should be deleted per WP:BLP as it does not have any citations, and could potentially be libelous. In WP:BLP, admins are directed to delete this kind of article without discussion (I'm not an admin). Auroranorth 13:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article seems unobjectionable to me, and presumably the facts of his career are easily verified? StuartDouglas 13:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - just because a person is notable, it isn't any reason to disregard WP:BLP. Unless someone can massively overhaul the article with references, it has to go! The facts of his career are probably easily verified, but they haven't, have they? Auroranorth 13:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So remove any unreferenced comments that breach BLP. Cut the article down to a stub if you have to. But no, we're not going to delete the article on the current Premier of Western Australia. That's just a joke. And a bad one at that. Hesperian 13:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Its a biog and every statement is confirmed in the first two external links. It could do with some independent sources being added, but I doubt they'll be hard to find. WP:BLP says 'contentious' material must de deleted straight away. As the material is based on his two, official, biogs I fail to see where the contentious material is.Nuttah68 13:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SNOWBALL speedy keep. He is the current Premier of Western Australia. Hesperian 13:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Obviously. The nominator can spray {{fact}} tags liberally over the article if he or she likes. --Aim Here 14:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as this cant be serious and as per hesperian's comment Gnangarra 14:11, 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 deleted by Rama's Arrow[59]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indus school[edit]

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

Entire article is an advertisement, copy and pasted verbatim from the school's website StuartDouglas 13:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, thank you for the SPAM and per no reliable second party sources AlfPhotoman 17:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as a copyvio, and tagged as such. -- Whpq 20:16, 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 04:37Z

List of mother porn stars[edit]

List of mother porn stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Is pornstars who happen to be mothers (and not dead etc?) really a suitable topic for a list like this? I know "if we have this we would have to have X" is a dubious argument. However, in this case I think it might be valid. You could have a similar list for any category of women, filmstars, politicians etc (or fathers for that matter). It's not encyclopaedic. Also the list fails WP:ATT as it is unreferenced. In addition it may breach the privacy of the offspring named Jules1975 14:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete List of mother pornstars is a very broad category that covers a large percentage of female pornstars. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. --Strangerer (Talk) 14:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Violates WP:BIO, WP:N, and WP:REF. Plain useless information. Luis1972 (Talk • My Contribs) 15:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as much as I'd love to keep an article that contains: "(Shit queen) Alexia Cage: she was starring in Pregnant Hard Shit Games, in which she swallowed shit, piss and puke straight from a male costar—while she was six months pregnant" I really can't bring myself to justify keeping a fundementally asinine and superfluous artilce. NeoFreak 15:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above arguments. A list of porn stars is sufficiently non-arbitrary, but when you start creating all sorts of derivative lists with an arbitrary qualifiers such as this one, is when we are getting silly. Not to mention the fact that the title is confusing, it isn't readily apparent what is meant by "mother porn stars". Arkyan 16:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Furthermore, the article is full of POV statements. --Xnuala 17:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until wikipedia creates a WP:MILF category. TonyTheTiger 22:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is inherently confusing. What is a "mother porn star"? Is it a porn star who performed while pregnant? Is it a porn star who had a child while performing? Is it a porn star who had pre-existing children? Does it count if she adopted them? What if she marries, and her husband has kids already? What if she has kids after no longer performing? What if she becomes a nun, and then reaches the rank of Mother Superior? You get the point. WP:NOT. --Haemo 00:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the two well-reasoned yet extremely humorous comments above. Even if someone were to start an encyclopedic article on the topics of Pregnancy and erotica or Motherhood in pornography (or something similar), this article is not a good starting point. It's unreferenced, the prose (that exists) is somewhat convoluted, and the material itself is occasionally POV. -- Black Falcon 02:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Black Falcon. Pavel Vozenilek 16:26, 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 04:36Z

Jibbert Michart Macoy[edit]

Jibbert Michart Macoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Obvious hoax (read the lead and the trivia, no such show as Foster's Home or Imaginary Fiends), though there was such thing as "Jib" in the Ed, Edd n Eddy episode "Who Let the Ed In?." Note that a few days ago, I informed Mackensen about this, saying it was similar to the misinformation added by Danny Daniel's sockpuppets. This article was prodded until an IP removed it. Squirepants101 15:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as per WP:HOAX. A1octopus 19:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete either hoax or no notability AlfPhotoman 21:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Massive hoax.--AgentCDE 22:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - much to my vexation, hoaxes are specifically excluded from being speedied. I think this needs to change, because this is a waste of everyone's time. -Haemo 00:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Hoax. - Denny 18:12, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Cave Club[edit]

Oxford University Cave Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Should redirect to Oxford University#Student life at best, as this is just the college caving club (and not related to where the Beatles played). Utgard Loki 15:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - A university will always have a raft of clubs, and merging would bloat the university article with information that more properly belongs on a web page. -- Whpq 20:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for now. This club has done some notable exporations and I think has made an important contribution to caving in the UK. It may, like many other Oxford University Clubs, deserve an article. However it needs a lot more work. --Bduke 00:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems notable enough to me. 99of9 03:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I wrote the article: there was an "OUCC disambiguation page", on which the OU Cave club was listed, but as a dead link. Hence I added the short article, essentially to clear this disamb up, and to direct further enquiries to the club's main web pages (which I maintain). I suggest the article is worth keeping, if only for consistency with the disamb page's raison d'être. In response to Whpq, OU Cave Club has been around for 50 years, so I think it's stable enough to merit a small note in Wikipedia. In response to Loki, it's the university caving club, not a college one (there is a difference). I deliberately kept the piece short, for the reasons noted earlier, but am happy to expand if that is the general opinion. On the other hand, if there's a strong vote for delete, no hassle.Steve Roberts 04:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: My nomination was due to the very "raft of organizations" that each and every college (and university) will have. The designation of each one to an article does two bad things. First, it is such granular coverage that the next request/justification will be for a high school's after hours drama productions. If school organizations are not discussed at the school, but as stand-alone articles, we are open to all schools making the same justification (and then every card game). The second is that it produces an inherently unsearchable name. Would a person looking for the information look at Wikipedia? Would she look at the Oxon pages? Would he look at the actual university website? In other words, why would we offer an article, unless the organization has done something to or in the world that would make the world seek information here instead of its more logical spots? This was no revenge on student organizations or deprecation of "notability" (which is a red herring, but I can't see any AfD voters voting on anything but that, these days), but rather an argument for the proper organization of information. (Next stop, "Lincoln High's production of Oklahoma! 2007," I'm afraid.) Utgard Loki 14:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would suggest a slight expansion, providing an indication of approximate membership and details of its most significant acheivements over the past 50 years. For Non-UK users' benefit, Oxford Univeristy is the most ancietn in Britain and one of the most prestigious. Peterkingiron 01:30, 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. There's barely enough content to escape WP:CSD for no context/content, but the content does not assert notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bass Angler's Sportsmen's Society[edit]

Bass Angler's Sportsmen's Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization; I can't find any multiple independent sources, thus failing WP:CORP Part Deux 15:33, 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 speedy deletion by admin Trebor Rowntree as the article falls under the criteria of CSD G7. Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 13:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annorax[edit]

(1) Cut-n-paste from Memory Alpha [60] which has a Creative Commons "by-nc" (i.e., attribution + noncommercial) license [61], which therefore is probably not something that can be copied at will into WP. (2) Subtrivial fancruft. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Why move stuff from Memory Alpha to here, this is clearly not suitable for an encyclopedia. --Daniel J. Leivick 17:58, 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 Goodbye Alice in Wonderland. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:24Z

1,000 Miles Away (Jewel song)[edit]

1,000 Miles Away (Jewel song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced! not even on iTunes, and that would be the only source. Seventysix67 08:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC) (User:24.92.43.153 created this account to use WP:AFD)[reply]

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

The result was Dismissed. Content dispute. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:34Z

Bispectral index[edit]

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

This article is blatant advertising. BIS did not reduce the incidence of awareness in a large controlled trial. Consequently, this technology is not generally accepted as measuring the depth of anaesthesia. http://www.anesthesia-analgesia.org/cgi/content/full/100/4/1221 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bezzera (talk • contribs) 2007/03/01 11:36:40

  • Speedy keep. This is a content dispute, not to be resolved via deletion. Spacepotato 03:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep There seem to be references, though they are almost invisible. The treatment seems unbalanced, but that can be remedied.DGG 04:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless far better refed. Most of the material here reads like advsertising. NBeale 16:16, 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.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bubba-T[edit]

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

Does not meet notability requirements for musicians. Cacophony 05:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I didn't know there was a famous rap scene in Amherst and after reading that town's page I am still non the wiser. I therefore agree that this artise fails WP:Music. A1octopus 16:21, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chartroose Caboose[edit]

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

Non-notable restaurant chain; 'world-famous' is definitely puffery and so doesn't count. Veinor (talk to me) 17:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Restaurant chain in one city. Not notable. -- Necrothesp 00:36, 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 Merge to Goodbye Alice in Wonderland. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:23Z

Fragile Heart (Jewel song)[edit]

Fragile Heart (Jewel song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced! not even on iTunes, and that would be the only source. Plus the fact that the Fragile Heart 2007 was never released as a single. Yes there are two Fragile Heart songs, but one was released in (2003?) on 0304 and the other on Goodbye Alice in Wonderland. But the page seems to fake the idea about the later, making it seem like it was actually released. (I looked on iTunes and Google and couldn't find anything, not even a statement on her site saying the song was ever being "re-released", especially as a "Fragile Heart 2007".) Seventysix67 09:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC) (User:24.92.43.153 created this account to use WP:AFD)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:30Z

Jewel (Jewel song)[edit]

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

Unsourced! not even on iTunes, and that would be the only source. As with all the other articles about what seem to be fabricated songs. (Fragile Heart 2007, 1,000 Miles Away (Jewel song)) Seventysix67 09:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC) (User:24.92.43.153 created this account to use WP:AFD)[reply]

Delete appears to be pure adverising material by a musician whose notability is dubious. Peterkingiron 01:33, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Nobles[edit]

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

Not a notable politician Thiebes 23:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete local politician without national or statewide notability. The sources do not appear to be enough to establish him as notable even in the Seattle area as most are coverage of the election or the issues and him himself. Eluchil404 10:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I like to see articles on subjects of local importance, this simply does not satisfy WP:BIO. The positions he's held do not qualify him as an important local politician. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 07:20, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Rogers[edit]

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

Early eliminated contestant on Idol 3. Appears only to have had a few minor journalist credits since the contest, and is now a high-school football coach. Delete per wikipedia is not a directory of former Idol contestants. Ohconfucius 08:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Rogers is now the host of Really Big Things on the Discovery Channel. This now makes him a notable television host. So deleting his profile doesn't make any sense now. I'm going to remove the delete tag.

The2ndflood 10:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is not how things work, unfortunately. The process must be allowed to finish. Kindly read what is in the AfD notice. I have reinstated the tag. Ohconfucius 09:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reliable non-trivial second party references shown AlfPhotoman 17:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many secondary sources are out there (I don't care to search at the moment, sorry). Considering his accomplishments, there is no doubt that a verifiable article could be written about this notable subject. --- RockMFR 22:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being the host of Really Big Things certainly makes him notable even if being an Idol finalist and player on a Rose-Bowl-winning football team wasn't sufficient (which I'd have thought it was). Pinball22 15:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because 1) deletionism is ruining Wikipedia and 2) American Idol has such a large fan base, people are likely to be interested in all of the contestants. Let's not turn away readers of the site, just because select individuals don't care about some information. If anyone out there is interested and the article is factual, keep it. If you don't like it, read something else, but don't ruin things for the rest of us. Best, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.107.223.217 (talk) 06:34, 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) 2007-03-07 04:19Z

Packing the magnet[edit]

Packing the magnet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete per avoid neologisms & no original research. Seems to be a protologism as I can't find any uses of this term via Google search. Cacophony 05:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely a phrase in the public discourse. If a google search is your criterion for a phrase that carries meaning, this website is destined to fall out of fashion. This phrase arose shortly after Charles in Charge was cancelled from prime time television. I can vouch for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saltyr (talk • contribs) aka User:Ttlsg(talk)(contribs) aka User:Motherg(talk)(contribs) aka User:Yessm(talk)(contribs)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source. Please provide attribution from a reliable source. Refer to Wikipedia:Citing sources if you have any questions about how to cite your sources. You might also want to read Wikipedia:Notability, which states: A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable. Cacophony 07:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - WP:V issues. Google gives absolutely nothing on this subject: [62]. Saltyr, unless you can provide a reliable source, this clearly fails WP:NEO. Part Deux 15:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Part deux. Edison 20:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and WP:ATT --Haemo 00:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, obviously Non-Notable NBeale 16:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The one actual source on the page (slang dictionary) doesn't refer to the term at all. Suriel1981 23:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Seems to be entirely non-notable. .V. [Talk|Email] 21:30, 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 Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:18Z

Reflections In A Mirror[edit]

Reflections In A Mirror (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced!, and Google shows no sources. Jewel has only mentioned a country album, not a greatest hits compilation. Seventysix67 09:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC) (User:24.92.43.153 created this account to use WP:AFD)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--Orthologist 14:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, total crystal ball, possible fan speculation or just flat out vandalism. Celebrity-Benji 12:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:Crystal on grounds of no sources. In fact, because there are no sources, how does the creator know any of this? As such this is also most likely a hoax. A1octopus 12:04, 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 04:17Z

Tabarian Calendar[edit]

Tabarian_Calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
Tabarian calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Taberian Calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

This article is a hoax. Such thing doesn't exist. Google shows 0 results (besides Wikipedia) for this term, [63] and the sources used also do not bring any results. Per WP:Verify policy, an article which does not have clear, reliable and verifiable third party sources should not be on Wikipedia. --Rayis 15:56, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vere Wynne-Jones[edit]

Vere Wynne-Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A minor C list radio commentator, who while alive in a sub-stellar celebrity orbit, is notable now only to his relatives. Like many of us, with a footprint in fine sand, which closes around us on passing. 00:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tayana (talk • contribs) 2007/03/02 00:18:58

  • Keep. He was a news-reader / anchorman on a national television network, apparently; the external links given as sources are not working for me. But I did enjoy the metaphor. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google searches reveal numerous articles written about him in the Irish Times and Irish Independent. He was indeed a national news anchor - as well-known in Ireland as Cronkite in the US, if the searches are to be believed. --Charlene 00:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do appreciate the metaphor provided by the nominator, but the individual in question is notable. I have added a reference that accounts for all of the content. This, coupled with the external links, in addition to several other articles (The Irish Times, for instance, has at least 2 articles about him, but I can't access them as they're restricted to subscribers), sufficiently establishes notability. -- Black Falcon 03:17, 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 Redirect to Sacred Tradition. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:17Z

Validity of Catholic Church Authority[edit]

Validity of Catholic Church Authority (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Essay, comepletely original research Ozzykhan 15:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Definitely violates WP:OR, and the title alone screams implies POV. Arkyan 16:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A shotgun blast of an article that asserts opinionated positions on a wide variety of loosely related subjects, all of which are better covered elsewhere. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Luis1972 (Talk • My Contribs) 17:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I essentially agree with the substance of everything said above, but not the tone. The contributor(s) to that article just have to contribute in the right way, and they're less likely to stick around when comments verge on insulting them. You can uphold standards without throttling people. Noroton 18:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have a good point. I guess I did come across a little harsh there, thanks for the subtle admonishing! Arkyan 21:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although the topic is encyclopedic and could arguably be treated under Authority of the Catholic Church. Problem is that the current article is badly organized and poorly written so a rewrite is better than a "Keep". --Richard 08:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A polemic, not an encyclopedia article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. unreferenced POV rant, not an article. Gentgeen 09:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If any parts of it are worth keeping, they should be put in the articles that deal with the disparate matters attacked. I see too that it contains that favourite vague yet authority-claiming phrase of POV-pushers: "Some scholars say ..." Lima 09:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clear violation of WP:OR. Agree with above, that this is basically a POV rant, not an article appropriate for Wikipedia (or any reputable encyclopedia). --Anietor 15:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Sacred Tradition. There may be some salvagable material in the current article ... if so, it should be merged into the Sacred Tradition article (or maybe Christian traditions). -- Pastordavid 09:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As described, OR violations. - Denny 18:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely unrefed OR NBeale 16:18, 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 Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:16Z

Simmondley[edit]

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

no claim of notability other than having a pub build to celebrate a jubilee. Hardly seems notable. prod tag added but then removed without comment any justification given Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If you check Category:Villages in Derbyshire, there are a lot of pages like this. It may need work, but there is certainly precedent enough to keep it. GhostPirate 19:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It is not clear to me that its incorporation in that category is of itself a satisfactory criterion for notability. Perhaps most of the entries there are indeed non-notable and should also be AfDed? With that said, I encourage knowledgable editors to improve the article to clarify its notabiliy. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All settlements are notable, as has been established on AfD many times before. A lot of it needs deleting, but the village itself deserves an article. -- Necrothesp 00:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Necro. Just Heditor review 00:41, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas W.L. Nisbett[edit]

Thomas W.L. Nisbett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The subject is a nonnotable businessman who apparently created the page himself. The article also fails WP:V as no asserted facts are sourced. Butseriouslyfolks 17:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should have noted that this article was prodded a month ago and that the prod tag was removed by the article's creator. (My bad.) Otherwise, I would have speedied it. --Butseriouslyfolks 22:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, this is just a vanity page. GhostPirate 19:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing particularly notable, and unable to find any reliable sources. -- Whpq 20:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD AlfPhotoman 22:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as the article says, "varied background" but unfortunately no part of it is N.DGG 04:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is verifiable that he was the first Black priest in the Anglican Church in Bermuda and this makes him notable. There are at least 2 reliable published sources. I agree the article is not well written, but the remedy is to improve the article. NBeale 16:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? I think you are confusing him with his father. There are no sources listed here. --Butseriouslyfolks 18:03, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Norman Nisbett[edit]

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

Subject is a nonnotable clergyman. Article was apparently created by his son. Article also fails WP:V in that none of its factual assertions are cited to any sources. Butseriouslyfolks 17:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. if the individual in question actually has an OBE. Otherwise, Delete for failing WP:V. --Madchester 17:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The individual in question does have an OBE and is the subject of at least one nontrivial source (see the "References" section I have added). -- Black Falcon 03:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed the portion of the article copied from http://www.anglican.bm/CTNprofile.htm as a clear copyvio. The genealogical website cited is apparently wiki based and in my view is not a reliable source. Similarly, the title of this page is "Interview with" Nisbett and should not be relied on to support the subject's personal claims. I tried to find an official or news site that verified his OBE, but I could not find any. He's not listed in the London Gazette, but I don't know whether 'provincial' OBE's are listed there. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is verifiable that he was the first Black priest in the Anglican Church in Bermuda and this makes him notable. Also he (apparently) has an OBE which is quite unusual and shows that he is at least notable to The Queen (I can't find it in the Gazette either but if the Diocese thinks he has one he probably has!). There are at least 2 reliable published sources. I agree the article is not well written, but the remedy is to improve the article. NBeale 16:30, 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. --Coredesat 03:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Combat Wounded Veteran[edit]

Combat Wounded Veteran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Band does not seem to meet the central notability criteria of WP:MUSIC. RJASE1 Talk 17:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the band shared a drummer with Frodus - an alternative may be to redirect there and include the information in a section. RJASE1 Talk 17:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable under WP:MUSIC and since the members have apparently moved on to other (also nn) projects, it is unlikely they will reach notability in the future. Vassyana 07:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable in their own right; the primary claim to notability is a common member with a (slightly-) more notable band. Not enough to warrant an article. Caknuck 16:47, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:14Z

Bones from Hell[edit]

Bones from Hell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Bones from Hell (movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

No evidence of actual production; no evidence that there are any actors involved. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Veinor (talk to me) 17:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Why would anyone make this assertition without citing sources? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A1octopus 19:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article is unverifiable speculation. -- Whpq 20:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - World's most obvious violation of WP:CRYSTAL. --Haemo 00:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't exist. -- Necrothesp 00:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. When one can only say which actors are allegedly involved, the film is not ready for inclusion in WP. -- Black Falcon 03:26, 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 04:13Z

AwesomeZara[edit]

AwesomeZara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Zara Brumana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Profile of a blogger, non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:WEB. It's a contested prod; the author is looking for more sources, but I don't think the notability claims, even if sourced, merit inclusion in Wikipedia. RJASE1 Talk 17:39, 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 04:09Z

Famous Jazz Music With Trombones[edit]

Famous Jazz Music With Trombones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; what exactly is "famous"? And do we include songs that have one trombone playing a single note, or do we need 'substantial' trombone involvement (and what is "substantial"?) Too nebulous to really be maintainable Veinor (talk to me) 17:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as above - if it hadn't already been up for deletion, I'd have nominated it. Jeodesic 18:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One person's POV, not worth keeping. GhostPirate 19:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listcruft. It'll be "Rock music featuring guitars" next... A1octopus 19:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The really sad part is that no music mentioned in the article is jazz, and there have been lots of jazz tunes (Kid Ory's Muskat Ramble" etc) featuring trombones. Edison 20:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. The current article is meaningless and as noted, none of the songs cited are even jazz! Had I seen this on New Pages I would have speedied it without hesitation. 23skidoo 22:46, 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 Homeopathy. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:01Z

Classical homeopathy[edit]

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

Possible POV fork of Homeopathy, though, to be fair, there are strong opinions on Homeopathy, and it may just be that only one side edited it. However, in any case, the article admits the subject is almost undefinable as seperate to Homeopathy, except that it's somehow better than more general homeopathy. Should become a redirect, I think. Adam Cuerden talk 17:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep I am one of the editors of the page, it is an old page and it has been worked on by a lot of people, but it needs a major rewrite and it could also be shortened. There is a list of "To do" items in the article's talk page, this is a good start, I think, and I think everyone should read those before maing a decision here, but I will of course accept the decision of the majority and some of what Adam Cuerden says is also valid Pernambuco 19:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Perhaps a sensible thing would be to suggest the talk page be kept if the main article is deleted? It doesn't look notable, but if it could be shown to be, the talk page might be helpful in future. Adam Cuerden talk 19:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article was started by Homy after a POV dispute on Talk:Homeopathy. As far as I can tell, there is no difference between "classical" homeopathy and the garden-variety homeopathy described at Homeopathy. If there are reputable sources that state otherwise, deletion may not be in order, but the article is still a POV-fest. I also think that complex homeopathy and clinical homeopathy should be nominated for deletion as they were created by the same user for (presumably) the same reasons. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This looks like a version more favorable to the field's legitimacy that Homeopathy. Anything about the history of homeopathy found here can be added to the article Homeopathy. I was surprized to see the article claim that homeopathic remedies, essentially water because of the high dilutions, can cure cancer without surgery. Edison 20:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As far as I can tell it is just a POV version of the Homeopathy article. Without a single word of criticism, if there is any quality content it can be merged into the main article. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is massively POV. Take away the POV and you get the current Homeopathy page. --Charlene 00:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a lot of the comments are about POV, but that should be fixed with a rewrite and not a delete, in fact it would be good to hear from actual editors of the page before making a final decision on deletion (so far I'm the only one who's given my opinion among those who have worked longtime on the page). I want to point out that there is actually something called Classical Homeopathy, and it is not a bogus concept invented by 'User:Homy'. A Google search gives lots of hits for Classical Homeopathy, and it is also known as Hahnemannian Homeopathy. Perhaps the article should just be rewritten to NPOV and then renamed Hahnemannian Homeopathy and that will solve it? The concept is established within the homeopathic community and thats why I think it deserves a separate article, here are a couple of references, the first is actually quite critical On Pseudo-Classical homeopathy (Dr. Rajesh Shah, Editorial, "Homeopathy Times") and then Is Hahnemannian Homeopathy doomed to go in to oblivion again? (Prof. George Vithoulkas) it is worth considering this before making a final decision I think Pernambuco 11:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment in reply I don't think anyone's arguing that an article on it might not be appropriate at some point, just that this one has no merit because there's no NPOV material in it not covered at Homeopathy. I mean, is there anything in the present article usable as a basis for the new one that couldn't just be copied from Homeopathy with better result? Adam Cuerden talk 12:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in its current form the article does not warrant a separate page. If one is able to really discuss classical homeopathy (which does exist) with sufficient WP:RS and without violating WP:NPOV, WP:OR I have no problem with such an article. Clearly that is not the case today.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, appears to a POV fork. Mathmo Talk 05:15, 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 Keep. --Parker007 00:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Independent Church[edit]

Philippine Independent Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete - I first used the "Prod" tag which was removed. The reason I believe this should be deleted is: Wikipedia:No_original_research & does NOT include Wikipedia:Reliable_sources for WP:Verifiability of content. Parker007 17:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep - I haven't seen this article before, but I have no doubt that its a very notable article. The church is referenced in Encyclopedia Britannica, the Columbia Encyclopedia, InfoPlease.com, Answers.com, and a search on the Library of Congress catalog reveals 3 materials about this subject. It's appears to be an important subject. I suggest placing one of the available "cleanup" tags instead of deleting since this article can be saved with some editing. As WP:DELETE states, "Articles and text which are capable of meeting [relevant content criteria] should usually be remedied by editing." Luis1972 (Talk • My Contribs) 18:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It fails Wikipedia:No_original_research, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, & WP:Verifiability. --Parker007 19:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That, in and of itself, does not render this article subject to deletion under WP:DELETE. I suggest reading that policy in its entirety. As I quoted above, the policy says that an article should not be deleted if it can be saved by editing. Since I've already cited multiple reliable and independent secondary sources (Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, materials in the Library of Congress catalog), it's obvious that someone can easily edit the article to incorporate the information from those sources. We must keep in mind that when we are considering articles for deletion, we should not only consider the state of the article as it stands now, but how it can be reasonably improved in the future. I'd also hate to think that a subject that both the Encyclopedia Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedia found important enough to devote space in their encyclopedias would be missing in Wikipedia. Luis1972 (Talk • My Contribs) 19:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about improving Encyclopedia via the rule WP:IAR? You want to comment? --Parker007 22:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article needs a lot of work, and citations for its facts, but it is a notable and deserves an article. Even if a lot of it needs to be removed to meet Original Research rules, the article itself should be kept.GhostPirate 19:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added a cite to Business Week and a review from Journal of Asian Studies of volume 3 of a 3 volume series of scholarly documentation on the church. This satisfies WP:V and WP:ATT and its influence as a national church denomination satisfies WP:ORG. Content problems or POV issues with an article about a notable subject such as this can be addressed by the normal editing process, rather than by deletion. Edison 21:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is a case where issues like WP:OR and WP:CITE are signs that an article needs improvement, but not deletion. A little bit of poking around shows that this easily passes WP:CONG, and I don't see a problem with verifiability, either. It's just a matter of helping the article to meet Wikipedia standards - not that it cannot meet them. This is definitely a case of content issues but not deletion worthy. Arkyan 21:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just remember that WP:CONG is outdated, try NOT to use it again. :). peace. --Parker007 22:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Religious denominations (as opposed to individual congregations) are generally inherently notable, and this particular denomination claims 2 million-plus members. I can't imagine how it could fail WP:ORG. --Metropolitan90 21:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there a rush to close this debate? What about the merge tag? There has been no discussion whatsoever regarding that! Any comments? --Parker007 22:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Regarding the suggested merge of the article Aglipayanism into this one, there isn't any information that article gives that is not covered in better detail than this one. Should it survive the deletion process, Aglipayanism should simply redirect here. Arkyan 22:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why on earth is this original research? Suggest nominator reads definition of OR before next nomination - failure to cite sources is not original research as is quite clearly stated on WP:ATT: "Original research is material that cannot be attributed to a reliable source", "Unsourced material is material not yet attributed to a reliable source". Big difference. -- Necrothesp 00:50, 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 04:08Z

Glen Gretzky[edit]

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

Sole claim to "notability" is being Wayne Gretzky's brother. There is no need to create separate entries for every sibling of famous people. Dsreyn 18:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable Avi 18:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable - both being the sibling of a celebrity and being the coach of a kid's hockey team do not meet notability under WP:Bio Mocko13 18:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability at all. Jules1975 19:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With no assertion of notability. As a Gretsky the standard for notability would be low. If he played minor league hockey or high junior hockey like Keith Gretzky. Would amend with some low level notability. TonyTheTiger 22:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. GreenJoe 22:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Resolute 01:18, 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 Speedy Keep - Mistaken nomination; hacked article. Avi 18:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Jorgensen[edit]

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

Delete Writing one book in and of itself is insufficient for notability Avi 18:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was vandalised(twice) starting back on December 6 2006.(when it was re-directed. I have restored the original content of the article which is actually about a very notable guitarist. 156.34.142.110 18:36, 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 guitarist's name was spelled differently. They're clearly different people. WikiManGreen 07:21, 3 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:07Z

Martin Luther and the persecution of witches[edit]

Martin Luther and the persecution of witches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

POV fork of Martin Luther. This section has been repeatedly reinserted and deleted from the main article. (The consensus is that it doesn't belong there.) It's trivia more than anything else. BigDT 18:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom. Also, Luther had no interaction with witches at all. The passages quoted are simply theory emerging from commentary on Bible passages that command capital sentences for witches. They are the sum total of his comments on the subject. As far as I know, no biography of Luther takes up the subject. --CTSWyneken(talk) 19:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I would have said merge with the Martin Luther Article, but as you say, it doesn't really belong there. GhostPirate 19:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Forced POV interpretation. I don't see any encyclopedic content worth merging to the main article. Leebo86 20:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contra Deletion Many Lutheran pastors, theologians and jurists quoted Luther´s opinion on the persecution of witches. Even canon laws referred to Luther in this matter. Thus Luther´s attitude had a great impact for the persecution of witches in Lutheran territories. Altogether about 60000 women and men were executed because of witchcraft. Thus it was not a trivial matter, but was important for the public and church discussion for two centuries.

Literature: Jörg Haustein: Martin Luthers Stellung zum Zauber- und Hexenwesen, Dissertation, 1990 (Jörg Haustein: Martin Luther´s attitude towards witchcraft, dissertation 1990)

Maybe the article could be revised. Hegeler 21:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • That Martin Luther and his teachings may have had an impact on the issue of witches and the persecution thereof may be true. If so then that is a fine topic for discussion as a section under the article on Witch-hunt. But since it seems Luther had little if nothing to do directly with the persecution there should NOT be an article on the subject. It should be deleted. Arkyan 21:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete It appears that Martin Luther believed in and was opposed to witches, in common with other ministers of his time. I do not see that this banal fact needs an article devoted to it. I do not see sources saying that his belief about witches was important. Edison 21:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete his opinion on witches can be added to the article on him. Koweja 21:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Um, so he didn't like witches? That's hardly unique, nor does it warrant it's own article.--AgentCDE 22:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. As a matter of interest I was the one who did research on this material when it was first introduced into the Martin Luther article. The Karant-Nunn is a good resource because it translated the passages that were cited in the mysterious witchcraft section that appeared in the Luther article. --Drboisclair 04:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree that this article is dubious at best, but I fail to see how a couple of paragraphs on this subject should be expunged entirely from the project. Judging from Google, there appears to be substantial interest in the subject of Martin Luther and witchcraft, as well as what appears to be misinformation. I think it would serve the reader to have an accurate, brief discussion of this subject somewhere on Wikipedia.--Mantanmoreland 19:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Perhaps the information could be added to the extant Christian views on witchcraft page? That page seems rather short at the moment, and the additional information could probably be fairly easily fit into it. John Carter 22:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are many web-sites claiming that there were instructions, overt or covert, against witches by Luther. Notable authors, such as Zacharias, fail to mention anything about it. There are some books that were attributed to Luther with all kinds of weird rituals though AlfPhotoman 22:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per my above comment and after going through several books on Luther and Witch persecution in Europe without finding sources AlfPhotoman 01:37, 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.

Daniel Brandt[edit]

Daniel Brandt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This AfD remains open until March 12. Ashibaka (tock)
Please bear in mind that adding "strong keep" or "strong delete" will almost certainly not alter the weight given to your opinion by the closer. Please focus on arguments and discussions.JoshuaZ 08:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The recent DRV of this article was closed with the comment that an AfD would be opened in 1 week's time. I'm going ahead, being bold, and nominating this now. This is a procedural nomination based on the DRV outcome; I personally don't have an opinion either way at this time. All I will ask though as that everyone try and remain WP:COOL, WP:CIVIL, and that the AfD be allowed to run full course without any WP:SNOW, WP:IAR or other rationales for early closure.--Isotope23 18:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: This AfD has become increasing long, and is no longer transcluded on this page. To view or participate in the actual AfD discussion, please visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (13th nomination). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:47, 7 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. DS 01:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blackinese[edit]

Neologism Egil 19:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as nonsense. Nardman1 19:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable neologism without any sources to substantiate the definitions. Leebo86 20:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Nonsense, by the way it's from the movie Domino. Wasn't a very good movie and it was totally misrepresented. I expected something else from the movie because of the trailer.--M8v2 20:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense neologism.--AgentCDE 22:03, 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.--Wizardman 19:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Chicago Bears season[edit]

2009 Chicago Bears season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Major instance of WP:CRYSTAL, specifically part 2. cholmes75 (chit chat) 19:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Per WP:CRYSTAL:"Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." If the league has already announced the game schedule then it falls under this guideline. Nardman1 19:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The league schedule is based on a formula, and is known years in advance. Nothing has been "announced" per se. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Part 2 of WP:CRYSTAL refers to ordered or expected events where only the name is known, basically. There is encyclopedic information (the schedule) available for this entry. The example listed in Part 2 describes a future hurricane name, which would be inappropriate since only the name (no encyclopedic information) would be known about it. Leebo86 20:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to Delete, but I'm uncertain as to when recreation would be deemed appropriate. Leebo86 04:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As pointed out by cholmes75 the scheduling of games is fairly formulaic and in and of itself hardly anything notable or useful. This article otherwise has no content and will not have any content for some time. Agree with the conclusion that this is an instance of WP:CRYSTAL in spite of previous arguments that a schedule satisfies a keep. If anything, a predetermined and formulaic play schedule seems to neatly fit the spirit of a "systematic pattern of names" that part 2 of WP:CRYSTAL specifically prohibits. Arkyan 21:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Part 2 refers to /individual articles/ about items from lists, not articles that contain these lists. See Table_of_lunar_phases Nardman1 21:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Point taken. That said, 2009 Chicago Bears season itself is an item taken from a predetermined list, and even more telling, Chicago Bears seasons does not even bother placing this year in a list. That a predetermined list of who they will play is known hardly constitutes anything beyond generic information, and doesn't even constitute a complete schedule, as no dates are given. With over 2 years to go before anything useful can be said about the '09 season there is no point in it having an article. Arkyan 21:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although not strictly prohibited per argument above, it is nonetheless premature. I imagine a similar argument could have been made back in 2001 for keeping an article on the 2004-2005 NHL season, too, but events turned out differently. 23skidoo 22:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a fixture list. -- Necrothesp 01:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the 2007 season won't even start for 6 months, yet alone the 2009 season. TJ Spyke 04:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'm not particularly enthusiastic about keeping this article (I may change my position), but it's really supposed to be solely on encyclopedic content, rather than how far away the future season is. One could say, "We haven't even had the 2008 Summer Olympics, there shouldn't be an article on the 2024 Summer Olympics." But the fact is that there is encyclopedic information in both, so they're both acceptable. Granted, the encyclopedic value of the 2009 Bears article is weak, I'm just making the point that it's not about how far away it is. Leebo86 05:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It looks as if this sporting team has separate articles on every season back to the year dot. This is much too much for one team in one sport and thus non-encyclopaedic. The right place for such material is on a dedicated website about the team. They shoudl all be merged leaving a modest article on the history of the team. Peterkingiron 01:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if that's the issue. We'd be setting a precedent for sports teams to not have individual yearly articles (as many currently do) if we deleted on that basis. Leebo86 04:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Deltabeignet 22:14, 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. DS 01:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial Twenty20 World Championship[edit]

This page is entirely original research. There is no such thing as an "unofficial" Twenty20 World Championship. The author has just put the records of all the games together (which aren't even up to date). The Twenty20 page covers all this information anyway. Additionally, there is already a page for the actual championship at: Twenty20 World Championship. Ozzykhan 19:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not even OR. It's made-up stuff about a non-existent "competition". Johnlp 22:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely invented. Stephen Turner (Talk) 23:07, 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. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Black Belt[edit]

Spanish Black Belt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Proded 24 February with this message Article highly promotional of a local languge school with little or no claim for notability or for significance beyond its immediate location. Article maintained almost entirely by one contributor who has not edited any other article, and therefore appears to be using Wikipedia solely for the purpose of promotion of this business. which was deleted without explanation by a previously unregistered user, who has also made no other contribution to Wikipedia. Kevin McE 20:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Entirely self referencing advertisement. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advert. -- Necrothesp 01:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jahangard 05:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is verificable (has third party references). Article may still have some advertisement format probably because of not knowing internal norms. Article has evolved over time to be more neutral. More users are adding information.--Ncanales 01:16, 3 March 2007
  • Delete. The article is promotional, original research and not neutral point of view. In addition, it was written largely by Ncanales (who is also Nicholas Canales the founder of Spanish Black Belt). Wikipedia policy does not allow the production of vanity sites. Please note that this expresses no hostility towards the school: it sounds quite interesting and Mr. Canales seems an eager, honest person. However, Wikipedia is NOT a business directory. I wish him and his business the best, but they need to find a business site, not an encyclopedia. A final point: a prod for deletion was added and Ncanales removed this prod, which is also a clear violation of Wiki policy. Interlingua talk email 06:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. No, it's clearly not a violation of policy. Anyone, including the creator, can remove a prod, as is clearly stated in WP:PROD. He should have explained why he'd removed it, but his removal of it was perfectly acceptable. -- Necrothesp 14:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I apologize for deleting the PROD. I indeed understood that doing so would not go against any wikipedia policy, but had I know that would have created controversy, I would not have deleted it. I apologize again. I did not create the page. Page was indeed created in a advert format. I did edit major sections to correct this violation hoping that other people would participate later. Other people are starting to edit the page. I just ask for a delay in your decision and/or for advice on how to add tags to advice others what type of changes/editions are valid and which ones are not. -- Ncanales 11:34, 3 March 2007
      • Comment If user names are any guide, the article was created by Santiago Anria, a tutor and development co-ordinator for this business. The vast majority of contributions to the article have been made by him, ncanales and an unregistered user at 208.59.127.200: between them, there was only one very minor edit made outside of this article. Although the efforts that ncanales has made deserve to be acknowledged as being in good faith, I do not believe that the business is notable or significant beyond its immediate area of operation. The information now offered in the article, well sourced and relatively NPOV as it is, is now more a description of a style of teaching, and not encyclopedic information about the subject of the article. I'm afraid it is the nature and scale of the business that render it inappropriate for an entry in Wikipedia, and not only the original tone of the article that Nicholas has worked hard to redress. Kevin McE 19:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. The references need to be about the school. - Aagtbdfoua 00:51, 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. Yuser31415 19:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Health Research Development Information Network[edit]

Health Research Development Information Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Violates WP:COI. User member of organisation, and has removed speedy deletion tage. Also in violation WP:N and sources are not attributable. Scalene•UserPage•Talk•Contributions•Biography•Є• 20:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. -- Eastmain 03:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agencies of different national governments, such as the International Development Research Centre of Canada and the Philippine Council for Health Research and Development of the Ministry of Health of the Philippines, have written about this network. --Eastmain 03:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is notable, for the reasons given in the article. There are good 3rd party sources, for V. No matter who stared the article, its a good and objective one, which is what matters. There may have been potential COI, but it does happen that a good article can be written nonetheless. DGG 04:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sorry for the tag removal. newby here. I believe this should not be nominated for deletion. article is legitimate, all sources are attributed. some community members already edited, added, attributed some content. --Wbvillarruz 04:16, 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.

The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Key thinkers in classical liberalism[edit]

Key thinkers in classical liberalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a spin-off from Classical liberalism, consisting of short descriptions of Locke, Smith, Kant and Friedman, and little else. The problem here is that classical liberalism is a bitterly contested label, and the uncritical classification of these individuals as 'classical liberals' is also contentious. In addition, we already tackle this subject in depth at Contributions to liberal theory and Liberalism#Development of liberal thought. There seems little point in keeping this around as a seperate article. Nydas(Talk) 21:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as above. CenozoicEra 07:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per subjective inclusion criteria and WP:PEACOCK in the article name. What is a "key thinker" and who decides who qualifies? Dragomiloff 19:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Dragomiloff unless someone can attribute the assertion of "Key thinkers". SmokeyJoe 12:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, classical liberalism as a term is not as debated over as one would think. Classical liberalism has a very clear meaning even left of center academics accept and those who subscribe to them, especially prior to the 19th century are very clearly classical liberals. No one worth their salt disputes this. Only questionable are Hayek and Friedman and other 20th century academics who have been labeled conservatives but themselves reject the term. Mill is also questionable because he changed his mind later in life and advocated more government. No one but a few dogmatic wikipedians dispute the list. It honestly, should be included in the classical liberalism page, but it should not be deleted outright. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.249.100.227 (talk • contribs).
The word "Key" in the title is unacceptable without attribution. SmokeyJoe 23:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep and move - I agree with smokeyjoe and Dragomiloff about the word "key", we need to source these people as "classical liberal", and "thinkers" doesn't fit with other lists of people, but the word "in" is ok for now. The article itself needs sources, not deletion. Smmurphy(Talk) 23:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article is too POV. In what sense was Kant a classical liberal, for example? Why is he a "key" thinker in some "classical liberal" tradition? Why is Hume less "key" than Kant? Where is Mill? Where's Rousseau? The whole idea is just too problematic; any definition will be contestable. Metamagician3000 08:06, 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.

Whether Kant was a classical liberal or not is not up for debate, he unquestionably is a classical liberal. Only classical, again as the article suggests, because in the U.S. and Canada liberal has taken on a different meaning. Without such North American centric views it should actually read Key Liberal Thinkers, since Kant is, without a doubt, a liberal.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:04Z

Post Music[edit]

Post Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • No sources
  • Very vague summary of a non-verifiable subject
  • After searching google for half an hour, I have found no results indicating any musical genre named "post music".
  • Even if it does exist, it is definitely non-notable and does not really help Wikipedia.
  • Only one musical act cited...
  • Zero articles link to "Post Music" and "Post Music" links to zero articles. The article has however existed since 11 months (almost a year!).

Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • O)))) 21:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No sources. Likely original research or made-up term. Dragomiloff 19:07, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:02Z

Heidi Holt[edit]

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

Does not assert notability of person. The band also seems less than notable. Wikipedia is not MySpace. This has the distinct feeling of trying to promote the album currently in production. PigmanTalk to me 21:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment And I apparently still haven't learn to reference the proper policies in an AfD. Thanks for providing them, folks! "Notability"; that's weak. --PigmanTalk to me 00:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problemo, normally it is customary to read the article, even if the nominator did not find it, the editors will (smirk) AlfPhotoman 01:10, 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 04:01Z

Dr. MD Sleiman Sami Salibi[edit]

Dr. MD Sleiman Sami Salibi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I originally prodded this memorial page, but the tag was removed by its creator, Esalibi (talk · contribs), whom I warned about the prod. In keeping with policy, I have decided to open this debate. Delete as nom (A7); Google only gives 3-4 exact results with this doctor's name, and the page also strongly reeks of WP:Vanity. Based on the user name and the article title, the editor must be a relative of the subject in question. Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 21:55, 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. Yuser31415 19:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Health Research Development Information Network[edit]

Health Research Development Information Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Violates WP:COI. User member of organisation, and has removed speedy deletion tage. Also in violation WP:N and sources are not attributable. Scalene•UserPage•Talk•Contributions•Biography•Є• 20:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. -- Eastmain 03:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agencies of different national governments, such as the International Development Research Centre of Canada and the Philippine Council for Health Research and Development of the Ministry of Health of the Philippines, have written about this network. --Eastmain 03:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is notable, for the reasons given in the article. There are good 3rd party sources, for V. No matter who stared the article, its a good and objective one, which is what matters. There may have been potential COI, but it does happen that a good article can be written nonetheless. DGG 04:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sorry for the tag removal. newby here. I believe this should not be nominated for deletion. article is legitimate, all sources are attributed. some community members already edited, added, attributed some content. --Wbvillarruz 04:16, 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.

The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! auditions[edit]

Jeopardy! auditions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

total cruft, I mean, this is a page, in an encyclopedia, on how to get on a game show? Violates much of WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information based on acting as a how-to guide. Had prod, but was removed without reason by editor. Booshakla 22:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; this article was spun off the larger Jeopardy! article when it got too big. As an aside, this whole "this-is-cruft, that's-cruft" culling trend is disturbing to me; it's hamhandedly pruning a lot of the most valuable content from Wikipedia. (I say "most valuable" because much of what seems to be disappearing is the discrimate aggregation of notable content that distinguishes Wikipedia from drier encyclopedias.) Robert K S 00:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should point out that this editor has about half of the edits on this page, making for a possible WP:COI Booshakla 00:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm. I probably edited for clarity and may have added some details, but I am not the architect of the article and it is not a vanity page about me. I have no vested personal interest in keeping it around. Robert K S 09:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A whole article describing an audition process? Utterly trivial and not encyclopaedic in the slightest. -- Necrothesp 01:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep, pending references I think one of the things that makes Jeopardy! unique from other game shows is its audition process. Contestants can't appear on Jeopardy! unless they are able to demonstrate their knowledge. I believe surely there are articles and books written about the Jeopardy! audition process. If those sources can appear and are discussed in the nominated article, then I believe the subject can demonstrate notability. Tinlinkin 03:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of at least six books off the top of my head. The Jeopardy! Book, This is Jeopardy!, How to Get on Jeopardy! and Win!, Secrets of the Jeopardy! Champions, and the recent Brainiac and Prisoner of Trebekistan. Art Fleming's book also deals in small part with the old audition process, IIRC. The number of newspaper articles is innumerable. Robert K S 08:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just because an article can be sourced does not always mean that the topic should have its own article. I think it probably should have a trimmed section in the main Jeopardy page, but this is just sad to have on it's own. Part of being an editor is editing, if something is "too long" for the main page, then trim it down. Booshakla 10:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Why must a large subject be limited to a single article rather than a family of related articles? Should we limit the American Civil War to a single article? Robert K S 10:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is an encyclopedia, not a junkyard. You can't compare a game show on television to something as historical, important and well-documented at the Civil War. There should not be tons of articles split off from marginal subjects, plain and simple. There should not be as many articles for Jeopardy as there are now. C'mon, a article on the set design? That's pure cruft right there. Probably will be deleted soon anyway. And if you don't like it, that's just too bad. Booshakla 11:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can think of a few quantitative ways of determining the relative significance of various topics, such as page views, number of edits... Robert K S 12:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The main Jeopardy! article is already quite long. It's appropriate, per WP:SUMMARY, to split this off and have a subarticle. It does need references and work, but think this is a worthy, notable topic that interests people and can be presented in an encyclopedic manner. --Aude (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Total bunk, please read WP:BHTT Booshakla 00:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That essay has some great advice, but as its header stresses, it's the opinion of its authors, and it isn't policy. It also seems to exhaust virtually every argument that might be made for an article's deletion or preservation! Robert K S 16:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another possible WP:COI Booshakla 00:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why's this? Because I might possibly have expertise in a given subject? Should AfD be ruled by those who know nothing about the article in question? I feel attacked by these COI allegations are being made. Andy Saunders 02:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This exchange inspired me to create a new page, Wikipedia:Vested interest, to distinguish the issue I think Booshakla is really getting at from the very serious type of things WP:COI talks about. I hope this can help in future similar situations. Mangojuicetalk 18:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to "Jeopardy! audition process". --Candy-Panda 08:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good idea re: the rename. I believe it is not advised to move an article while it is still under deletion discussion? Robert K S 09:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete the argument "it was taking too much space in the main article" is not a real reason to delete it. it should just be a section in the main article, and pared down, this is an encyclopedia, not a place where every info bit can be, you're supposed to be an editor, meaning you edit things. Biggspowd 16:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are plenty of topics on Wikipedia which are discussed in families of articles of appropriate sizes, organized by categories and footer banner templates. The basic argument behind all the delete votes seems to be "a game show doesn't deserve more than one article". This assumption needs to be evaluated objectively, taking note of the volume of research and publication devoted to game shows and Jeopardy! in particular. Robert K S 16:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - interesting and informative, but constitutes original research. --BigDT 17:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Jeopardy has an audition process. Writing about it is reasonable. Per Aude, it's reasonable to cover this in a separate article (although the coverage in the main article may need some expansion). Although this is unsourced, I fundamentally don't believe that the information here, by and large is unverifiable. I think we can afford to be eventualist here, although this article should be tagged for cleanup: it's not in great shape. Mangojuicetalk 17:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, pending references and rename per --Candy-Panda. I (think I still) have an older Jeopardy! book and may be able to add a source or two tonight. This seems like a common sense fork to me. If this was Deal or No Deal or The Weakest Link or someother game show with a shorter life span and less cultural relevance, then my opinion may swing the other way. But Jeopardy! has been running strong in its current incarnation for 25-some years, and the audition process is an important part of that because it's primarily a skill-based competition. Caknuck 17:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For a show as long-running and notable as Jeopardy!, the unique audition process is non-trivial and encyclopedic as well. Editors above have listed at least 6 sources. The article describes the process, and is not intrinsically a how-to guide. –Pomte 09:07, 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 Redirect to Homeopathy. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 04:00Z

Clinical homeopathy and Complex homeopathy[edit]

Clinical homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Complex homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Two known POV splits from Homeopathy with very little of note that can be said about them. NNeither have been worked on significantly since the split (unlike the seperately-nominated Classical homeopathy.

I've done a little editing to remove their worst parts. Clinical homeopathy was the worst, praising three homeopaths to the sky (reference: themselves) and containing this bizarre little non-sequitor: "Books which describe clinical conditions could be used by both clinical and classical homeopaths, the clinical homeopath will value its worth just more." [64]

Complex homeopathy merely contained unbacked assertions about one Homeopath, an A. Vogel, mixed in with assertions of the common use of lengthy German terms that is not backed by the evidence of Google. For instance, searching for the supposedly common Laienhomöopathie, specifying English-only, gives only that wikipedia page [65] It is only slightly commoner in German.

Pretty clear delete. Adam Cuerden talk 21:49, 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 deletion by admin DragonflySixtyseven as the article falls under the criteria of CSD A7. Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 13:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Dell[edit]

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

This person isn't actually notable - this is a c+p job from her website with something added about an article she's recently written in a college newspaper. MarkRTaylor 22:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete She has great resume topics which lead one to believe she will do something notable, but she is not notable now. Giving her an article would cause wikipedia to serve as monster.com. TonyTheTiger 22:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable student vanity page. -- Necrothesp 01:08, 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. Veinor (talk to me) 23:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marc j lane[edit]

Marc j lane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Promotional article about lawyer; kind of asserts notability but doesn't establish it; unsourced. NawlinWiki 22:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Article was supposed to have been written for the biography section as this is a biography and not a promotion of the attorney. (How can this be resubmitted as a bio and not an article?) There are plenty of sources for establishing claims cited within the article. Relevant outside sources have been cited to back the claim re: his contributions to the SRI, CSR, and ESG fields of work. Maleopold 22:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Maleopold[reply]

  • Comment I don't quite follow what you mean by "a bio and not an article". Everything which is written in article space - even a biography - is an article. In other words, all biographies are articles, in the same way as they would be in any other encyclopedia. I don't see the sources that you say are cited, either. Have a read of WP:N and see how you can make sure that he lives up to those standards. If you need help, just leave a message on my Talk page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Rather eulogistic article on a relatively non-notable lawyer. -- Necrothesp 01:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unsourced BLP AlfPhotoman 22:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems like a good guy, but not a notable one. - Aagtbdfoua 00:55, 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 no consensus -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Barnes[edit]

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

I deleted this after it had been prodded. The rationale for deletion was "Does not meet WP:MUSIC. A Google search turns up several other Jackie Barnes but only a passing mention of this one in an article about his father."

This was contested after the deletion, with the arguments that "There are some factors that show he is eligable to have his page re loaded. He sung a duet on the Double Happiness album by Jimmy Barnes. That album debuted at number 1 on the Australian charts. The song from the album "same woman" has been on rotation in radio in australia as well as in many cd stores around Australia. He has toured internationally as a drummer with Jimmy Barnes. The band has toured UK, Europe, Asia, Australia and New Zealand. these have been reported in newspapers etc. He is currently recording the new Jimmy Barnes album, and has done some writing for the new Living Loud album with Steve Morse and Bob Daisley. His website shows the 20 albums he has appeared on as a soloist and drummer. In the children's group The Tin Lids, they were nominated for the ARIA award for Best Children's album, I believe it was 1992 or 93. There are plenty of recordings on his site available to listen to and youtube videos."

I undeleted it and brought it here to get a wider input Trebor 22:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. He was a member of the Tin Lids who had a hit record back in the early 1990s and he does get a credit on Double Happiness. He is marginally notable enough for mine but if not should be redirected to Jimmy Barnes. Capitalistroadster 01:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He seems notable enough that many Australians would be interested. 99of9 04:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, I don't think that having a credit on a top-selling album is itself evidence of notability. Basically he's a session musician with a famous dad, and apart from the family connection, I don't see how he's notable. Lankiveil 11:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak Delete Very much borderline on the WP:Music criteria. I say delete however on the basis of wikipedia not being any the poorer were this article not there. Perhaps a re-direct to Jimmy Barnes and a couple of lines about his son on that page would be preferable. A1octopus 16:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Australians are interested in Jackie, he has appeared on many TV shows and Music Videos in Australia and has been recordings music since the age of 5yo. mikey2006 08:45, 5 March 2007
  • Merge and Redirect to Jimmy Barnes: in keeping with Wiki guidelines, Non-prominent relatives of a famous person tend to be merged into the article on the person, and articles on persons who are only notable for being associated with a certain event tend to be merged into the main article on that event. Jackie Barnes does not seem to have had a notable music career outside of performing with his son, but should be noted for doing so. If more references per mikey2006 can be found, then keep. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 05:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Capitalistroadster DXRAW 22:04, 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 keep.--Wizardman 05:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sanpaku[edit]

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

This is either non-notable, or original research, or a dicdef. Not sure which, but I don't think it's encyclopaedic. DWaterson 22:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP - Definitely not original research. It says pretty much the same thing on the Japanese wikipedia site. It is an incredibly obscure term, and not something that would be known by your average Japanese speaker, but interesting and worthy of an entry. I think if the John Lennon song was directly stated and linked if possible it would help with the notability.MightyAtom 04:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Spectre by Kunisada
  • Keep, expand, and clean up. It's in Japanese dictionaries. The Japanese Wikipedia likens it to the shifty-eyed look attributed by Cesare Lombroso to criminal types. It's a cultural view, and can underlie depictions in art. See for example the woodblock print by Kunisada. Fg2 04:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Otto4711 10:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The article is more than a definition-- it is informative--or at least informative enough to tell me enough to understand the significance. A dictionary would not have done as much.DGG 23:02, 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 Keep. By the looks of things, this one just gets over the line. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michel De Caso[edit]

Michel De Caso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable, due to insufficient non trivial, verifiable sources. Bus stop 23:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michel De Caso
  • Comment. This was already deleted in 2005. If a page is recreated wihtout any noticable improvement, or additions to notability, isn't it a speedy delete? Freshacconci 00:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's true. I've checked deleted version. The difference now is that some refs and links are provided, which were completely absent before. I think it's best to let this AfD run its course. Tyrenius 02:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Artist does a great job chronicling his own achievements (exhibitions, awards, etc.), but I'm not seeing any references or assertions of notability that aren't published on the artist's own websites. I was going to mention that the entry on Rectoversion had been previously deleted as well, but Tyrenius is all over that. Planetneutral 02:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just speedied it as nn, as there was no assertion of any wider repute and no refs provided. If this AfD turns out to be a keep, it may need to be revisited. Tyrenius 03:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and I am in complete agreement with that. The difference, from what I gather by reading De Caso's own pamphlet is that he paints both sides of the object. That is neither new nor notable. I have a different opinion about the artist himself though... AlfPhotoman 22:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Planetneutral - refs, and ghits all just seem to contain his own blurb, plus one "art critic" writing in same vein. Johnbod 04:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sorry guys but this time we have slightly more than a self projector. There are multiple sources and critical reviews available, see artsgazette (sorry in French), London Town and related to that Entente cordiale show. This artist qualifies at least as footnote in art history AlfPhotoman 13:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I think what Alf has found is sufficient, if he puts the in the article.DGG 23:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, had nothing better to do (smirk). But you are right, I should do what I tell others to do... AlfPhotoman 23:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree - the Arts Gazette piece (online mag only I think) is written by himself, the London listing website serves up his own PR, & the Shepherd's Bush Gallery is not a prominent one. Notice how he is always a "renowned sculptor" everywhere. It's the same PR blurb reheated, as I said above. A professional artist certainly, but I don't see notability. Johnbod 00:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My fault with the Art Gazette, should have read to the end... But the Entente is a recurring show that has nothing to do with De Caso but a French-English coproduction that happens every year with changing artists. AlfPhotoman 00:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alf photoman, I don't think that the Entente is a recurring exhibition. It was timed in relationship to the centenary of the Entente Cordiale between France and England. The LondonTown website piece is the only non-self-referential source that we have, which does little more than establish that he exhibited there. Surely, there are other sources, no? Perhaps in the French news? I could be compelled to change my vote if something more surfaces, but as it stands, it fails WP:A. Planetneutral 00:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mais certainement , look at the page, because of the Boo-hoo of the Art Gazette I went all out and got some references from some friends (who can't understand why I call them at 2 AM). Must format though but its 3 AM here, time to go to bed AlfPhotoman 01:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Sources: there are at least 10 more articles/critiques about him at L'Indépendant ( find it by going to the website/archives) but I took the most recent ones. AlfPhotoman 16:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree there is indication the person is a serious artist, with some degree of notability. But I don't think the Rectoversion page should stand as a separate article. Is there any indication it applies to anyone else? I think it should just be a part of the article on the artist. I didn't realize there was some notability there, when I nominated this. Bus stop 23:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I have found no, except some students of De Caso there is nobody seriously claiming to be a Rectoversionist. He gives art classes and runs a webpage that claims being the portal of Inertational Rectoversionism, but except for him I have seen nothing of note there AlfPhotoman 23:34, 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 03:56Z

Reformed Mennonite[edit]

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

A subset of a subset of a subset. Under 300 members and no evidence of any significnance outside the Mennonite commuinity. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP:ORG states: "...Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information is welcome for inclusion into wikipedia in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included..."; notability has not been established through reliable sources - the article states one source that does not cover notability, and therefore the article is not justified enough to be classified as notable with regards to an individual chapter of Mennonism; thus, the article must be deleted. Anthonycfc [T • C] 23:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comment - My initial reaction was to suggest this article is worth keeping. It wouldn't be difficult for me to come up with several reliable sources, and groups like this are so independent and unique it is hard to think of them as part of larger group. However, the article is so poorly written that to become a truly valuable article it would need a complete rewrite and in its present form it's not worth merging anywhere. ✤ JonHarder talk 23:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am changing my opinion to keep based on Black Falcon's improvements of the article. ✤ JonHarder talk 15:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable enough. Sects are of enough interest to have their own articles and don't really fall under the definition of "individual chapters of national and international organizations" - after all, individual Anglican and Catholic dioceses are deemed to be notable. Probably should be renamed Reformed Mennonite Church though. -- Necrothesp 01:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A splinter sect is not a chapter. Any organizational or doctrinal difference is enough--just as long as the group considers itself distinct. WP is not a judge of what differences in theology are significant. The number of members is totally irrelevant. This is a necessary principle, or we would have perpetual arguments about things which people feel very deeply about. DGG 04:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a religious denomination, not a local chapter, so the delete coments by Anthony do not apply at all. It has 10 congregations per [66]. Notability does not expire, and [67] says that per the 1890 census it had 34 congregations with 1655 members. [68] says it presently has 347 members. As reliable and independent sources the article includes two at present: a book about the denomination and an entry in an encyclopedia about the broader Mennonite faith (not published by or exclusively about this denomination). With its history dating back 195 years, there are doubtless additional sources if it is desired to expand the article. It presently satisfies WP:ORG, WP:N and WP:ATT so there is no basis for deleting it other than not liking it. I do not see that the article is so poorly written as claimed, but since the subject is notable quibbles with the writing call for editing, not deletion. Edison 05:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the comments of DGG and Edison. Seems to satisfy criteria for inclusion. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 05:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per previous comments. Edward321 05:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have added 2 sources to the article, as well as "History" and "Membership" sections. The quality of the prose is probably not my best (as I'm rather tired at the moment), but the sources suffice to establish notability and the extra information makes this more than just a stub-class article. Also, as noted above by DGG, this is a separate denomination and not a small chapter of the Mennonite Church. -- Black Falcon 08:14, 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 NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE, unfortunately. The article's a mess. All of the Keep votes noted that the article needs major work, generally pruning. There were some comments suggesting a split (of the potheads) or a merge, but not significant support for those solutions. I will now proceed to prune the article with a vengeance, as everyone agrees that that is a condition of it being kept. No prejudice against a renomination if the article doesn't soon figure out what it wants to be and moves in that direction. Herostratus 03:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous smokers[edit]

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

This list was nominated once before as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of iconic smokers. At the time, the article lookedlike this.

The final keep vote acknowledged the need for substantial cleanup. The top of the article begs for references on the hundreds of claims made below. On the talk page, the following comment sums up my impression of the situation:

== This article is a total disaster. == This article has got to the point where any celebrity who has been photographed smoking is included. "Tony Yayo"? I really have no idea who he is, he certainly doesn't belong in this "iconic" article alongside Bette Davis and George Burns. This article needs MAJOR pruning. PatrickJ83 21:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's throw this article in the ashtray. And while were at it, let's throw in

Nicotine users and former users, List of (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

YechielMan 04:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep List of famous smokers. The list does need major clean-up, but I don't think that is a sufficient reason to delete. The list need to be sourced because right now it is a magnet for all sorts of dubious claims (pictures "surfaced" of someone smoking a joint, so-and-so is "said" to have smoked pot everyday, and numerous references to people being marijuana smokers because they simply sang a SONG about smoking marijuana). The list should be reoriented to the original purpose of iconic smokers, not just anybody who was ever seen with a cigarette. janejellyroll 04:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am biased in that I like lists, which makes me want to keep it (with some serious cleanup), but I also don't see how this is helpful, because there are way too many smoking celebrities out there. Useight 04:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - smoking is not defining or unique or in any way indicative of notability. Otto4711 05:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - This list is never going to be of interest to anyone. None of these people are famous for smoking. We may as well have a list of Famous people who wear brown trousers. Which someone is probably writing right now. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about we turn this in a list of famous people who advertised smoking and a list of people who are known primarily for their smoking (Cigarette Smoking Man comes to mind)? Although the second list may be controversial, the first is definitely useful and either one or both together could eliminate a lot of the dubious entries on the current list. It would also greatly improve manageability (which is almost non-existent now). - Mgm|(talk) 12:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Prune, if need be; and revert it if it becomes unwieldy, but keep it. Might be best also if it were to move back to the former title, List of iconic smokers; but certainly it cannot be denied that figures like Fidel Castro, Winston Churchill, or Humphrey Bogart are indeed closely associated with smoking, even if they are not famous for smoking. FWIW I would remove any references to causes of death from the article; that comes across as waspish and so last-century. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extinguish. I find it curious that the purported definition as given by the lead section is "This is a list of famous people, for whom smoking is clearly a recognised part of their public image, or who are known for some unusual aspect of smoking", when the very first entry is for someone who "Was a closet cigarette smoker, a fact that came out shortly after her death". Despite the assertion by the lead section this is nothing more than an intersection between people who are famous and people who smoke - and given the popularity of smoking at one point in time the people who fit both those qualifiers will be enormous. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and prune. Only people whose smoking is iconic should be listed, entries like "Jessica Simpson was once photographed with a cigar" should be removed. --Strangerer (Talk) 17:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Arkyan ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 17:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this should rise or fall with List of notable drug culture figures, either we prune the list under discussion back to the iconic and name it appropriately, or delete it, I don't frankly care which, but if this goes, I will nominate the the drug culture figures most of which are people who admitted that they inhaled (injected, or whatever) and really aren't iconic. Carlossuarez46 00:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is of great interest to so many people, I don't know how some of you people can say otherwise. Brown pants, indeed! (Iridescenti, above) (For all we know, you "delete" voters could work in the tobacco industry and want a lower profile because of negative publicity. I've been a proud anti-tobacco campaigner for decades.) Some evidence for public interest are the campaigns to get celebrities to be better role models and the campaigns to reduce smoking in movies so that young people (the main movie theatre-goers) are less influenced to smoke. To participate for or against such campaigns, it helps to know about whom you are talking, so let's draw investigators to Wikipedia for that encyclopedic information! Many of the delete supporters are voting based on the quality of the article now, instead of how good it can be after we work on it more. We don't delete an article because it is unfinished and needs references. We should keep out the word "iconic" (too limited and trendy) in the criteria. Arkyan (above) has a good point--probably a great majority of entertainers in Western culture in the 1940s smoked. But because almost everyone believed the world was flat long ago doesn't mean that today's flat-worlders are not notable. Korky Day 01:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the newer article. I recently started the article Nicotine users and former users, List of (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). That was before I knew about the older article (because the latter was hard to find!). Then I realised that the two articles are not exact duplicates. The chewers, etc. are added in mine. But more importantly, I have a section for ex-users. This is of great interest, for instance, Fidel Castro quit smoking, which greatly interests people and is an argument for admirers of Fidel to quit smoking. So I'd like to see the two articles merged, with all the features of both. Korky Day 01:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Separate non-tobacco. As part of the merge suggested above, how about separating the cannabis users and putting them elsewhere? They never really seemed to fit in this article. Korky Day 01:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge elsewhere. The cannabis smokers could get their own article, SqueakBox 23:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Arkyan. --Dariusk 03:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Objectivity Persue Wikipedia and delete everything that does not conform to most current accepted propaganda on whatever subject. Let's have a Wikipedia Dogma to spread over the internet ... right? DasV 18:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete both. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oded kobo[edit]

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

This article doesn't establish the notability of the subject or the company that the subject is the CEO of (Koolanoo.com, created by the same user, was speedied for lack of notability). It contains no sources. The author created an identical page (see below) and now an anonymous IP Address is maintaining them both.

Also listing: O.D. Kobo. Leebo86 23:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete them both. Fails WP:V, WP:N, and probably WP:COI as well. - Aagtbdfoua 01:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. May be notable in the future, but seems to fall below the threshold of notability currently. Vassyana 07:53, 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. DS 01:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Die simpsons[edit]

  • This is a German language article talking about the German language version of an English language television show that already has an article.
  • If "German students" want to read about something in German, they should go to the German Wiki
  • If people only know about the German language version, that article in the German Wiki can have an interwiki link to the English article. Kimon 23:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Noting any particularly famous (in Germany) cast, and the title, should be done in the The Simpsons article. Otherwise, delete it all or move to the German Wiki. ThuranX 00:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge as ThuranX - there is nothing worth noting here which can't be mentioned in a small section on the Simpsons article. The rest should be on de.wiki Grutness...wha? 00:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Belongs on German Wikipedia, not here. -- Necrothesp 01:16, 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 Merge to University of the Philippines, from which it can be moved back into a separate article if anyone finds/adds sources. I believe that the correct procedure is to make the page a redirect, but if I'm in fact doing the wrong thing, let me know. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma rho[edit]

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

Non-notable single chapter of a fraternity. Only claim of notability is the "The Sigma Rho is the first and premiere law fraternity in Asia" statement, which is unsourced. -- Scientizzle 23:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm open to the possibility that someone will find verifiable sources, but I couldn't. A note: this fraternity does not appear to be affiliated with the frat of the same name based at Michigan Technological University.--Djrobgordon 03:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, the fraternity appears notable in Philippine politics (four Senate Presidents[69], other prominent members if you google). Here's at least one newspaper article[70]. They've been in the news because Filipino frats get into rumbles with each other[71][72] and somebody was even killed a while back[73]. --Dhartung | Talk 03:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, wait, apparently it's a duplicate of Uplb sigma rho. --Dhartung | Talk 03:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Different campuses of the same school, though. Presumable, but not certain, that they're one and the same. --Dhartung | Talk 03:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not opposed to an article on the overall fraternal organization (supposing it meets necessary WP:V, WP:N, blah, blah), but individual chapters that haven't been covered as separate entities are not, IMO, notable. Can we trim this to only organizational details to be a sufficient stub? Is there enough out there to make this an okay article? -- Scientizzle 04:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think there's just enough to point out the fraternity's existence, pull in a few primary source things about its history, and show that it has an influential position in Philippine politics. A useful stub. The fraternity chapters seem to operate more independently than the American model, though, so at the least we should note that there are two+ campuses with chapters. Oh, and I found another copy: Sigma Rho UPLB, almost identical to the other. --Dhartung | Talk 07:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to University of the Philippines as the subject looks real, but looks unique to that university, and lack of source material makes it not sufficient to have its own article. SmokeyJoe 12:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from a Member The Sigma Rho Fraternity stated in this article is based in the University of the Philippines - Diliman campus. Other frats based in the Philippines with the same name are not recognized by Sigma Rho Diliman (SR Diliman). Sigma Rho Diliman was organized in 1938. UPLB Sigma Rho was founded in 1957. As far as SR Diliman is concerned, this fraternities are simply trying to ride with the prominence of SR Diliman as a national force. An obvious evidence that SR diliman was copied is the similarity in fraternity seal. You can refer to SR Diliman's website at www.thesigmarho.org. SR Diliman's prominence can be traced by simply typing Sigma Rho at www.google.com.ph.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Varial indy (talk • contribs).
  • Merge as per SmokeyJoe. Seems notable enough for mention in University article, but not notable enough to have an article of its own. Vassyana 07:40, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_2&oldid=1116878055"