Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 21
March 23 >

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 Keep both consensus and nomination witdrawn. Luke! 01:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chink[edit]

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

This is merely a dictionary definition, and at best could be an article about a word, not about a subject, which violates Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Xyzzyplugh 23:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Keep Article has been expanded, and it is no longer just a definition. Pablothegreat85 23:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article needs expansion on usage and history, like Nigger and Spic, and other articles listed under Category:Ethnic slurs. It doesn't need deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Usage and history are part of a dictionary definition. Making a simple dictionary definition into an extensive dictionary definition wouldn't change the fact that this violates Wikipedia is not a dictionary. You bring up a good point, though. We do have some articles which are merely about words, rather than about subjects. Presumably, these are unusually notable words which due to their notability make it reasonable for them to belong here. Is "chink" an unusually notable word? --Xyzzyplugh 23:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, for being a racial slur, and one of the worse ones for those of East Asian descent. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you believe that all racial slurs are inherently super-notable, so that we should have articles on racial slurs but not on any other type of words? --Xyzzyplugh 01:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to List of ethnic slurs#C. —dgiestc 00:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - No longer a dicdef and has sources. —dgiestc 15:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to List of ethnic slurs#C. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 00:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be all for a Merge and Redirect to List of ethnic slurs#C per discussion, but noting also that we're not a dictionary. Maybe delete is more appropriate. --Dennisthe2 01:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, per expanded article. Good job. --Dennisthe2 18:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I'm torn between deleting it and merging it with List of ethnic slurs#C. It fits in with the article, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge' to Chinaman (racial term) George Leung 02:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Nigger --Evergreens78 03:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per many articles in Category:Slang --Ishu 03:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Notable topic, but not enough content to justify a stand-alone article and avoid WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. List of ethnic slurs seems reasonable. The article can be kept, or spun off in the future, if someone would add more content and sourcing. --Shirahadasha 03:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Changed to 'Keep. Agree sufficient content and sourcing has been added to avoid previous difficulties and justify a keep. --Shirahadasha 00:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Nigger --Oreo Priest 04:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is an awful lot said at Nigger right now but almost nothing at Chink. Why not merge it now and if/when it becomes substantial it can be split off? —dgiestc 06:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect per above, along with Nigger and Beaner. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 05:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to List of ethnic slurs#C. The article as it stands now is nothing more than a brief dictionary definition. An article can be created if/when an editor expands it to cover cultural and historical significance. --Muchness 05:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep post expansion, now a legitimate encyclopedic article with potential for further growth. --Muchness 16:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wiktionary has it already. Keep, article has been expanded beyond a dicdef. Good work. —Scott5114↗ 08:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge then Redirect Dfrg.msc 09:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. I'd say merge, but if "describes eyes as shaped as chinks." is the standard over there, I'll keep the much better article here. Shenme 10:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we have nigger etc... this is on a similar level of notability. Thus I'd assume it ought to be kept. Mathmo Talk 14:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article has been significantly expanded, so deletion and merge nominators may want to reconsider their votes. Thanks. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep highly notable even if it may cause offence. MLA 15:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. Claims that this is a mere dicdef are unfounded - it may have been earlier but the current article is more than a dicdef WilyD 15:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable ethnic slur. It's sourced and more than a dicdef. And there's also quite a bit of potential for expansion.Chunky Rice 16:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per revised format and WP:SNOWRaveenS 16:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable ethnic slur. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Referenced, fleshed-out. Caknuck 21:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's in good enough shape now. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 22:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article has been sufficiently expanded and referenced, although the term itself should not exist.-- danntm T C 22:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per WP:SNOW - The stubbiness of an article means it needs to be expanded, not deleted (see: WP:WINAD#Fixing_bad_stubs). The subject clearly merits its own article beyond just defining the term; whole books have been written on it. Bobanny 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as nominator, I no longer support deletion of this article. --Xyzzyplugh 03:58, 24 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. John Reaves (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3C (technology term)[edit]

3C (technology term) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A quick search of various databases finds no use of the term Confidential Computer Credentials. The writer of the article states that it is an internal term used by his company, PC Perfecters. This is a contested proposed deletion. Spacepotato 23:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not for things made up in the server room one day. —dgiestc 00:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. Sounds a little spammy also. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 00:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It also seems like a dictionary definition, and sounds like advertising. -- Wenli 00:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems more like a fancy name for a common business practice. What's the point? --Dennisthe2 01:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Mwelch 01:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fancy name for a piece of paper with user names and passwords written on it. (A bad security practice, really.) Per nom, no evidence that this term is used outside a single company. Zetawoof(ζ) 11:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per above, and I strongly suspect that this is a poorly disguised advertisement. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanispamvertising. Artw 14:50, 22 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 transwiki to Wiktionary.--Wizardman 23:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korooyo[edit]

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

It's essentially a dictionary entry. Clarityfiend 00:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted as article about club that does not assert its notability. Capitalistroadster 02:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coburg Amateur Football Club[edit]

Coburg Amateur Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable junior sports club. Mattinbgn/ talk 00:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete A7. Special note, the page is blatantly autobiographical. This is not myspace - if you want it, you know where to find it. --Dennisthe2 01:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. Mwelch 01:13, 22 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 01:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Martin and Babe Carey[edit]

Jamie Martin and Babe Carey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A Prod with the following rational was declined. It looks like each of these two soap opera characters Jamie Martin & Babe Carey has their own article already. As well as each actor having an article Justin Bruening & Alexa Havins. Per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction so if the characters should be covered in the article All My Children excepting (If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article.) then surely the relationship of the characters is not appropriate as a stand alone article. Jeepday 00:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as redundant. Each character has their own article, and therefore there is no real need for a common article for the couple. The relationship should be covered in either All My Children, or in the character articles individually. --Dennisthe2 01:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dennisthe2. —Scott5114↗ 08:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dennisthe2. Scienter 12:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ditto. Realkyhick 21:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant.-- danntm T C 22:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. JuJube 00:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 09:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as it is redundant and unnecessary. -- Wenli 17:31, 24 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 - and damn you, Action Jackson IV, for making the joke I wanted to make. DS 02:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaga (hypothetical moon)[edit]

Pseudoscience with no reputable backing. No way of expanding article with facts. Pleclech 01:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. May be speedy, I see no context to this, nor do I see anything whatsoever backing this up as something that is anything more than somethiung made up in the observatory one day over drinks. --Dennisthe2 01:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd just like to point out that Neptune was discovered in 1846 and Pluto was discovered in 1930 presumably with telescopes. Don't see how these could have been part of any culture's ancient mythology. --Infrangible 02:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Zecharia Sitchin. This page seems to be referring (although not particularly coherently) to an aspect of Sitchin's theories claiming that the gods in the ancient Sumerian "Epic of Creation" were not just mythological gods, but also were mapped actual astronomical bodies in the solar system. Not saying that I believe in it, but the theme of "maybe they knew something we didn't" is common in a lot of non-mainstream theories about ancient cultures. Mwelch 02:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think we're missing the really important question: Is there an official radio station on this moon? :-D --Action Jackson IV 06:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if there is, I sure ain't hearin' it. =^_^= --Dennisthe2 01:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Merge/Delete Some valid information? Dfrg.msc 09:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It may indeed be part of one of those "well this rogue gravitational influence moved all this stuff around, in the past, y'know?", but then it should be part of one of those articles, as pointed out above. Shenme 10:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete to the Nibiru article. Fails WP:ATT, but certainly matches WP:BULLSHIT with flying colors, bravo! RGTraynor 16:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article has only one sentence, with no real info, and no sources/references whatsoever, even now 6 months after it was created. --Seattle Skier (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources, possible hoax, send it into its own orbit. Realkyhick 21:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Send this one off into the black hole. It's probably a hoax anyway. --sunstar nettalk 00:10, 25 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. WjBscribe 03:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont Street, San Francisco[edit]

Vermont Street, San Francisco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article really stretches the notion of "notability". Why not have an article for every damn street in the city while we're at it? ILike2BeAnonymous 02:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I wonder how many Frisco streets have those Lombard-esque curves? I agree that Vermont Street doesn't merit its own article, but if there are only a couple of those types of streets, then a mention of Vermont Street in the Lombard Street article, might be in order, thus making a merge more appropriate than a straight delete. Mwelch 02:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note on comment: It already is mentioned in the Lombard Street article. I'm saying this street doesn't merit its own article. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although not as famous as Lombard, Vermont has long been considered "crookeder" than Lombard or at least a rival for the "crookedest street in the world" moniker. It might be an analogue to indie cred, but I think the article is notable when there are [100+ Google Books results] and media mentions of Vermont as a destination in its own right. -- Dhartung | Talk 03:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Lombard street ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 05:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After looking at the article I think this is notable. I remember when I went to San Fransisco I saw this street and I was like "OMG these liberals aren't straight, and they can't build straight streets either." --Evergreens78 05:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think the street I saw was actually Lombard, but whatever. --Evergreens78 05:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dhartung's sources and argument. --Oakshade 06:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Dhartung and I know the Linenthal book provides more info on history. It gets maligned in many of those articles as the poor cousin of Lombard, but you can think of it as the "up and coming crookedest street"! --RosinDebow 12:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Well fan my brow, a street with chicanes *and* it's made of concrete. Hardly notable, is it? Markb 13:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - although, as a San Franciscan, I'd like to keep articles about the city, this is just too obscure to get an entry. Lombard qualifies because it's famous; Vermont fails because it's not - even in SF. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking sources to satisfy WP:ATT. Not all streets are inherently notable. Edison 14:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the Transportation section of Potrero Hill until article can be fully expanded. --Polaron | Talk 16:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless expanded to provide some evidence of notability by the end of this AfD, Dhartung et al may be right but at the moment the article doesn't mention any of these reasons. Iridescenti 16:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Lombardesque "crooked" block of Vermont Street is considered a hidden treasure of San Francisco that many tourists don't know about. There was even a segment on the television show "Bay Area Backroads," hosted by Doug McConnell, recently that specifically documented the twistiness of Vermont Street, where the host actually filmed a driven outing there. A bay area resident myself, I have heard time and time again how it could even be more crooked than Lombard Street. After reviewing Google Maps, it most certainly is at least AS CROOKED as Lombard Street, just in a lesser known part of town. There are many hills in San Fran, but only Lombard and Vermont offer the curved switchbacks. It deserves encyclopaedic documentation. --DirectorG 18:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I have entirely no idea what this street is, this article can be very potentially expanded in the near future. Entirely meets notability criteria, and can have some more expansion and sourcing.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions 19:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let's give this article a chance. Is it the second crookedest street in a city noted for having such? The article could be expanded, refs and sources added, and perhaps turn into a nice, useful article. It has already provided one little fact about SF which I didn't know before. At least it's a real street (see Google maps). Let's get rid of all the spam, hoaxes, and non-notable autobio articles first. --Seattle Skier (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I live on the other side of the world and I've heard of this. - Richard Cavell 22:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is clear room for improvement, but as it stands it meets notability criteria.--Xnuala (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that reliable sources have been added attesting to its notability as a tourist attraction. — Krimpet (talk/review) 01:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it is a notable street, as per Krimpet. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 17:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that reliable sources have been provided, if this is a famous tourist attraction I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be providing coverage for it. Burntsauce 17:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's just the point: it isn't a "famous tourist attraction", not even in the City. Lombard Street is. Seems like some folks have the cart before the horse here, maybe hoping that having a Wikipedia article will somehow catapult this street to the notoriety they think it deserves. It ain't supposed to work that way. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the standard in question is not "fame", but notability. It is already notable, as sources demonstrate. -- Dhartung | Talk 07:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One (of the two) sources, fodor's, also makes the claim: Everyone in the Western world knows that the "crookedest" street in the world is San Francisco's Lombard Street, which is clearly nonsense. So this leaves us with one reliable source - or is it? fodor's states there are 6 turns, sfgate.com claims 8. If this entry must stay, can someone find some reliable sources? Markb 13:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As I pointed out before, the Images of America: San Francisco's Potrero Hill by Linenthal et al is a likely source. In fact, if someone has an Amazon account you can search the text online for Vermont street (I forgot my account info so I can't do this). See [1] RosinDebow 15:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: then add it as a source. Markb 05:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why the fact that an article contains the phrase, "Everyone in the Western world knows that the "crookedest" street in the world is San Francisco's Lombard Street", is automatically nonsense. There's no rule that sources can't be written with a moderate amount of humour. -- Black Falcon 05:13, 28 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 by me. The AfD was prompted by concerns about copyright violation (and the text read like VSCA as well). Wafulz has deleted the copyrighted text. Therefore the reason for nomination is gone. The article that remains is surely keepable in its own right. - Richard Cavell 03:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man Family[edit]

Spider-Man Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

someone added this artcle for deletion, but didn't list it here. Gman124 02:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. No reason given for deletion. The article isn't impressive, certainly, but if it's an on-going series from major comic publisher like Marvel and based upon one of Marvel's signature heroes, that would certainly seem to meet notability requirements. Mwelch 02:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Major comic book series. I feel I can can confidently cite precedent here without worry of being contradicted by WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. 23skidoo 02:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. It looks like the AfD was added by this guy because he thought it was a copyvio (see Talk:Spider-Man Family). I've removed the text that is almost certainly a copyvio. Even if it isn't, it's absurdly promotional and would require an entire rewrite. No need to go through this process at this point. --Wafulz 02:57, 22 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 04:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Gallagher[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO for notability and violates WP:SOAP for self-promotion of his book. Gallagher surname page is the only other article that links to this one. Google search does not support notability. --Roswell native 02:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It doesn't seem like he did anything particularly important--SUIT 02:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only notability asserted appears to be the book, which is ranked worse than one millionth. I've tried to find how exactly he was ranked in America's top 125 young people, but had no success. --Wafulz 03:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing found in Google, non-notable book, and association to a notable person George Ludwig does not make him notable. Wooyi 04:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete its self promo an he aint notable. not even a little. he just wants to flog his book an use wiki to look good. Deleeeeeete!!!!!--Zedco 11:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wooyi. Scienter 12:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 17:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete unless more notability can be found, asserted, and cited. With how the article stands, I do not believe Mr. Gallagher is notable enough. Andy Saunders 21:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Realkyhick 21:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable per WP:BIO standards. Potential conflict of interest here, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --sunstar nettalk 00:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Concerns regarding sourcing were not addressed. If the amount of storyline material, after taking attribution and WP:WAF into consideration, proves too large for those articles, creation of a separate 'storyline' article may be warranted, but I don't see any consensus that the sub-articles are called for at this time. Shimeru 07:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StarCraft storyline[edit]

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

This series of article presents an extreme amount of undue weight to Starcraft. They basically outline the story of Starcraft on a level-by-level, mission-by-mission scope, which is wholly unnecessary. Plot summaries must be succinct and kept as small as possible to provide major relevant details- not to detail every piece of a campaign. I believe the main articles Starcraft and Starcraft: Brood War do a fine job as is summarizing the storyline- per WP:NOT #7, we should not simply be regurgitating plot summaries of a popular video game. While I usually hate bundling deletions, I feel these are all necessary:

  • StarCraft Episode I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • StarCraft Episode II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • StarCraft Episode III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • StarCraft Episode IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • StarCraft Episode V (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • StarCraft Episode VI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • StarCraft: Enslavers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Brood War introduction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Wafulz 02:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of science fiction or fantasy-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 06:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I think one page on the Starcraft Storyline overall would be appropriate, given that with the creation of additional works in the series, it could be helpful to cover the otherwise acceptable material in one location. FrozenPurpleCube 02:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that article would do nothing other than serve as plot summary of overly great detail. The scale of the articles is a bit misleading- there are only two video games being involved here, and they don't need such a microscopic level of detail. Right now, the summaries in their articles seem sufficient. --Wafulz 02:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I think part of the problem is that the article isn't covering the other Starcraft works. Believe it or not, Blizzard has commissioned authors to write novels set in the Starcraft universe. Each of which has its own article written pretty closely to the Episode articles you're pointing at. see here. I think I'd prefer something that covered the scope of the works in one article, though perhaps with a lot of restyling to try to bring things into a more suitable form. FrozenPurpleCube 05:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The thing is, these articles don't cover anything except for the in-game campaigns. No novels, no board games, no comics, nothing. It's strictly a rehashing of every level and bonus mission of the video game. --Wafulz 18:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • So what? I already said there may need to be a lot of restyling to bring these things into a more suitable form. I am not disagreeing with you that there is some cleanup necessary. I do think, however, the subject itself could be appropriately covered. Given that there's nothing obviously wrong about these pages, I don't see deletion is a necessary step. Editing and cleanup can fix things. FrozenPurpleCube 18:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • What's wrong with these pages is the content is an unneeded amount of detail and it is already nicely summed up in Starcraft and Starcraft: Brood War. There's no need to provide an article dedicated entirely to the missions of a video game. --Wafulz 20:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • It seems you are under the impression that I'm disagreeing with that particular concern? I am not. However, I am saying something which you seem to be missing. I am saying that because the Starcraft universe has expanded beyond the video game, because there are stories that are part of a cohesive whole, it might be worth considering an article connecting the various materials. FrozenPurpleCube 23:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • What you're suggesting isn't a merge though- it's creating an entirely new article. These articles don't incorporate anything other than the missions/bonus missions (ie, they don't cover the game's universe- just the game itself). --Wafulz 00:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • (De-indenting somewhat). Yes, it would be a substantially different article than what's present now, certainly, but I do think the article name itself is fine, and that the content from the existing articles could be used to create part of the the article I'm thinking about. It'd be one thing if they were full of nonsense, but they're not, so I'll accept that there's some potential usage there. I suppose one could start over from scratch, but I see no reason to do that. FrozenPurpleCube 05:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, maybe transwiki to Wikibooks; The two respective sections on the main pages are more effective than the nine whole articles listed here. See also: WP:WAF, WP:FICT, and consider emptying much of {{StarCraft}}, which I'm fairly convinced will never come close to the preceding guidelines. Nifboy 04:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added Wikibooks as a possible candidate for having a rather detailed not-summary of plot (and characters, and planets). I'm not quite sure what the rules are over there, but things like this make me figure it's within their scope (and ignore this, since it was obvious gameguide material in an earlier incarnation). Nifboy 04:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Nifboy 04:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- they're so detailed that they verge on copyvio. Novalis 04:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Only a summary is really needed, this isn't like the Star Wars movies. bibliomaniac15 05:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Story summary already in StarCraft article. These separate articles are simply extended summaries of a single game and its expansion. --Scottie_theNerd 05:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Scottie_theNerd. Scienter 12:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to a gaming wiki, smerge anything remotely useful to the main article, and delete the rest. —Dark•Shikari[T] 15:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Bibliomaniac15. Acalamari 17:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too detailed to even count as summary. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Though these should probably be transferred to another wiki, as this content should probably be somewhere on the web, just not a general encyclopedia. The only way this could be more detailed if it was a transcript. There's already a good enough summary in the main article, so I don't think a tedious merge needs to be done. Wickethewok 21:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't a summary. This isn't an overview. This isn't a synopsis. This is a novelization. A summary this detailed is not appropriate, and StarCraft's plot summary is sufficient. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But Cleanup The article can be salvaged, but it needs to have the ridiculously specific information removed from it. Captain panda In vino veritas 13:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you propose we clean up and how do we remove specific details without making it a carbon copy of the plot summaries on other pages? --Wafulz 02:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously, this isn't a place for articles dedicated to plotlines. A transwiki to Wikibooks would be more ideal than a straight deletion that sees months or years of effort blown to shit. Plotlines of any notable media are within jurisdiction of the project, and there are no apparent barriers to migrate and adapt contents there. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 16:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC) ╫[reply]
  • Merge all into StarCraft storyline. Please note that what's being proposed for deletion are not just the specific articles on each episode, but also the main StarCraft storyline article. I agree that there is too much detail, but given the notability and length of the work, one separate "storyline" article is appropriate. So, merge all into StarCraft storyline and then heavily trim them, leaving only the most important parts. -- Black Falcon 05:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As this will primarily consist of deleting many paragraphs in their entirety, it should not take too much time. I am willing to do the merge and subsequent trimming if the consensus is judged to be "merge". -- Black Falcon 05:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why can't the plot of StarCraft be dealt with in an appropriate way in StarCraft? If we need more (and I disagree that we need more), we need it with the real-world context. If that's sufficient detail, we don't need more. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • StarCraft has 10 or so episodes, I think. The current plot summary at StarCraft#Plot covers only the first three and it is already of medium length. Given how extensive the work is, I think a separate article for the StarCraft storyline to supplement a short summary in the main article is appropriate. If everything can concisely fit into the main article, that would be ideal (but is it plausible?). Still, that would require a highly selective merge rather than deletion. By the way, I love the piped link to your talk page: "conspire" ;) -- Black Falcon 06:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Starcraft has three episodes, Brood War has three episodes. Each article covers the three. The episodes aren't anything special either- it's just the name given to the Zerg/Terran/Protoss missions. --Wafulz 12:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh. Thanks for the clarification. I have changed my recommendation accordingly (see below). -- Black Falcon 17:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect 7, delete 2. Delete StarCraft: Enslavers, which seems to be just one campaign in one version, and Brood War introduction. Redirect episodes 1-3 to StarCraft and episodes 4-6 to StarCraft: Brood War. Redirect "StarCraft storyline" to StarCraft universe. The individual episode titles and "StarCraft storyline" are all plausible search terms. -- Black Falcon 17:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable, lengthy enough to warrant separate articles. Everyking 05:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - WP:NOT #7, as in: Wikipedia is not a textbook, faq, instruction manual, or collection of plot summaries. I'd also hope Wikipedia is not a gaming manual. I'd be happy if Black Falcon does a merge of what he feels is relevant info, though. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. The amount of detail for this game's story is ridiculous. There's longer pieces of fiction out there that doesn't even go near the level detail these articles cover. This doesn't help people who know nothing about StarCraft and doesn't help big fans of the game. Move to StarCraft wiki if someone doesn't want to lose this prose, but this stuff isn't suitable for WP. Mitaphane ?|! 04:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not remotely notable! No refs at all. NBeale 07:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. m:Wiki is not paper, although the WP:V argument isn't a bad one. Note that WP:NOT states that "a plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." As a side note, I haven't actively edited WP in a while (as my edit history will show) but I came to this page after reading with interest the articles in question and then noting the AFD tag above them. --Goobergunch|? 11:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - to me, Goobergunch, what you just said is a good reason to keep the page. I've also come to AfD because I originally saw an article I considered important that was tagged for deletion (well, already deleted, actually). Unfortunately, m:Wiki is not paper doesn't seem to have any success as an anti-deletion argument anymore. Anyway, what's your opinion that this sort of article should instead be at a StarCraft Wikia, as proposed above? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 12:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The articles aren't plot summaries. Plot summaries can already be found in the respective StarCraft articles. These chapter summaries almost transcribe the exact events of one game and its expansion, as well as a bonus campaign. They are so in-depth that they border on copyright infringement. --Scottie_theNerd 14:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- Wikipedia does not need to have restrictions on size, yes the story-line is long, but we aren't restricted by that. The plot is a very important part of the game and should have an equally important part of the starcraft series on wikipedia. MrMacMan 23:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The story isn't long. The storyline articles above cover two games. Practically every game summarises plot information in a few paragraphs on the game page. There is no need to transcribe everything in the game onto Wikipedia; that would be copyright violation. --Scottie_theNerd 05:49, 1 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 speedy delete WP:CSD#A7. --Wafulz 16:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cache Cache[edit]

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

Article about a band from Baltimore, MD that was started last year. The article's only contributor is User:Championonion; it was nominated for an A7 speedy by Real96 but that nom was contested by Championonion. Article is currently unreferenced and does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. A Train take the 02:19, 22 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--Isotope23 20:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earl harvin[edit]

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

It is poorly formatted, unsourced, and does not provide any reliable sources to back up it's few claims to notability. It is also unclear whether this article is about the band or the person. Would speedy, but its claim to tour with other bands made me decide to just list it here. --YbborT 02:37, 22 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 05:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brad The Cripple[edit]

Non-notable person on non-notable radio show Mhking 02:53, 22 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 01:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ER (TV series) broadcasters[edit]

ER (TV series) broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; unambiguous consensus for keep, no deletion rationale given by nominator. (|-- UlTiMuS 19:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debian Free Software Guidelines[edit]

Debian Free Software Guidelines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia isn't the Debian project site, this doesn't belong here. Evergreens78 03:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So ? We also keep the articles about Debian, GNU, GPL, ... Let's keep this also --Garo 08:37, 22 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 01:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Lang, Jr.[edit]

Jeffrey Lang, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Autobiographical and notability concerns. Diletante 03:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not notable. - Richard Cavell 03:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 18 year-old local talk show host, for less than a year. I can do better than that for notability! Out! --Brianyoumans 03:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails notability--Sefringle 04:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self promo. not notable an asnt really done much to warrant bein on here.--Zedco 10:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Diletante. Scienter 14:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was in radio for a decade and have been in newspapers for longer. Am I notable? (My own answer: "No.") Realkyhick 21:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too bad he "left WORD-AM to pursue a business oppertunity" - if he had stayed for 20 years he might have become notable! —SaxTeacher (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as self-promotion. Article creator uploaded many images tagged as photo By: Jeffrey A. Lang JR TheRealFennShysa 15:41, 26 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. I know, I'm closing and I'm the nominator. This debate has already attracted more attention than it needed, let's move on to more productive things. Mangojuicetalk 18:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Becca Haines[edit]

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

Local-level actress, with no sources attesting to any further notability. Contested PROD. Delete. Mangojuicetalk 03:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:N. Deor 03:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Um, it sounds like she is, like, 14 or so. That is a little young for some repertory theater roles and some local ballets to lead to notability. Out. --Brianyoumans 03:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Vanity, not notable. --Sable232 04:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedy A7 may be appropriate, very clear lack of notability. Apparently an autobiography (I wonder if she goes to the "Cambridge Freinds School"(sic)?. — Krimpet (talk/review) 05:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "At the age of three, she was a yellow taxi for halloween". Must have been some good acid, but three years old seems a little young to be taking it? Croxley 06:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this really is self promo an the bit about fun facts????? do we really want to know this? Delete an she can sob to her friends--Zedco 10:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Scienter 14:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per A7, no assertion of notability. There are zero relevant hits under Google [3], ; this is just another kid doing local children's theater. Ravenswing 16:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Professional actress" = assertion, in my book. But yeah, clearly delete. Mangojuicetalk 17:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • All that means is that she claims to have gotten paid for it. I'm a "professional paralegal," come to that, by the same standards, but that doesn't mean I just asserted notability, quite aside from that there are damned few "amateur" ones. Ravenswing 17:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Seattle Skier (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not seem notable enough for me. Andy Saunders 21:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any article with a "Fun Facts" section has me looking for the proverbial gong. Non-notable. Realkyhick 21:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just 28 Ghits even before before checking whether they are for this person. --Groggy Dice T | C 14:40, 23 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. --Coredesat 07:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GRIM[edit]

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

Notability not asserted, sources are suspect. Reads like a "biography" for the band by one of its the members. Tito Pao 03:24, 22 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 01:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Smith (musician)[edit]

Corey Smith (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not meet notabiity per WP:BIO or Wikipedia:Notability (music). Roswell native 03:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Myspace is not a notability measure. -- Diletante 03:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self promo an only ref id from hs own website. not notable an obvsly self written. reeks of pure vanity. howd he get his head through the doors?--Zedco 10:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Why don't people understand Wikipedia is not MySpace or Facebook? Scienter 14:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Is there someone, somewhere who basically turns Wikipedia into a press release database for every non-notable musician/group on Earth? It certainly seems so. Realkyhick 21:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I am from Athens and I would not consider this musician notable or talented for that matter. I think this is a self promotion page.
  • Delete self-promotion. Artaxiad 21:23, 25 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 per CSD A7. Slowking Man 13:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jhune Hermano[edit]

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

This certainly reads like an autobiogarphy, as the information is more or less the same as that found on the external website. Notability not asserted. Tito Pao 03:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete no assertion of notability. Wooyi 04:53, 22 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. --Coredesat 02:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renetto (3rd nomination)[edit]

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

YouTube personality. Deletion review couldn't decide whether new sources are sufficient to overrule the prior AfD's (1, 2), so the caravan moves here. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 03:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep The sources, while not primarily about him, are sufficient to support the stub. Three of the five references are more recent than the second AFD, making me believe that this individual is becoming increasingly notable, and we will have an article on him sooner or later. I think the time is now. GRBerry 05:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets all relevant standards, and has for a while. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The links check out; I can't see any particular grounds upon which to delete. RGTraynor 16:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is one of the most important people on YouTube, there are articles of several people from YouTube I never heard of so if we write about those we can not delete Renetto. 172.180.216.223 14:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mentions in NY Times, NY Post, WSJ, Washington Post, BBC News. Notable --Pixelface 05:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Poor sources. Artaxiad 21:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mulitple non-trivial mentions by reliable sources such as the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC News and the Wall Street Journal. "Notability" increased since the last AfD in December 06, which is why I recreated article. --Oakshade 00:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDILY DELETED. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Dad vs. Family Guy[edit]

American Dad vs. Family Guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Possible web vanity that fails WP:WEB, not very notable, and has been deleted twice before.[4] --AAA! (AAAA) 03:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and protect per nomination. If it doesn't get protected after another delete: people will just keep recreating it, which isn't helpful. RobJ1981 04:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and protect per CSD G4. --Sable232 04:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • G4 does not apply - it hasn't been through AFD yet. - Richard Cavell 08:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It looks like it hasn't had an AfD before, otherwise a clear speedy delete. Doesn't sound particularly notable. Maxamegalon2000 05:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Protect NN web game. IF the creator can show notability, they can request it be recreated. TJ Spyke 07:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect - Richard Cavell 08:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN webgame. I'm not supporting protect yet as it appears this is the first AFD. 23skidoo 12:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Scienter 14:53, 22 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 02:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neighbors (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band, sources missing. Probably just one of those small bands that a group of friends or classmates formed. Tito Pao 03:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Does not assert notabiity per Wikipedia:Notability (music). --Roswell native 04:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly fails WP:BAND. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 08:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a notable band, however article is poor. This band is featured on the "Punk Sucks" compilation.Mad kemist 13:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But is the compilation notable or worthy of an article? --- Tito Pao 22:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That album was released in 1994. This band was formed (under a different name) in 1995. I'm pretty sure the band on that compilation album is a different band with the same name. (I believe there are at least two others.) Xtifr tälk 08:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And just to be clear about this...I'm nominating an AfD about a band based in the Philippines, not in the US. So I think that the band on this compilation is an entirely different band from the one I'm nominating. --- Tito Pao 15:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Roswell native. Sourcing is rather important to distinguish notable from non-notable, no? Scienter 14:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I managed to track down the albums, and they appear to be digital-only releases, and, I think, self-released. The band does seem to have a bit of an audience in the Philippines, but I don't think it's enough to pass WP:MUSIC. Xtifr tälk 08:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comments, does not reach WP:BAND. Artaxiad 21:24, 25 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 02:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Singing Ambassadors[edit]

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

Notability established, reads like a self-promoting profile. And increasingly, many choirs from the Philippines are touring as well, so I'm not clear what makes this one stand out from the other choirs (e.g. has it participated in national or international competitions? did it participate in choral festivals and notable workshops?) Tito Pao 03:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Does not assert notabiity per Wikipedia:Notability (music). --Roswell native 04:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless independent sources can be added by the end of the deletion debate. There are millions of amateur musical groups in the world just as there are millions of amateur sports teams. They furnish social and recreational opportunities for the members and for usually small audiences, but to justify an article in Wikipdedia they should have gained substantial or non-trivial coverage (more than a directory listing or an announcement of a performance) in multiple reliable independent publications. See WP:N , WP:ATT and WP:ORG , as well as WP:MUSIC. Edison 14:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC, WP:ORG and WP:N , WP:ATT Artaxiad 21:26, 25 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 based on consensus of established users. --Coredesat 02:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Christian Webster (2nd nomination)[edit]

Jonathan Christian Webster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Extensive, and I mean exteeeeeensive, bio for a frequent caller to a radio talk show named Coast to Coast AM. Every call is logged in detail with audioclip, his viewpoints are discussed, but nothing in terms of secondary sources. The first AfD ended in Keep based on blatant meatpuppeteering, so we might get more of it here. ~ trialsanderrors 04:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep,I don't see anything wrong or against the 5 pillars of Wikipedia in this article. As an avid Coast to Coast listener, I've actually learned quite a bit more in depth about JC beyond what I've learned on the show by reading the entry. I believe Wikipedia is about furthering people's knowledge? Besides what harm does it do by being here? Please keep.206.169.45.183 16:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe it is considered bad form to insert a later comment into earlier discussion to make it appear at the top of the discussion section. It perhaps could be considered bad faith action because you are attempting to attract undue attention to your arguments in an artificial manner. It is difficult to take anonymous, first-time, 1-issue posters seriously when the appear to flaunt form and good manners to promote their opinion. Scienter 13:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, or should I say "ten-star delete, recognize, ten-star delete", out. Pete.Hurd 05:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I actually discovered Wikipedia while doing a Google search on J.C. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.215.29.98 (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment It should be noted that the contributions of this editor, 63.215.29.98, have been confined to vandalism, aside from the commentary above. Scienter 15:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - amen - an i break his ten commandments on a regular basis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zedco (talk • contribs) 10:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as unreferenced original research. Resurgent insurgent 11:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but figure out some other weird Wiki to put this information. Stupid or not, that's a lot of text to just throw away. Might want to protect it too so it doesn't get reformed.--SeizureDog 12:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Explain to me why this page is constantly up for deletion. There has been a LOT of work done on this page and it seems silly to constantly go after it when Wikipedia can be improved by eliminating so many other articles which are sub-standard. I agree this page needs work, but it HAS had a lot of work done on it in recent months, and the constant attacking of this page feels like a personal affront to me and the time I have spent on this page. --Dr. Floyd 14:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure you've done a great deal of work on the page. However, you need to argue for it based on Wikipedia policy, not how much effort has gone into it. I suspect that the primary critera that need to be met is WP:N and WP:BIO. Even if the page gets kept, however, it looks like it needs to be pruned back quite a bit.Chunky Rice 16:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This type of page is the type that scares me most on Wikipedia. The amount of effort spent by the editors is apparent, but the subject itself is not encyclopedic. A frequent caller to a radio show? Is this what Wikipedia has degenerated into? I sincerely hope not. Peer editing is the greatest strength of Wikipedia and anyone who takes it upon themselves to create articles should be informed that it may be deleted before beginning an article. Scienter 15:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, move it to a Coast to Coast wiki if you want to, but a biography on a caller to a radio show isn't beneficial to have on Wikipedia. Voretus 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a web host. If you want to go into obsessive detail about some caller to a radio show, do it on your own site. That's what people did before Wikipedia in what I call "the good old days." It would have a tiled animated gif of a burning cross or something as a background and bright yellow Times New Roman text and maybe some clipart of an under construction sign. Recury 16:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite the considerable amount of work that has gone into this article, I see no assertion of notability backed up by any source.Chunky Rice 16:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20-Mule-Team Delete, fails WP:ATT, WP:NOR, possible WP:COI, WP:BIO and WP:BULLSHIT - How in the hell this article passed AfD the first time (in a "debate" overwhelmingly dominated by first-time anon IPs) I have no idea, but Wikipedia still isn't a freaking blog. This fellow has all of twenty-three Google hits [5], most of them from Wiki mirrors and Myspace pages. There are certainly websites that would host this obsessive twaddle, but this doesn't need to be one of them. RGTraynor 16:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete Delete Wikipedia is not (yet) Something Awful. Iridescenti 17:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete nonsense article; we don't need articles about radio station callers. Acalamari 18:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This looks more like exhibit A in a case of telephone stalking than an encyclopedia article. SkipSmith 19:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge relevant, encyclopedic portions to Coast to Coast AM article. Perhaps also redirect to the Coast to Coast article. While this is interesting (and certainly amusing), and it looks like someone has put a lot of work into this, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia in this form. It merely gives credence to someone who amounts to a radio troll looking to legitimize his extremist point of view. I suggest that anyone who would like to preserve the whole of this article move it to userspace. LaMenta3 21:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete! You've got to be kidding! A call log for a regular caller on a radio talk show? I don't care if it is a national show. This is just pure horse hockey. Realkyhick 21:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This guy strikes me as being a crank - and that's not necessarily notable. --Dennisthe2 22:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In a preview, I stripped the call-log... This resulted in flaws with the article being more obvious - such as the CLAMP orginization having it's individual words wikilinked rather than having an organization page. There's also what's considered to be contact information. Finally, I think the content may be borderline WP:BLP. --Sigma 7 02:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or trim to stub. Falls well short of meeting WP:BIO, and even if it didn't, most of the insane detail about every call falls well short of any notability guidelines we might possibly imagine! At the very most, this article should be no longer than two or three paragraphs! But really, that would be two or three more than we need or want. The article is full of weasel words (e.g., "Some have believed that....", "If the personality of J.C. could be described in one phrase, that phrase might be..."). The Call Details section is the among the most egregious examples of laundry list problems I've ever seen. This is simply out-of-control and needs to be reigned in immediately! Xtifr tälk 09:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least trim it down, minus the links to the soundbytes. fhb3 15:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge as per LaMenta3 above. I don't think it's notable enough for its own article, but if well-known to listeners of Coast to Coast AM, would merit a much-reduced section there. --Lou.weird 15:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good heavens! J.C. is more well-known than most Coast to Coast AM guests! J.C. is every bit a staple of Coast to Coast AM as, for example, Richard Hoagland. When the three clips played highlighting Art's career at his award ceremony, one was the Area 51 flier, the second was J.C., and the third was Red Elk. J.C. Is much more than "just a caller." People do searches on J.C. all the time, just to find out *anything* they can about this man. I would think the unique hit rate on this page alone would be of some merit. No matter, its important that there be someplace where this information is compiled. A new page has been posted, hopefully resolving some legitimate problems. Peace. Deepspire 16:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)— Deepspire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment If it's important that this fellow have his own webpage, great, I'm sure Myspace can accommodate him. Wikipedia is not a web host. RGTraynor 16:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Deepspire: Please keep in mind that many of the Wikipedia participants discussing this AfD are aware of the sock-puppeting that went on during the 1st AfD discussion of this article. Anonymous, first-time, 1-issue posters strongly advocating a blatantly non-encyclopedic article tend to seem suspicious. If you wish to support this article, please add new sources that support the notion that the article's subject is notable. Scienter 17:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Scienter: I did miss the last AfD, and from what was described, I'm glad I did. I don't think this debate should be whether or not J.C, is "notable" enough. I don't want to get into that kind of debate because that will beg every imbicile with a pulse to come in here and clutter our serious discussion with nonsense "votes," peppered with insults. So far this discussion has had some intelligent thought, and I hope not to become flamed by others, but I have reverted my position somewhat. J.C. is not notable enough for an article of such magnitude. However, the sheer number of times J.C. is mentioned on Coast to Coast does merit a mention just to give people a quick idea of "who this J.C. is." I have posted a radically shortened page that I think better demonstrates what I mean. I've stripped it down about as bare minimum as I feel is appropriate. Unfortunately, neither extreme "side" here will probably be happy. Deepspire 11:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Deepspire: While I think your edits are definitely a step in the right direction in some sense, I respectfully disagree with your opinion that this discussion should not be about whether Jonathan Christian Webster is notable or not. It is my opinion that this discussion should very much center on whether the subject of this article is notable, and thus appropriate for an encyclopedia. Also, while your edits to the article's length are beneficial, the few sources listed within the article remain very worrisome. The first link is the website of the radio station that J.C. Webster apparently calls. The second link is a AOL home page with an extensive log of the calls made by J.C. Webster to the aforementioned radio station, which may be the source of this article's now-removed girth. The third link is for the "official" forum of the aforementioned radio station. I would posit that none of these links help to establish that J.C. Webster, nor his calls, nor his organization passes WP:N. What this article needs in order to be viable is some other outside sources that can cited to build a case that this person, J.C. Webster, is indeed notable. A great example would be some newspaper articles or some links to a local news broadcast discussing the individual. Of course, these types of traditional media are be no means the only way to demonstrate notability, but they sure are more convincing than a phone log.
My understanding of Wikipedia policy is that any article, be it a stub or a featured article must pass WP:N or it should be removed. If an article is nominated for deletion based on a legitimate reason (such as the subject of the article failing WP:N) then it must either be improved by editors or be deleted. I fully understand that WP:N does not equal "famous," meaning one may be notable for the purposes of Wikipedia without being a "famous person." However, even in that light, neither J.C. Webster nor his calling deserve a Wikipedia treatment. Scienter 20:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Scienter: Yes. I was just reading the WP:N. I've put some thought into this. Thank you. Deepspire 15:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not say this lightly, nor hastily. I apologize to everyone who solicited my help in keeping this article. I think the "keep" argument was more emotionally based, because this page had become a sort of "hub" for J.C. fans. But here's the problem. There is nothing provable about J.C. other than the fact he's anonymously been on Coast to Coast AM a number of times, and they want him back on for a possible "debate." Everything else about him is based solely on what J.C. has said himself. And while many things he's said may be the truth, we can't possibly know that it's the truth. For example, he claims to be "God's general," and he probably believes it. Therefore, how can we assume this "CLAMP" and "compound" business isn't also just more of his dreamed-up illusion? There's simply nothing that we know about him in any substantial and provable way. (We can't even prove his name!) Wikipedia has a standard that must be met in order to be able to be used as a reliable and respected source of information. Thus, until any of this "information" can be substantiated, there is no way this article can be kept and yet still remain within the bounds of WP:N. However, that doesn't mean this article is dead forever. Any notable WP:N and verifiable WP:V sources will work; court records and newspaper articles on CLAMP demonstrations, etc. If there is any truth to what J.C. has claimed, then there WILL be evidence like that scattered out there; especially in California. It might take some digging, but that's what it's going to have to take. J.C. doesn't deserve any notation here by Wikipedia's own important rules. One final note. I also couldn't help but notice that even the Coast to Coast AM website doesn't devote a page to J.C. Anyway, I've said my piece. Thanks for the discussion, everyone! Deepspire 15:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Artaxiad 21:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely strong keep, and the call log should be put back in. Wikipedia is a great place to have information about notable people who have only scattered information about them in other places. Academic Challenger 21:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter if what J.C. says is actually true. The fact that he says it makes it notable, and Wikipedia does not claim that it's actually true, only that he said it, which is provable. Academic Challenger 21:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think the issue really being discussed was whether or not this individual is notable. Your comment carries the implication that because you feel J.C. Webster is notable, he must be so. The problem with this line of reasoning is that none of this individual's actions are verifiable via outside sources. I don't have a grudge against the fellow, but I've been doing some digging in my free time and I can't find anything about him. The (very helpful & courteous) comments of Deepspire are evidence to me that some people are familiar with the subject of this article. But is there an argument in favor of keeping this article that is objectively strong? No disrespect intended, but you state that you strongly feel the article should be kept without giving a reason why that should be the case. It would be very helpful if you could explain your position and how it conforms to Wikipedia's content policies. Thank you, Scienter 02:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (Forgot my signature — Lovelac7 17:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment: @Academic Challenger: I think you confused definitions like I did. There are two definitions of "notable." One being fame, i.e. "A notable caller." The "notable" we are refering to here means the ability to cite in a notation. Scienter was kind enough to point me in the right direction: WP:N. For a subject to be "notable," it must be attributable to "notable source." Just the "truth" that he's called and said things doesn't make it notable. And ironically, something entirely false can be notable. For example, the article stub I've trimmed down is "basic information," and while it all may be true, just my saying so doesn't make it notable. However, if I were also a reporter and wrote a piece for The Sacramento Post, or somewhere "notable" like that, saying exactly the same things, then those words have then become attributable to a "notable source," even if my information was wrong. So understandably, establishing notability is very important not only for terms of credibility, but also for legal reasons. That would be the only reason the John Titor article has a place here. Notable sources have written about him. Otherwise, the "truth" boils down to that he was just an anonymous person who wrote a few posts claiming to be a time-traveler. That is what we have here at this point. J.C. is simply an anonymous caller into Coast to Coast AM, and until any "notable" things are said or written about him, or are found from archives somewhere, that is exactly what J.C. will remain. No one is trying to pretend that "J.C." doesn't exist, or hasn't made an impact of sorts on Coast to Coast AM. The Coast to Coast AM page here does make a mention of him, which for now is all that is appropriate. Regards, Deepspire 12:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO and WP:V. Sources provided are woefully inadequate to verify article content and sufficiency of notability. -- Satori Son 16:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

=To Scienter, I apologize for not responding earlier, I'm pretty busy this week. I personally believe that the fact that he called into a radio show that is widely listened to, making such controversial claims, makes him notable enough for Wikipedia, even though he has not been written about by outside sources. I understand that my position is not popular at this point, and I understand that the article is likely to be deleted. Academic Challenger 01:04, 27 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 02:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armando M. Fernandez[edit]

Armando M. Fernandez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable auto-bio. Should probably also delete the five REDIRECTs to this page, all by the same User:Moisesxyz, a probable sock-puppet relationship with uncooperative and abusive User:69.108.119.249, User:69.227.189.1, User:71.246.37.169, and others. Dicklyon 03:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. The article is too POV to be good and to not vote for a speedy delete. --- Tito Pao 04:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. And I could not make any sense of this article. --AAA! (AAAA) 05:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete its awful!!! an admin can guide efetlessly is mouse over the mousepad and ....... Deleeeeeeeeeeete--Zedco 10:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Armando M. Fernandez ought to not be removed from Wikipedia just because Dick lyon hates Fernandez's invention, the mousepad, and has taken an anti-mousepad stand.

Mr. Armando M. Fernandez Invented, named and documented the mousepad. The mousepad has gone various times around the world in various generations of designs. The mousepad has been instrumental in exposing the problems of the mouse since 1979, DATE OF PUBLISHING, the days of the roller ball computer mouse. Later, when the optical mouse showed up, the mousepad helped expose the problems of the optical mouse so manufacturers had so do something to fix those problems. Mr. Dick Lyon, who seems to be an optical mouse designer, does not like the mousepad. As a matter of fact, he has taken an Anti-mousepad stand to such extent that he damages, removes and deletes entries which are helpful to the general public about the mousepad. He has also taken to give credit for the invention of the mousepad to the wrong people and seeking to deny, erase and delete any entry which supports Armando M. Fernandez as the original person who invented, named and documented the mousepad. He seeks to destroy the mousepad and its usefulness to society to such extent that he is passionatly Wikipedia-stalking Mr. Fernandez. Someone in Wikipedia administration ought to dis-empower Mr. Lyon from the organization so he stops his Wikipedia tyrant-bully and Wikipedia stalking activities. For sure, Mr. Fernandez is not the only person on whom he, Lyon, performs his Wikipedia stalking activities and the mousepad is not the only object which he, Lyon, seeks to destroy, inhibit and demean its value and contribution to the improvement and betterment of the human condition in the world.

Mr. Armando M. Fernandez is surely a very notable person and due notariety as he has contributed extensively to the reduction of mental, eye, wrist, hand and finger stress in the use of computers through his invention of the mousepad. Mr. Armando M. Fernandez has helped make the use of computer apparatus using a display pointer much more comfortable to work with, to study with, to learn with and to surf the internet with. The mousepad invented named and documented by Mr. Armando M. Fernandez has done great good to the whole world and continues to do great good as it keeps challenging computer mouse designers to comeup with better mouse designs. Apparently Mr. Dick Lyon as an optical mouse designer is very upset at such great contributions which have been made to the world by Mr. Armando M. Fernandez through having invented, named and documented the mousepad.

Mr. Armando M. Fernadez is surely a very notable person to whom credit should be given for his invention of the mousepad. He ought to not be stalked by Mr. Lyon through misuse and abuse of Lyon's power within the Wikipedia organization. Lyon ought to be stripped of his power by his supervisors so he would be no more than a common contributor. He misuses and abuses his power, in Wikipedia stalking Mr. Fernandez, and Wikipedia tyrant-bully activities. Lyon's attitude, misuse and abuse of administrative power is NOT contributing to improving and expanding Wikipedia usefulness, it is rather destroying it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.108.119.249 (talk • contribs).— 69.108.119.249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I am already no more than an ordinary contributor. Just trying to follow wikipedia policy. I don't have any different atttitude or power in this case than in the many others I have contributed to. And I do enjoy having and using mousepads, thanks. Armando, I recommend you leave these articles alone for a while, as they are too close to your personal interests; try learning to become a normal contributing editor of wikipedia, and then maybe come back and look at your baby and see how it is doing. Dicklyon 14:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; observe that our article on mousepads does mention Fernandez, it mentions him only as the author of the Xerox disclosure, and gives an alternative account of its history. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. Scienter 15:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. This is an article about mousepads, not Armando M. Fernandez. Take anything useful from this article and merge it with Mousepad, and delete the rest. SkipSmith 19:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - when I read this I wasn't sure is this is a hoax or a joke. Anyway, even if there is the slightest hint of truth in this article (which I cannot be bothered to verify) I totally agree with the above contributors that this would than be a Mousepad article. Therefore: get rid of this article as soon as possible PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!! HagenUK 21:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. --Seattle Skier (talk) 21:22, 22 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AnimeIowa[edit]

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

Although an editor claims notability, I can find no evidence of this, other than the fact that the event actually does happen. Nearly all "references" provided are first-party information, press releases, or blogs. Google search on name brings back only 294 unique of about 389 external hits, nearly all blogs, directories, or simple listings. No legitimate news mentions found - LexisNexis search also returns zero news stories from entire archive. Based on the lack of reliable sources, coupled with the fact that large sections read like an advertisement, I cannot agree that the convention is notable enough for inclusion, and recommend Delete. MikeWazowski 04:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Nom in Bad Faith Speedy Keep Even though I hate to do it, I have to accuse you of bad faith here... Perhaps because of the other two AfDs we've participated in. The Children of The Con article, and the several Fan's View articles are more than enough to establish notability. Kopf1988 04:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep your accusations of bad faith to yourself, as they are unfounded. The "Children of the Con" and "Fan's View" articles are essentially blog entries, which according to Wikipedia standards, are not reliable sources, as you can read here. You disagree with my reasons, I get that - I suggest you read WP:ILIKEIT#I_like_it, as I believe this most definitely applies in your case. MikeWazowski 04:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can not equate those FansView to a blog. The editor has reviewed dozens of Anime Conventions, and is a pretty reliable source. Moreover, have you ever read, Arguments to avoid in a deleltion discussion... I think you have. Maybe they weren't in bad faith... but I cant say much else without getting into personal attacks which I will not do any further. Kopf1988 04:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I also consulted LexisNexis, which catalogs newpapers, journals, magazines, and even some TV news broadcasts from all over the globe. The absolute lack of returns there speaks of a serious lack of mainstream press reporting on the event, which led to my conclusion that there was a lack of reliable sources. MikeWazowski 07:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone keep the personal attacks out of this -- especially folks who have been warned on this before, per their own discussion pages. Ad hominem has no place here in Wikipedia. -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 17:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - AnimeIowa is one of the longest running and well known anime conventions in the United States. It has been featured in numerous (print) issues of Protoculture Addicts as well as Animerica and/or Newtype USA. There is absolutely no question in my mind that AnimeIowa is notable and I'm very surprised it would even be considered for deletion. --PatrickD 04:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, some citations would help - just saying it's so doesn't cut the mustard. I've found references to the con on the *forums* at Animerica, and references to *listings* of con reports in Protoculture Addicts - this, however, does not actually confer notability on the convention, it just verifies that it happened. Were the con reports written by journalists or were they fan submissions? There is a difference here, one very important to the future of this article. If the "features" you mention are not online, do you have access to the magazine to offer a scan for review? MikeWazowski 04:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't a whole bunch of people talking about it, plus the addition of other sources only bolster its claim of being worthy of being noted? It might not, but regardless there are enough sources in this article Mike. Kopf1988 04:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Protoculture Addicts, Animerica, and (I'm 99% sure) Newtype USA had actual articles written in their print editions (available "at fine newsstands everywhere") about the convention that were written by regular staff writers (not fans). I've seen them, but unfortunately I do not have the issues myself so I am unable to provide the sources or scan them. However, if someone could dig those up, it would be great. --PatrickD 19:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless multiple reliable published sources can be found. The nom is correct in pointing out that none of the references in the article are reliable sources, they're all blogs and forums and such; there's no way to substantiate any of the claims made here. — Krimpet (talk/review) 05:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The only forums and such types of articles are to verify information and give attribution to some of the statements. These statements are hardly controversial anyway, and don't even need those refs. You MAY be able to equate one or two of the sources to blogs, but [Fans View] is considered a reliable and attributable source in this area. The Anime News Network article is a NEWS ARTICLE about the convention. See Talk:AnimeIowa for even MORE sources. Kopf1988 19:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete tho it looks real interesting. article would have to be better done and more info with bettter refs etc. then ok may change me mind --Zedco 10:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Zedco, what's your native language?? Also have you noticed that the article is underconstruction? Meaning that it is in the process of being better written. We/I have been working to make it an extremely great article. Kopf1988 19:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • what? whats my native lanuage got to do with it? anyawys article gets deleted, you go away and complete it properly, then come bak and put it up properly like you should have done in the first place.--Zedco 09:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because I don't want to incorrectly interpret your spelling/grammar. As for your argument, not all encyclopedia entries start out perfect. Wikipedia grows because of that. One person makes an article with just one viewpoint. Someone else adds a second viewpoint. Third person cleans it up, fixing simple mistakes. Fourth person makes sure all details and viewpoints are covered, and suddenly we have a good encyclopedia entry. Kopf1988 22:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. Clean up requirement is no reason to delete it, we just need some cites and stuff. --Dennisthe2 22:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and clean up, though I was amused to have seen this nominated as a GA candidate prior to appearing on AfD. (Perhaps a BIT premature?) -- RoninBK T C 05:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe just a tiny bit, lol. Kopf1988 23:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. If the people involved think they can reference it better, then let them try. However, if there's no new references other than fan testimonies etc, it should definately be deleted. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. Certainly, local newspapers should have coverage of this event, as well as the sources mentioned by Patrick above. -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 17:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while I've been going to conventions for over 20 years and would normally be inclined to keep, the lack of multiple independent reliable sources (especially the lack of local media sources) over 10 years leads me to vote against them. TheRealFennShysa 15:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Long running and well known anime convention; media citations would be easier to find through Google if there weren't discussions about the con on hundreds of forums, but I'm sure they exist somewhere. Also, ANN is one of the most credible sources there is in terms of anime related news and topics. -- Samurai Drifter
  • Comment I have mixed feelings about this. This is one of the older anime conventions. But the question becomes, does age confer notability? Also, does the fact that this is the first and only convention in Iowa confer notability and can such a claim be attributed to a reliable source? As far as reliable sources, only the ANN article would be considered towards notable. AnimeCons.com is a directory listing and cannot confer notability. The problem with A Fan's View, which is more of a picture diary then an actual review, is that anyone can publish reviews on the web, but it is entirely different to get that review published in something with editorial control, like Newtype USA. As for articles in Newtype USA, unless I missed it or it was in an issue I don't have, I never came across one while I was going through my back issues a few weeks back. --Farix (Talk) 20:23, 26 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. Hu12 08:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Russian diplomats in Iraq[edit]

Attack on Russian diplomats in Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't think this is notable eough to warrant an article. It happened eight months ago, and there are no other articles linking to it. If it were notable and important, some other article would link to it. Sable232 04:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing debate: S (Society topics) ◄Zahakiel► 15:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or Merge There are links of some articles of this kind in Terrorist attacks of the Iraq War. We can keep it or merge it.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 05:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, an obviously notable event (imagine had this happened to US or UK diplomats). Needs more references and some cleanup. The number of articles linking in is not, in itself, a measure of notability. -- Dhartung | Talk 09:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject of multiple published incidences of nontrivial coverage by third parties - nom strongly relies upon the idea that Wikipedia is a finished product, which is completely untrue. WilyD 15:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This meets notability, which points to a weakness in our notability guideline. Right now, notability sticks forever, but at some point no one is going to have any interest in the event except for a few specialists or historians. There needs to be some way of reviewing these event-based articles after they've aged because eventually too many of them will clutter up category pages and search results, making it harder for readers to search. I'll step down from my soap box now. Noroton 16:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem to be dismissing this as "just another terrorist attack in Iraq" (my interpretation), but geographic coordinates aside, it seems to be in many ways another reasonably important event in the ongoing Second Chechen War. At least, that's what the people who took credit for it claimed. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - This needs major clean up though. Artaxiad 21:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep clearly notable and relevant.--Sefringle 02:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per WP:N and WP:CSB. The event received coverage in CNN and the NYT; that's more than enough. The definition of notability used by the nominator does not seem to be the one present at Wikipedia:Notability. Furthermore, notability is generally permanent, and the fact of its occurrence several months ago is not relevant. Lastly, lacking links to articles is hardly a sign of non-notability; someone familiar with articles on the Iraq War could add such links within a matter of seconds. -- Black Falcon 05:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have rewritten the article (see diff) to address valid concerns (raised above) that the article requires significant cleanup and requires additional references. -- Black Falcon 06:48, 28 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 02:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Bay Southwest High School[edit]

Green Bay Southwest High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Basically a sandbox of childish vandalism since article creation, does not assert notability Splintercellguy 04:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN school. TJ Spyke 04:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless a WP:RS is found for the claim about curling: "Three of the nations best players came from this school, and all went on to become Olympians" and said people are listed in the article in a "Notable alumni" section. (I see nothing else about the school that might otherwise even remotely confer notability on it). cab 05:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Normally, I am OK with articles on high schools being kept or merged with the school district, but I have serious reservations about this article, since nonsense and vandalism seems to infest it right from the first revision. First revision for instance makes the claim "currently housing rouchly [sic] 31,337 students". The author's second revision of the article was this diff, turning the page into an attack article. Later nonsense consists of turning the foundation year into 1337, as well as a load of other nonsense including 1337 derivatives (1337 students, 13:37 student/teacher ratio, etc.) All the revisions I can see here are either vandalism, or at best good faith reversions of vandalism to older versions which are still nonsense. Considering the outright rotten condition of this article, I will have to recommend deletion and restarting from scratch. There is nothing worth keeping in this article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't assert notability, and per Sjakkalle, seems to be a vandal magnet. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 08:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I'm sure that 6 x 1337 encodes some satanic message, the rest is content-free, from beginning till now. (OMG, my network is a work of the devil?) Shenme 10:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless the article is vastly improved and multiple reliable sourcees with nontrivial coverage added by the end of the deletion debate. The article lacks independent sources to show notability and has never had a worthwhile version from the get-go, amongst the numerous vandalisms such as the swimming pool being radioactive. There is a problem with quantitive concepts in the article, such as "This school has a remarkably high student::teacher ratio, placing it amongst the best in the region." A quality school would have a LOW ratio. Poorly written unreferenced stub.Edison 14:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but allow recreation - right now, it's a blatant WP:HOAX in that every peice of information in the article is false. The addresss, number of students, principle, et cetera are all in conflict with the source. That doesn't mean the article can't be written - but this isn't it. WilyD 15:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 17:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a vandal magnet. Anyone who seriously works to improve this article but who isn't going to be around to monitor it would just set the stage for a revival of the same show. Do not salt as I've seen one admin do after one of these deletion debates. I wish I'd called the admin on it at the time because there wasn't a consensus for salting and the admin was stepping way over the line. Give responsible future editors the chance to recreate a real article in the future. If a vandal recreates it, we can salt it then.Noroton 17:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as patent leet nonsense. Wow, we can use numbers as a code for similar looking letters. Aren't we cool. --Butseriouslyfolks 17:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Acalamari 18:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but allow re-creation as per WilyD. Article should probably be titled "Southwest High School (Green Bay)" anyway. High school articles should all probably be semi-protected to prevent vandalism (an argument for another forum, I know), but this one was vandalism to start with.LaMenta3 21:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above arguments. Could we maybe speedy this per WP:SNOW, and the fact that the vandalism to this just won't stop.
  • Also, it may be a good idea to protect it for just a couple of weeks, so maybe these little dorks will forget about it and move on, and then it can be recreated as a proper article. --Sable232 20:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, don't protect for now but if vandalism continues then this may be necessary. Xarr 16:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Artaxiad 21:08, 25 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 get rid of this now (but not speedily). --Coredesat 02:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Santos Friends Online[edit]

Erik Santos Friends Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This certainly reads like a promotional material for the group's web site. Notability not asserted. Tito Pao 04:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as per WP:WEB. --Howard the Duck 04:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable group. Not CSD because there is an assertion of notability (sort of). I just rewrote the Erik Santos article which seemed like it was written by the fanclub that wrote this one too ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 04:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well said ;-) Other readers may also want to note that a link to this group's site appears in the Erik Santos article. --- Tito Pao 05:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply to comment If we'll invoke CSD to each and every trashy article Wikipedia would be backlogged with trashy articles. Anyway, delete this as soon as possible, but not as soon as speedy deletion. --Howard the Duck 06:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment not worried about the link, but certainly doesn't deserve it's own article ;) ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 05:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable group. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 08:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, burninate this insignificant article with fire. Only 14 Google hits [6], almost all of them eprtaining to this article and various Wiki mirrors. RGTraynor 17:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam article. Acalamari 18:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't we get rid of this now? --Howard the Duck 03:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. Artaxiad 21:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • MADNESS. Deleteeeeee Berserkerz Crit 01:13, 26 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. Any merge proposals should be discussed using the appropriate templates. WjBscribe 03:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong-style Western cuisine[edit]

Hong Kong-style Western cuisine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am on the verge of rewriting the main Cuisine of Hong Kong page in a new expandable format. This page should be merged or deleted, when the other page is ready. The notion of having a Hong Kong style western cuisine that link to American Chinese food is not the best way to present the material. Benjwong 03:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was list not listed correctly and I am merely properly listing it. I am not the nominator. Luke! 05:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close Wrong forum for this discussion. Use {{mergefrom}} and {{mergeto}} and open a discussion on the article talk page. Furthermore, "merge and delete" is a violation of GFDL; you must "merge and redirect" instead. No policy reason has been cited for the deletion of the page, which at least weakly meets WP:N and WP:ATT per the links to news articles in the "External links" section. cab 05:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I proposed a delete. Some contents will be moved over, but overall it is not a transitional merge. Most likely I will take a sentence or two at most. A Hong Kong-style Western cuisine link to cuisine of Hong Kong won't matter much to me. Benjwong 06:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you give a reason for deletion that is based on Wikipedia policy? The topic is covered non-trivially in reliable sources; your idea that it doesn't deserve its own article mainly seems to be your personal opinion. Nor does the existence of this article prevent you from improving Cuisine of Hong Kong (which does not discuss any of this material). cab 06:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This article is not written from the proper POV, period. It is written from the view that, if XYZ is available in a western country, and it is also available in HK. Then.... it must be a HK-style western cuisine. This article is based on a loose definition of 西餐, listing whatever it could from MSNBC literally. Is like an article on donut. Someone in the east will reference what kind of donut can be purchased in the HK. And then claim donut as a representative of the entire western cuisine. Sure you can find donuts, but the approach is wrong. In Cuisine of Hong Kong, I plan to separate some of the combinations that make western style cuisine. This article should be deleted, since it end up misleading and overlaping. Benjwong 12:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs editorial work, not deletion. Plus, I'm not so sure any of the article deletion criteria even apply to this article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just wait till I make my changes to Cuisine of Hong Kong and you can tell me how this will plug in. Give me a little time. Benjwong 15:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there really a hurry to delete this article? And how about expanding it instead? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you probably should have waited until you finished that article before bringing this to AfD. I don't see any valid reason not to Keep this one right now.Chunky Rice 16:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. As per cab, this is the wrong forum for this discussion. hateless 21:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • move to something with a better name.--Sefringle 02:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cuisine of Hong Kong is basically rewritten and incorporated the necessary info from this page. Let me know if this can be deleted now. Benjwong 04:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Close per above. Talk of merging articles does not belong here. In the very least, redirect, since this is the page that has been bookmarked/indexed by others.--Jiang 05:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: in what way does "merge and delete" violate the GFDL? 38.100.34.2 22:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • GFDL requires attrbution of authorship. When you merge, you redirect. you do not delete.--Jiang 23:43, 27 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 02:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prajjwal Rai Tyagi[edit]

Prajjwal Rai Tyagi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unfortunately there's an assertion here. Non notable writer. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 05:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete self promo and just aint notable. do we need to know is hight?--Zedco 11:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self-promotion from a non-enitity expanding his credentials. Consider: age 24 with "5 years of training and consulting experience". Qualifications stated as "CELTA certified Language Trainer/Teacher from the University of Cambridge": in fact CELTA is an award from the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate, which provides certificates to schools etc. It is not an award from the University itself. Emeraude 15:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating this page was just an attempt to let the people know my attempts for the under previllaged. I want more and more people to participate in rural youth education program that I run. I understand that it wasn't mentioned but the qualification and experience mentioned here was just so that people get attracted and get associated with me. Please accept my apologies as I now I know that the approach wasn't right, and I almost uploaded my resume here. However, I have changed it now. I would request you to please revisit and check and let me know what I can change. All the other things mentioned here are the things which I have been doing either as hobby or to earn money. so that I can support myself and the program. My apologies agaian, but my intentions were never "self promo and just aint notable. do we need to know is hight?"

Comment Above is an admission that this is an article written by the subject and therefore COI. There are almost 30 edits by Prajjwal Rai Tyagi since nomination which do not make it any better (in fact, probably worse). Emeraude 21:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please, you may remove it. Thank you for letting it being there all this while.

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

The result was delete - it's no Wintereenmas. DS 05:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hallowistmas[edit]

WP:NEO, notability dubious at best. I've heard the word bandied about on a few talk radio shows, but I really don't think it can be more than a DictDef and a brief discourse on seasonal shopping trends. Maybe a merge somewhere? Action Jackson IV 06:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not even close to being a neologism. No merge, no mercy, just delete Plasticbottle 06:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only 17 hits on Google, and more from 2005 than 2006, so its best days are gone by. Now 'Thanksmas' I could see, but that would be strictly a commercial 'holiday'. Shenme 10:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We all realize this is a prank, right? Scienter 15:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it smells rather hoaxy. Arkyan 15:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ATT - There are twice as many Google hits for "Thrakmas," a made-up holiday in an online MMORPG in which I play, and which is officially disavowed by the game's management [7]. RGTraynor 17:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - is this supposed to be funny?!?!?! If yes, exchange it with "Two lions are eating a clown. Says one lion: 'Does this taste funny to you' ??? " Well, on second thought: just Delete the article. HagenUK 21:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, quickly please. --Seattle Skier (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is no Festivus for the rest of us. JuJube 00:20, 23 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. --Coredesat 02:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hotlines[edit]

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

There are no assertions of notability, references, etc. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.. Kopf1988 06:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - show aired on Spike TV, that is uncontested and easily proven, as is notability. TV shows that have aired on regular cable networks have generally been held to be notable, especially when easily verified. A quick Google search turns up multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. MikeWazowski 07:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still Delete all TV shows will be listed on TV Guide, the second link you provided barely mentions the show, the third link describes that it is in HD (but does little to establish notability), and the others are just directory entries. I'd be happy to change my opinion if you can find sources to establish the notability of this show. Kopf1988 19:41, 22 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. Hu12 08:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soda Pictures[edit]

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

This is a non-notable company and as such is a violation of WP:CORP RockerballAustralia 07:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - multiple mentions in publications like The Hollywood Reporter, The Guardian, Financial Times, Cineuropa, Variety, Daily Telegraph - see Google News search. Also, distributing an Oscar-nominated film gives them notability points in my book. MikeWazowski 08:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Artaxiad 21:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MikeWazowski. TheRealFennShysa 15:46, 26 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.--cj | talk 01:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian anti communist organization[edit]

Australian anti communist organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Suspected hoax. The article is very light on details and the references do not support the article content. Mattinbgn/ talk 08:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - almost definitely a hoax. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 08:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nearly certainly conclusively an alleged hoax. The number of weasel-words is notable. The links are wonky. The CIA fact book is not at that URL, but a .gov one. Another link goes to a cattle outfit? Another goes to a Latter Day Saints site? Oh, and the author likes conspiracy theories "... For this page is an excellent reference ...". Shenme 10:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax. --Folantin 11:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.RaveenS 16:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Most likely hoax. Also, in Australia they are writing it "organisation". HagenUK 21:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There would be a much stronger claim for retention of this article if this anti-communist "organization" had an actual name not to mention references from verifiable sources verifying its content. Capitalistroadster 00:28, 23 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. --bainer (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Fairlie-Clarke[edit]

Allan Fairlie-Clarke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person. Allanfc is the creator of the somewhat notable browser game Battrick, a spinoff from the notable game Hattrick. I don't think this is sufficiently notable, and the links in the article do not seem to demonstrate widespread interest. The media interest claim surrounding selling his house to follow a cricket tour is not notable. I appreciate I could get some stick on this, as Allanfc is popular among Battrickers. MLA 09:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is an encyclopedia. selling his house to follow a cricket tour is not notable ...........ITS MAD!!!!!!!!!--Zedco 11:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. <yawn> Scienter 17:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Artaxiad 21:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The creator of the second biggest cricket browser game, over 8,000 users play and he is fairly well known in Hattrick and is a senior member of the Barmy Army. His main notability isn't his tour of Australia with the English cricket team, but the creation of Battrick. I have added an interview with him and will provide more links to prove his notability. However, I will withdraw my vote if the nominee thinks there is absolutely no notability for him to be on Wikipedia, otherwise I will continue to try and prove it -- JRA WestyQld2 09:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a side note Zedco has been editing Wikipedia for 4 days, in that time he has edited about 50 AfD's and voted delete on every single one his opinioned is already biased and made up, surely WP:POINT has to apply here? -- JRA WestyQld2 09:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Battrick is only getting bigger, and this guy has been in the papers (The Sunday Mail in Brisbane, Australia) and I think that the wiki on him proves he is notable, at least to some people and it has information on him that may well be useful to people who want to know more about the creator of Battrick in the future. Another thing is, there are article on people which hardly anyone would know of yet they don't get listed for deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rolande (talk • contribs) 11:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Although I have no interest in this game, or any interest in the poor soul who invented it, i must say keep.but only to appease the legions of fans battrick has, who will no doubt want to know more about their idol, Allan Fairlie-Clarke Kirbyexclamationmark 11:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC) — Kirbyexclamationmark (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Definitely should be in here. No reason to delete. --Cringer 11:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC) — Cringer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete I am addict when it comes to Battrick, however it just isn't big enough to warrant it's creator to have an article. Sole 11:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect I'm a member of the Battrick Admin team but doubt at this stage that Allan quite warrants his own separate article. Instead I believe the details could be merged into the Battrick page and then a redirect placed for Allan Fairlie-Clarke to the Battrick article. Earl_CG 12:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a decent suggestion. I've been caballing it with JRA and it seems to me that this is a reasonable compromise. MLA 06:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here here --JRA WestyQld2 10:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect sounds great. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:37, 30 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. This is a very strange case, as most of the non-anonymous comments have remarked during the discussion. Other AfDs are frequently closed "with no prejudice against recreating a valid article", and in this case I'll take the opposite view. If there's actually something wrong with this article, there's no prejudice against nominating it in a non-disruptive manner. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multimedia Applications Development Environment[edit]

Multimedia Applications Development Environment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article should be deleted for two reasons: 1. It is not notable. 2. It has not had any edits in 2006. I noticed a mistake in the article, and fixed it, without even checking the last time it was edited. Please delete the article, then re-create it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jc iindyysgvxc (talk • contribs).

  • Comment-I am not knowledgable enough on the subject matter to confirm or deny notability, but not having edits in a given year is not criteria for deletion. You never know, we might have some articles that are already exhaustive and perfect that everybody agrees on!--Xnuala (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep because one of the reason for getting rid of this article is a very week agurment so it has not be edited since 06 so what some articles have not been edited in the past few years so not a good reason to get rid of itOo7565 21:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. --Emperor Walter Humala · ( talk? · help! ) 05:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: I want it deleted now! Infact, I want the article deleted and re-created! — 58.168.203.124 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • I suspect this IP user is the same person as Jc iindyysgvxc. A check of their contribution histories reveals that most of their edits are to this AFD, Shigechiyo Izumi, articles related to Mario Party, and articles related to oldest people. Also, there is the same request for deletion and subsequent recreation. -- Black Falcon 20:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm ... Keep?. I'm really confused by this nomination. Why would we want to delete an article only to immediately recreate it? -- Black Falcon 20:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because of how long it took to edit it, of course! 58.168.203.124 06:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily Deleted by Mel Etitis.--Xnuala (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bioni Samp[edit]

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

Non-notable DJ with borderline advert article StuartDouglas 10:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • SPEEDY DELETE its self promo, vanity and hes usin wiki as an advert site esp with "FOR BOOKINGS OR MORE INFORMATION: contact info@bionisamp" info put up. obv that hes done it imself. an he aint notable to boot.--Zedco 11:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Missed that email address at the end - thanks. StuartDouglas 11:24, 22 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. WjBscribe 03:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Melodic Electro Death Metal[edit]

Modern Melodic Electro Death Metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable term, and no sources that would verify even the existence of such musical genre. 54 Google hits (11 unique); all the hits point to Russian websites and the article seems a bit like an advertisement for a non-notable Russian band. Contested prod. Prolog 10:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge and Delete. Already merged; no need to worry about GFDL issues, as this subpage was pulled from the main article. utcursch | talk 13:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E. Converse Peirce 2nd/Publications[edit]

E. Converse Peirce 2nd/Publications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a long list of works for a doctor E. Converse Peirce 2nd. I do not think there is a need to excessly emphasise his contributions by having such a long list of his work in a separate article. There are lots of scientists who write as many published papers as listed here, so this list is not special in itself. Resurgent insurgent 10:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undecided: I personally think the entire E. Converse Peirce 2nd article could be nominated for deletion on the basis of non-notability. The page appears very much like a CV for Dr. Peirce (see Talk:E. Converse Peirce 2nd) created and heavily edited by User:FoxezandHedgehogs. Unsubstantiated claims regarding Dr. Peirce were inserted on cardiac surgery and Membrane oxygenator (primarily "paved the way for successful open heart surgery" - see my comment on Talk:Membrane oxygenator). The entire publication list was included on E. Converse Peirce 2nd (which made a very long page), so I moved the publications into a sub-page rather than delete any. I wonder if an electronic publication list is available for Dr. Peirce (given many of the publications were before the advent of (practical) computers); this publication list may have required a significant amount of paper based research to compile. A significant amount of work has been put into the page; I inquired regarding a personal connection, with a positive (although ambiguous) reply. Dlodge 21:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a few but delete most and consider deleting main article. This list of pubs is way too long, especially in light of the subject's very weak claim to notability. His claim to fame appears to be playing an unspecified role in developing the "Peirce-General Electric Membrane Oxygenator", a term I can only find in papers authored by Dr. Peirce himself or by his colleagues at Mt. Sinai. I will post a notability tag on the Peirce page before nominating him for deletion. Google scholar shows no well-cited pubs but I'm not sure whether to trust the web, given that his arguably notable work was done in the 50s/60s. Irene Ringworm 00:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • JSTOR does have records of a paper authored by him, under the name of "E. Converse Peirce, 2nd" (The Action of Pteroylglutamic Conjugates on Man, Science > New Series, Vol. 106, No. 2764 (Dec., 1947), pp. 619-621) so at least he did some work in this area. Older work tends to be accessible only from databases and journals which are part of the deep web. Resurgent insurgent 01:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which is exactly why I haven't outright nominated him for afd. Irene Ringworm 02:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented on the above puzzling statements on the article talk page. I will comment further as appropriate.
  • delete this particular subpage.--an above comment is correct that we do not keep such extensive lists. All the necessary material for the main article has been copied over, and there is nothing left here worth keeping- The external source which has them all in PubMed since the 60s, and the printed Index Medicus before that. I cannot imagine why this subpage was ever started--a separate subpage for publications is not WP style. DGG 04:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well .... I don't think this article should exist; however, some of the content should be merged (or may have already been merged). Per GFDL, preservation of the edit history is required, so I don't know if outright deleting this page is appropriate. Then again, it really shouldn't exist as a redirect. Perhaps the edit histories can be merged and this article can be deleted? If this cannot be easily done, how about this:
  1. Move this page to Edmund Converse Peirce (currently non-existing).
  2. Delete this page as being an unnecessary subpage and having a trivial edit history.
  3. Merge Edmund Converse Peirce into E. Converse Peirce 2nd and turn the former into a redirect tagged with {{R from merge}}.
That serves the three purposes of: (1) deleting this article, (2) conducting a partial merge, and (3) preserving the edit history as required per GFDL. -- Black Falcon 21:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no significant edit history--it is just that the info was copied into this out of the main page. But i doubt the mechanics are important. DGG 02:49, 30 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. WjBscribe 03:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global Music Scale[edit]

Global Music Scale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. I'm unable to find any references whatsoever for this upcoming music chart. As such, it appears non-notable, judging in particular from the fact that the article's written in the future tense. Zetawoof(ζ) 11:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No of course you wouldnt have found any references on the upcoming music scale because they are under construction. You said it yourself that the article is in futur tense so there wouldnt be any would there? give it time and it will grow.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by simoncp (talk • contribs).

  • Delete No reliable sources (among many other problems).-- Ben 01:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability, no sources, not even solid existence other than it's a monthly analysis of existing charts. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reliability. Artaxiad 21:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No proof is given nor was I able to find any (see [8]) that this is not a hoax. If it is real (the article claims it's "soon to be published"), recreate when sources are available. -- Black Falcon 21:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The articles' creator may, if he wishes, create the pages in his own userspace and check them with any user willing to provide that help before moving them (or having them moved) into articlespace. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Engine group[edit]

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

No evidence of notability; creator removed prod without comment.

I am including the related article Peter Scott - Engine Group in this AfD. FisherQueen (Talk) 11:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Scott - Engine Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Robin Wight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete per nom. Also, vanity = gross. Scienter 17:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete all three, they look like spam, and are the only contribs from a single-purpose account, Special:Contributions/Markusse. Doesn't this fit the criteria for WP:CSD#G11, blatant advertising? Quoting from the article, "A new model of agency for the 21st century."  ?!?! --Seattle Skier (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Artaxiad 21:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi everyone, thanks for looking after the integrity of wikipedia in such a efficient manner. Following, Fisherqueen's advice I would like to clarify the reasons why I have added these entries. Far from being a "blatant advertising" or a "gross exercise of vanity", these are just my first wikipedia entries. I am a marketing student living in the UK and I was very surprised when the second biggest independent UK agency was not included in the index. As I am a beginner I am not totally aware of all the requirements. I do admit I should have read better the rules of the game before posting. I did run a search for other important advertising agencies like BBDO or Ogivly before I decided to add this one. They all have similar descriptions. My main mistake was taking a lot of information from their website rather than coming up with something totally original. I thought other people would edit it to improve it, rather than send it straight for deletion. The only edit I have seen so far is the deletion of most of the Engine Group entry. While I work in an improved version, I have edited the other two today (Peter Scott and Robin Wight) to try and make them more suitable. I will continue working on them if given the chance. FisherQueen pointed out the notability requirement and the need to offer sources. I do have quite a few articles from advertising magazines like Campaing, Brand Republic, New Media Age and others where these people and their work are mentioned. However, they are hard copies and it is not possible to find them online. I am not too sure how you deal with these sort of things. Also, I am not too sure who are the admins that are going to make the decission. I would hope this is the case but, if it is not, before you decide total and definitive deletion, please check with someone who knows about advertising in the UK/Europe. thanks in advance! Markusse 18:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: I think you may still be misunderstanding what Wikipedia is all about (see Wikipedia:Five pillars for that), and also misunderstanding what needs to be done to save these articles, so I will try to clarify the main problems. First of all, in Wikipedia:Notability it states "A topic is generally notable if it has been the subject of coverage that is independent of the subject, reliable, and attributable." If the subjects of your articles were notable, there would be numerous newspaper and independent magazine stories (like BusinessWeek, not solely ad agency mags) about them, but apparently there are none and so this company and its executives are not notable either. Secondly, you say "My main mistake was taking a lot of information from their website rather than coming up with something totally original", but Wikipedia is not the place for original research either. Please review the official policies (WP:A or WP:V), which state '"Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." The articles completely fail to follow this policy. They are simply not notable enough for inclusion in WP, unless you are able to find reliable, independent secondary sources which discuss them and cite their notability. If you wish to temporarily save the content of these articles you have worked on, you need to go through the history of each one and save the most complete version to pages in your userspace (e.g. User:Markusse, along with subpages of it such as User:Markusse/Test), but do note that anyone can see and edit all pages in your userspace, and inappropriate content, blatant advertising, etc. will still be deleted from there. As it stands, all three articles appear certain to fail this AfD, and they will be deleted within days unless reliable, independent secondary sources are found. Quoting from Wikipedia:Attribution, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material." It is up to you to find such sources in order to forestall deletion. Information on properly citing printed and online materials can be found at WP:CITE. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It is possible that in the future, this company and its execs may become notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia, e.g. if they are featured in major newspapers or magazines like Fortune. In that case, you may re-create the articles anew, or ask an administrator to undelete them, see Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I was going to give up yesterday after reading the comments. However, I have changed my mind. I still want to contribute and I am convinced we are missing out by not having entries for these three subjects. Consequently, I have been digging out some info from the newspaper library at uni. I have found mentions to the Engine Group, Peter Scott and Robin Wight in mainstream media such as: Financial Times, Daily Telegraph, The Times and others. Some of them talk about client gains, other talk about neuro science and its connections with advertising (Robin Wight body of work is quoted several time) other talk about advertising industry in the UK. I have scanned some of them and you can see them below. I hope this helps to prove my point about notability. Also, bear in mind that the guidelines don't say anything about the type or scope of the magazines that you can use. Both "mainstream newspapers and magazines" are accepted. Now, the guidelines say the author of the entry needs to attribute quotes or references and material that "is likely to be challenged". There are not quotes or references in the entry. My questions is: why are you challenging the entry in the first place? If it is because of the way it has been written, I agree it needs to be revised. I am working on it. If it is because you don't know who these people and therefore their "notability" is dubious for you... Then, may I ask you how well you know the European advertising industry? I think it is a bit risky to challenge something unless you have a good knowledge of that field. Please see below some of the scraps that I have scanned. There are more.... Markusse 16:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Image:Sky_The_Sunday_Times_3_Dec_06.jpg, Image:Daily_telegraph_scrap.JPG, Image:Peter Scott Campaign 180107.JPG, Image:SkyFT01Dec06.jpg [reply]
    • Reply: Markusse, please do not add photos in these discussions again. The proper way to refer to images is to put a ":" in the tag, like this [[:Image:Sky_The_Sunday_Times_3_Dec_06.jpg]], so that they display as inline links (I have now fixed them). Also, please do not use <li> tags here, it breaks the formatting; use * instead. When in doubt, please look around to see what others have done in this and other AfD discussions and either follow or copy their examples. Also, all of your scanned images constitute possible (certain?) copyright violations and will be deleted. See Wikipedia:Uploading images and WP:COPYVIO for more info. The proper way to provide references is NOT by scanning and posting chunks of copyrighted material. As I mentioned above, information on properly citing printed and online materials can be found at WP:CITE. PLEASE make more of an effort to read and abide by our policies if you wish to contribute to Wikipedia. The serious peril of deletion now facing your 3 articles could have been avoided by doing so, and deletion may yet be averted if you manage to bring the articles up to an acceptable standard meeting WP:A and WP:V. We have no desire to delete legitimate contributions which meet notability standards, but the burden of evidence (and proper citation thereof) lies with you. We don't have to know anything about "the European advertising industry" in order to comment upon (and delete, if necessary) articles which fail to meet Wikipedia policies. --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply: Thanks again for the good tips on how to use the system properly. As with any other new application there is a learning curve and other's people help is essential. Cheers for taking the time to do it with me. I am working on improved articles at the moment and will submit shortly. The only reasons why I uploaded the image files was because I just wanted to prove my point. I have now also learned that. There is no need to go on about WP:A and WP:V any more. I have now read, diggested and understood the policies and I am working in articles that meet those guidelines. There is only one more thing though. I am still under the impressiont that the only way you can dare to question the notability of an entry is because you know very well that field. Hence you know what is notable or not. For instance, I don't know anything about physics. Following your logic, I could see a new entry about some scientist somewhere. I could then run a google search and don't find relevant information (maybe because the guy shares his name with a celebrity or has only been published in specialised magazines that are not available online). He is still famous and his work may be revolutionary, certainly deserving a wikipedia entry. However, I have never heard about him. Would I be in the position of challenging that article? Certainly not. My knowledge of the field is null. Therefore I can't challenge notability. I can certainly challenge the infringement of other policies (as I said: fair enough, point taken, working to improve) but I could never challenge notability. Of course, if you think otherwise or this works in a differnt way, could you please explain it to me so I can understand it better? Thanks again!Markusse 16:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply: Markusse, thanks for taking the time to read and understand WP policies. Regarding your statement, "the only way you can dare to question the notability of an entry is because you know very well that field", that's not true in this context. The issue here on WP is that (obviously) not everyone can be an expert on every subject. So it is up to the article's creator to provide references that establish and confirm any article subject's notability, be it a scientist or band or school or whatever. Any article which fails to do so is likely to end up with either a speedy deletion notice on it, or {{prod}}, or be listed here at AfD (these are the 3 primary avenues for deletion). Many editors (though not me) patrol the list of new articles created, looking for just such articles which fail to meet policy and establish notability. So your hypothetical physicist's article, if it had no references, would probably end up with a deletion notice (or maybe even a hoax notice if someone thought it looked fishy). Then the article's creator (or anyone else, too) would need to provide references and make sure to assert the subject's notability in the text, preferably in the first paragraph. If the subject were truly notable, someone would easily find plenty of published references (some of us are physicists and have extensive online/print access to scientific journals, which would certainly have many papers written by any notable physicist). Even if the article got deleted initially, it's no big deal since it could be undeleted upon proper request or simply recreated in proper form. Subject's which are notable enough will eventually get a proper WP article, someone will write it. That's one of the basic principles of this entire project. The proper way to write a new article (and avoid deletion notices) is to make a small stub with basic info, save it, then add some solid references (which you've already collected beforehand), save again, and then expand the text with further relevant info and details. There you have it, a soild article started in less than an hour. I've created about 50 Wikipedia articles, always followed this plan, and never received a deletion notice. The solid references are the absolute key, I've never started a WP article without refs, and I go around adding refs to 100s of other articles which need them. See WP:MOS and WP:BETTER for many tips and guidelines on writing a good article. --Seattle Skier (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply: Good stuff. Your metodology makes sense. What I tried to publish was probably the first stage in that process. I'll try to have something ready tomorrow and I'll post it for your feedback. Thanks again. Markusse 10:16, 29 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. --Wafulz 20:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Live WiFi Center[edit]

Windows Live WiFi Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I propose this page for deletion. Shortly after announcing the rebranding of the wifi suite to MSN development of the WiFi Center was dropped, see: [9] [10] I don't see the point in keeping the article as a "WiFi Center was an application..." page, it was such a little known prgram anyway. A Cornish Pasty 11:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not worthy of its own article. Cloveoil 12:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to Windows Live or MSN. A look at Windows Live shows that most, if not all of the individual features are covered with their own articles. I don't know that that is the best way to do things, but I do think this AfD isn't going to resolve the overall concerns, since any that exist with it will likely apply to others. Thus I suggest a more comprehensive approach. FrozenPurpleCube 16:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An overhaul of the Windows Live related articles is planned, including many merges and deletions, to bring the number of small articles/stubs down and create a sense of organisation. --A Cornish Pasty 18:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with MSN WiFi Hotspots. First of all I disagree that it's a "little known" program and that is no reason to delete an article. Secondly, as a beta tester for the program the official announcement I received was that the BETA program has been discontinued - however according to one of your sources (link 2), it is quite sure that development will continue but as a different program (maybe MSN WiFi Center). And also I don't think that having some programs merged with the main Windows Live article and some other programs having their own page creates "a sense of organisation". Having a look at MSN shows that the individual MSN services are NOT merged with the main article. Pikablu0530 23:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many things on wikipedia are on old things. Getting rid of this would be like erasing the article on old tv shows just because they aren't on anymore. The wikipedia statute on deletion is...

Reasons for deletion include but are not limited to violation of copyright, content that does not belong in an encyclopedia, and content not attributable to a reliable source, especially if the content is negative in tone.

Not because a project was canceled.68.202.17.86 00:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)GR[reply]
  • Merge to MSN WiFi Hotspots or Windows Live. I think MSN WiFi Hotspots would be the better choice because as it now stands, MSN WiFi Hotspots has almost no content and might be nominated for deletion on its own. By merging, we would wind up with one stronger article. Do leave a redirect. Vegaswikian 23:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to MSN WiFi Hotspots. Not being currently (or ever) used is not a reason to delete the content of an article, although it can justify a merge. Issues of notability aside, I think a merge is appropriate simply on grounds of proper content organisation. -- Black Falcon 21:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to MSN WiFi Hotspots with a redirect in place per Vegaswikian, this is the most reader-friendly solution suggested so far. Burntsauce 17:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - merge any useful material elsewhere. There is nothing remotely notable about this. NBeale 07:23, 31 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 and redirect to incendiary device. --Coredesat 02:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incendiary Bombs[edit]

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

The article fails the inclusion criterias ofWP:MUSIC and is self-promotion. The only contributor has a history of vanity articles and link spamming. Delete Pax:Vobiscum 12:03, 22 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. WjBscribe 04:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wowhead[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:WEB. Doesn't have any references to notability and has little information in the article. SimonRK 12:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This World of Warcraft database has thousands, if not tens of thousands of users. There are hundreds of unique Google hits that assert that it is well known, especially within the MMORPG community. Famous? Debatable, as all game-related sites are... but Notable? Certainly. That all being said, the article needs citations like so many of the articles in Wikipedia. Lets keep this one and find someone to improve it. Scienter 17:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The website must be notable inits own right, not be notable because of any association with the afrementioned online game. If the importance of the website can be justfied through the use of print, magazine, or news articles as sources... they you may have a case for keeping. -- saberwyn 21:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WoW database websites are a dime a dozen; no reliable sources to confirm notability. — Krimpet (talk/review) 00:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, not sourced. At the very MOST, it should be listed as a fansite for Warcraft. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Artaxiad 21:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by Guinnog. --Coredesat 02:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The battle never ends[edit]

The battle never ends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm a Wikipedia inclusionist, but this goes too far. No discernible interest to anyone but the creator and should not be listed on the One (Metallica song) page. JNighthawk 13:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete A7, no assertion of notability. Will tag accordingly. Walton Vivat Regina! 14:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with One (Metallica song). The Battle Never Ends is actually a fairly famous remix of One, but still doesn't merit it's own article. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 15:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no notability. Recury 16:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Non-notable fan-fic vanity cruft. This is an easy close and delete. Scienter 17:57, 22 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. I checked Google for sources, and while Ridis gets a bunch of google hits, none of them appear to have any relationship to this company. Deleted for being unattributable and not satisfying WP:CORP. Mo0[talk] 01:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ridis[edit]

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

Contested proposed deletion. I support delete, because the material is not attributable. Sancho (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - no references, so no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to establish notability per WP:CORP. Delete unless sourced by the end of this AfD. Walton Vivat Regina! 14:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notability not established, potentially WP:Spam. HagenUK 20:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - No mention of notability, but if kept, it needs a rewrite to not seem so much like a company history page. Also, if it has that many stores and other products, I have a feeling there might actually be sources for the company, thus the weak part. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:13, 23 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 nominator withdrew his nomination. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John B[edit]

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

Delete per WP:MUSIC. The article fails to assert his notability, and a quick Google test supported this lack of notability (first hit is his own website, second is some obscure fansite, third is Wikipedia). He doesn't seem to be on any charts or meet any of the other criteria at WP:MUSIC. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 00:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating Beta Recordings, his record label. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 01:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
+1 202.37.75.101 06:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in reliable sources.
    It's pretty clear from his MySpace page that he regularly tours Western and Eastern Europe and North America. Videos on his site and podcast have shown him being interviewed on TV and radio in a number of countries. He regularly attends the Winter Music Conference.
  • It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.
    John was on the cover of Knowledge Magazine issue 59 and interviewed on Grooverider's BBC One radio show on 26 August 2006 (he also played a guest DJ set on that show).
  • Key word: non-trivial. Plus, being on the cover of the magazine hardly qualifies as being the subject of the work, and you need to provide evidence for the BBC One claim. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
    I doubt there are many drum'n bass albums that have achieved gold status in any territory (Concord Dawn and Shapeshifter are noteable exceptions, but only in the New Zealand market). Most of his five albums have been released on his own label, Beta Recordings (whose roster also includes Exile), but he has released singles on a variety of high profile labels such as Metalheadz, Prototype Recordings, Formation Records and Defunked. Additionally he has remixed artists such as Omni Trio and Blame.
  • None of these are major record labels or particularly important indie labels, and as you said, he released most of his albums on his own label. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style.
    This is where it is possible to disagree over notability, but he has been promoting his own subgenres such as Electrostep and Trance'n Bass in recent years. He has produced tracks across the full spectrum of drum'n bass including Jungle, Techstep and Liquid Funk tracks. Rolldabeats provides a fairly comprehesive discography —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.37.75.101 (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Sub-subgenres are not notable styles. Drum and bass is a subgenre of electronic music, and those you listed are just obscure sub-subgenres. Plus, he's not even listed as a notable artist on their Wikipedia articles. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. Anyone with even remote interest in drum 'n' bass knows who John B is. He's been reviewed and interviewed multiple times on Mixmag, DJ Magazine and Knowledge Magazine, as well as nominated for DMA award (http://www.btyahoo.com/dma06/best_electronic-dj_artist) . Here's an example piece from Knowledge: http://www.knowledgemag.co.uk/features.asp?SectionID=1031&uid=&MagID=1063&ReviewID=1702&PageNumber=1 .
BTW, "Electronic Music" is not a genre, Drum 'n' Bass is a genre, and electrostep and liquid funk are drum 'n' bass subgenres. --Telecart 01:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a couple of more interviews:
Groove Effect: http://www.grooveeffect.com/feature-articles-guides/grooveeffect-interviews-dj-producer-john-b.php
Jive Magazine: http://www.jivemagazine.com/article.php?pid=2106
Alright, your evidence is convincing enough, Telecart. Would you agree with redirecting his label to his article, though? The label doesn't contain any useful information and isn't notable for anything other than his own material. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:09, 25 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 08:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buck Jones (singer)[edit]

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

Why was this listed for deletion?Fuzzywolfenburger 13:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing debate: B (Biographical) ◄Zahakiel► 15:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - no sources are provided to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. The article claims that he's performed at festivals and been covered in Country Weekly, but sources are necessary to verify this information per WP:ATT. Delete unless sourced by the end of this AfD. Walton Vivat Regina! 14:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In its current form which does not pass WP:V. Probably would pass if properly sourced, but not sure. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - generally, the poor quality of an article or its stubbiness is not a good reason to delete. In this case, I have a hard time holding my normal position, because this article is mostly cut and pasted from copyrighted material. Google any phrase, enclosing in quotation marks, from the article and you'll see what I mean. Bobanny 20:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - you say "generally, the poor quality of an article or its stubbiness is not a good reason to delete" - I agree, but that doesn't stop 3-day-old stubs or reworkable articles from being deleted. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, given lack of reliable sources. It's worth noting that this gentleman showed up first at Wikipedia:Recent Deaths, a frequent target of hoaxes and (well-meaning) unencyclopedic memorials. Xoloz 19:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I hope this article can stay up until someone has a chance to bring it up to Wikipedia's high standards because this article is a type of memorial to Buck Jones! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke4172 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as copyvio of this page but it could be recreated as Jones seems notable enough and was, at least, covered in Country Weekly ([11]) StuartDouglas 08:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - I think this 3-day-old article could have been tagged for cleanup, before going to AfD. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:31, 30 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. I have fixed the cut-and-paste move and redirected Buddha Film to Buddha (2007 film). WjBscribe 20:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha Film[edit]

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

This article has been merged, by me into the article, Buddha (film), so it is irrelavent.

Meissmart 22:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing debate: M (Media and music) ◄Zahakiel► 15:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the page Buddha Film which is a project that is entirely different from the other film Buddha (film). So a merge into the latter article is not appropriate. You have mentioned that you have merged the article to the former, which actually has not and does not require a merge too. Hence the deletion instruction is to be removed. I hope you have understood. Thanks.Yugeshp 13:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - reading both articles, it's not actually clear whether they're about the same film, so a merge would be inappropriate. Walton Vivat Regina! 14:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If this one is not deleted as unsourced crystal-balling, it should be renamed to Buddha (2007 film) but not merged into Buddha (film), which was rather about a history of films about Buddha, before it became an entry about a different unreleased film which would be Buddha (2008 film).--Tikiwont 16:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Buddha_Film is written by D.K.Goel whereas Buddha (film) is written by Thich Nhat Hanh Dhammapal 11:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to understand how Ian Meissmart says that both the articles are about the new Buddha film, in essence they are, but please be informed there are several films named 'Buddha' and the ones in discussion are separate projects. Pls. read the article before you place deletion instructions. The one I created Buddha Film is written by D.K.Goel and is being directed by Sreedhar Allani and is scheduled for release during 2007, where the other one Buddha (film) is by Thich Nhat Hanh (book) and written by David S. Ward and is scheduled for release in 2008. The view of other Wikipedians is the same as mine, which means the articles are not be merged as they talk about different projects, though the title of the film is the same. I am ending the discusssion here. You may go ahead with the deletion of the article if you wish. I am creating a new article Buddha (2007 film) as recommended by the user Tikiwont. I hope you will be more prudent while placing deletion instructions and will take a little more care by reading the articles in detail before taking such a step. Yugeshp 14:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to simply move it. We can then redrect this discusion as well. --Tikiwont 14:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didnt know i could move it, as I already created the new article, am unable to move the same now. Yugeshp 07:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Meissmart, please be more careful in the future. If you aren't sufficiently interested in the article to read and notice all the names are different, then you aren't sufficiently interested to merge/delete/rename. I got here when I noticed the dueling hatnotes on the Buddha page. I soon found that Buddha (2007 film) was not listed at Buddha (disambiguation). I started fixing that, so I verified that the movies are different, and then I stumbled on a third page (Buddha Film). One sure thing I have learned editing Wikipedia: When something doesn't make sense, step back and try to make sense of it. It usually still doesn't make sense, but the experience is useful. — Randall Bart 18:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the views — Randall Bart. Now that the new article Buddha (2007 film) is in place, Buddha Film the old one needs to be deleted. How do I do it? Yugeshp 15:39, 29 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Goody[edit]

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

Jade Goody

  • Nominating for Deletion Reason: Jades article is just being vandalized all the time and no one seem to respect this article. The article in it self is also not very well written and i think Jade is not notable enough, what has she done more then being on big brother? and she didnt even win.--Matrix17 13:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, on the same claims as before, not notable, to mutch vandalizm, she didnt even win big brother.--Matrix17 13:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very notable individual in the UK. Regan123 14:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Vandalism isn't a reason for deletion. I'm not a big fan of "reality show star" articles, but this is arguably one of the best sourced articles of this type here. I've never heard of her, but an enormous amount of press has been dedicated to her apparently; well exceeding WP:BIO.--Isotope23 14:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Due to her stupidity when on Big Brother she received a lot of unfortunate attention from UK tabloid newspapers. She's been on the media frequently since, and was even included in the latest "Celebrity" (emphasis on quotation marks) Big Brother, and then promptly generated a row over racism. So, Keep on Wikipedia, preferably delete her from real life. SimonRK 14:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't watch television, so I have no knowledge of her from that medium, but I can't help but be confronted almost daily with images of her staring at me from the tabloids and magazines at my local corner store. She must easily meet the "multiple, independent published sources". —Psychonaut 14:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This individual is notable. Unfortunately. --Folantin 15:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. This is one of several suspected bad faith AfD's initiated by User:Matrix17 recently --Mhking 15:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and snowball to closure. MLA 15:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:MLA and Mhking are totally wrong im not doing this to be mean im doing this because Jade actually isnt notable at all. What has she done? except not winning big brother?--Matrix17 15:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is a serious question but assuming good faith that it is, this is a highly notable person in the UK who has received numerous and ongoing media coverage, has been the endorsement face of a series of ventures, is a millionaire as a result of her celebrity exposure, and was the center of an international scandal. MLA 15:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unfortunately, she is very notable as mentioned by the two previous comments. I have never watched either Big Brother or Celebrity Big Brother, but I can confirm that she is about the only participant I can name - that's notabilty! Emeraude 15:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: MLA always use Comment: before you write here. and for the other matter i dnt now what the fuss is about i dont think this person is notable. I dont think so, YOU dont have to think so. and if you dont believe it will be deleted well then just let it have its course and you donthave to worry.i actually believes it should be deleted. so what.--Matrix17 15:20, 22 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks[edit]

Organizers_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
  • Nominationg for Deletion Reason: Their is no proof or real evidence that al qaeda did theese attacks. I also think its wrong to write a page on 11 of september attacks without real proof of al qaeda involvement.i think it should be deleted, its sutch a strong subject where people just assume that they are the suspects. i dont think the article is well written also that is my second reason for nominating it.--Matrix17 13:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong Delete i think its not a well written article on a subject where no one really nows whats happened and who is the real suspects.--Matrix17 13:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no valid reason for deletion is being advanced here.--Isotope23 14:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per WP:POINT. --Strangnet 14:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Invalid nomination plus possible WP:POINT concerns. It looks like the same editor has also nominated Paris Hilton and Jade Goody for deletion. --Folantin 15:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination. --Sable232 15:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep; per WP:POINT and one of several suspected bad faith nominations from this editor --Mhking 15:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:as i have sayed im not doing it to be mean or in bad faith, couldnt it just be that the articles i hav enominated really isnt notable??haha--Matrix17 15:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy snow keep. The remains of all the hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77 were found at the Pentagon and their DNA forensically identified.[12] The remains of all the hijackers of United Airlines Flight 93 were found at the crash site near Shanksville and their DNA was forensically identified.[13] Remains of three of the hijackers were found and idenfitied through DNA testing at the Ground Zero. [14] This nominator's reasons for deletion are not at all valid and this article should be speedy kept, per WP:SNOW. --Aude (talk)
  • Keep - sourced, encyclopaedic. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. The fact that a few of these guys are still alive isn't a big deal in the context of Wikipedia... WilyD 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Bad faith nom ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 15:27, 22 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. WjBscribe 20:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Harris (basketball)[edit]

Paul Harris (basketball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

delete - does not assert notability, does not meet standard for WP:BIO ZBrannigan 22:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article does not meet Wikipedia's quality standards (bad structure and grammar). Perhaps if more care was shown in writing the article, it would be more apparent to me why this person is notable. Overall, however, I'd recommend that current living non-professional athletes not be notable enough to allow a bio here. Troymaclure 23:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The accomplishments listed under "college career" establish notability. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 16:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent verification of the claims for notability, and no evidence of non-trivial coverage in secondary sources. One Night In Hackney303 19:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm really not sure how one can argue that he fails to meet WP:BIO. The WP:BIO guidelines actually quite specifically include American college sports athletes. So there you have it, right there. But even if you want to get stricter than that, he's not just any college athlete, but plays at the highest level (NCAA Division I) of the sport of amateur men's basketball, in one of that level's top conferences (The Big East), for one of that conference's (and indeed the entire sport of men's college basketball's) elite programs (Syracuse University), and he was actually one of the most highly-touted and watched prospects in the country entering this season (though his play in this first season admittedly didn't fully bear that out). As such a top prospect, he's also definitely been covered by independent secondary sources, like Sports Illustrated. As I see it, he's easily notable per WP:BIO. If one feels the WP:BIO guidelines are too loose in that area, I'd actually agree with that, but as they stand today, one cannot say he fails to meet them. The article is just poorly written and sourced. Mwelch 00:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mwelch. Grammar and such is a matter for cleanup, not deletion. Harris is a player on one of the most well-known NCAA teams, and his career has be covered by reliable sources. SliceNYC (Talk) 20:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep if refs are put for notability. if not then Delete. thats fair--Zedco 10:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A search for "'Paul Harris' +basketball -wikipedia" produces 1840 results in Google News, most of which seem to be about this Paul Harris. The subject is clearly notable; the only issue is sourcing. -- Black Falcon 22:34, 28 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. WjBscribe 04:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pusites[edit]

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

Non-notable slang term. Sfacets 13:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing debate: S (Society topics) ◄Zahakiel► 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notability not established, and no information is provided about how many individuals bear this name either by self-identification or labeling. The title "is the tag given to students studying in Pusa Campus," but by whom, and for how long, etc.? ◄Zahakiel► 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dicdef of WP:NN neologism. Maybe transwiki to wiktionary... maybe. -- Selket Talk 02:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even the popular slang dictionary doesn't have this term. Not notable in any way. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable neologism whose existenced is not supported by reliable sources. -- Black Falcon 22:20, 28 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. WjBscribe 04:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rishi Prasad[edit]

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

Article is about a publication which is non-notable outside the context of Sant Sri Asaramji Bapu. Sfacets 13:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing debate: M (Media and music) ◄Zahakiel► 15:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: as empty, little/no context/text. --Ragib 17:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know I have been slow in providing my inputs to the article but the article is very important to introduce and define a very large publication in India. The magazine is available in many different languages including English and has subscribers all over the world. I would like to have some more time to improve the article.... Thanks Rohit 19:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per nom. Single line stub having almost no encyclopedic information. - KNM Talk 02:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There appears to be more than one "Rishi Prasad" that is notable. I expect that this magazine is notable (it appears to be translated into many languages), but it is hard to justify one sentence. John Vandenberg 11:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Madhava 1947 (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of contex without prejudice to proper recreation. This isn't even really a stub, which has to establish context. I don't quite think it's speedy-able. -- Black Falcon 22:25, 28 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. WjBscribe 04:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Yog Vedanta Seva Samiti[edit]

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

Article is about an organisation which is non-notable outside the context of Sant Sri Asaramji Bapu. Sfacets 13:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing debate: O (Org., corp., or product) ◄Zahakiel► 15:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough context to prove notability. Realkyhick 21:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:ORG and WP:RS. utcursch | talk 15:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Utcursch. - KNM Talk 02:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sant Sri Asaramji Bapu. Its notable enough to warrant a redirect. John Vandenberg 11:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I'm unconvinced of the need for a redirect with just 2 hits in Google. I get about 35 hits for "Sri Yog Vedant Seva Samiti" (no "a" at the end of "Vedanta"). -- Black Falcon 22:23, 28 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. WjBscribe 04:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boîte Diabolique[edit]

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

The article is about a brief one-off joke from a single episode of a television program. No independent sources are provided, and none are likely to exist. —Psychonaut 14:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Funny, but not notable. Delete. Bucketsofg 14:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per WP:NEO, unless independent sources can be found to demonstrate that the term is in widespread use outside the TV show. Walton Vivat Regina! 14:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator. —Psychonaut 14:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge into main program (uh, "programme") article. Realkyhick 21:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the comments below. Redirect to Look Around You as a plausible search term (800+ hits on Google). -- Black Falcon 22:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many of those Google hits actually refer to the Look Around You program? Boîte diabolique simply means "diabolical box" or "evil box" in French. The latter gets 16,700 hits. —Psychonaut 01:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • About 60 are directly relevant to Look Around You. I see your point (I hadn't thought about that) and have modified my suggestion accordingly. -- Black Falcon 01:50, 29 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. Completely unattributable, only has itself as a source, and no claim to notability. Mo0[talk] 01:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Fury Within (MOD of Diablo II)[edit]

The Fury Within (MOD of Diablo II) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Non-notable mod, fails to assert notability or provide reliable third-party sources. Procedural afd due to contested speedy. The Kinslayer 14:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is a famous mod[citation needed] date back to 2001-2002. And the newer version of it began to be developed from 2006 till now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Horans (talk • contribs) — Horans (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

As the articles creator, your choice isn't surprising. What is surprising is that a mod thats been around since 2001 has only it's readme as a source, and only it's website, forum and fansite as references. The Kinslayer 14:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


contents need to be added. please don't judge it too soon. if you need prove of nobility, goole with the name and "diablo" Horans 14:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of evidence is on you to show us the reliable sources, and not on us to find them. The Kinslayer 14:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence provided that this is anything but a non notable user created mod. --Daniel J. Leivick 16:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless information regarding the mod's importance can be demonstrated by the use of print, magazine, and news sources to verify the contents of the article. -- saberwyn 21:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without verification of its importance, this mod fails our notability guidelines.-- danntm T C 21:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Author argues notability, but doesn't back up his argument.
  • Delete utterly non notable. Resolute 05:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, and the only reference is a readme file. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lacking in secondary coverage. Wickethewok 21:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No sources, no assertion of notability. --Scottie_theNerd 02:34, 24 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. Clearcut case of WP:CRYSTAL. Mo0[talk] 01:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson Family Vacation 2[edit]

Johnson Family Vacation 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article refers to a report made in the Hollywood Reporter eighteen months ago (October 2005). There has been no news since, and it would appear that the film never entered production. Unless anybody can prove otherwise this article should be deleted as unverifiable. Rje 14:41, 22 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. Consensus was either to merge or delete, and since the merge has already been performed, the article is of no use. Mo0[talk] 01:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alice (2007 film)[edit]

Alice (2007 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an article on a film that has been talked about for 7 years with no sign of going into production - there has been no news in almost two years now. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: unless this film actually gets made, which does not look likely at this stage, it should not have an article. Rje 15:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The JPStalk to me 15:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've copied the production information to American McGee's Alice#Movie Adaptation for preservation. If this film actually enters production, then the film article (with the appropriate release year) can be re-created. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Erik. The article on the source material can maintain a reference to movie plans, but unless a film is actually announced, there's no point in having an article about it at this stage. 23skidoo 16:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:CRYSTAL. Enough said. HagenUK 20:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I read Edison's comment below but I stick to my Delete. HagenUK 19:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ditto. Realkyhick 21:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Eric. There is no sign that production is really going to happen. — Kieff | Talk 22:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, especialy after the great work of Erik to keep the meaningful aspects of the article (although admittedly I liked the game). --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not "Wiki of movies which have actually been made." Many books go into Development hell for extended periods before the movie comes out. IMDB.com [15] and the New York Times [16] still list it as a 2007 release. Anything which has multiple independent reliable sources with susbstantial coverage satisfies WP:N and WP:ATT and is deserving of an article. It seems like originasl research for editors here to determine the project is cancelled because they have not seen news items in 2 years. A projected 40 million dollar picture with major talent such as Gellar signed to do it and major studio participation can be notable even if it never gets made, if it has the multiple independent sources with sunstantial coverage that this one has. Edison 16:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very often, the content of articles of films that never get made is underwhelming. If this film never gets made, then there would be stagnant growth of content in its article. If no content will ever be added, then it's best to merge it to the source material. Try a more authoritative Google search, since Google hits will obviously spur discussion about the film on blogs and message boards. A Google News Archive Search only records 27 actual hits, under the assumption that a proper headline would note that the film is based on American McGee's Alice. Additionally, IMDb is not a reliable source at all in terms of pre-release news. Even if you're citing it, you should notice that the film's status at IMDb is marked as "Unknown". Also, the listing at New York Times does not actually mention anything about the film's production. For all we know, it was added in 2005 and hasn't been removed since; there's no date attached to its inclusion to indicate its recency. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verifiable up-to-date information of this movie being in production can be provided. It is kind of like having a separate article for Terry Gilliam's Good Omens (2007). It does not need it's own article just yet as the fact that it has been optioned by a studio is mentioned in the American_McGee's_Alice article. Coder Keitaro 22:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Until this movie enters production it should be merged with the video game. However the info should not be deleted from Wikipedia as it is very notable.Trey 04:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not apparent that this will ever get out of development hell. WP:CRYSTAL, etc... --SpacemanAfrica 18:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge info into article on orginal book. Movie isn't being made anytime soon. TheRealFennShysa 15:48, 26 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. WjBscribe 04:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compete, Inc[edit]

Compete, Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No claim to notability (except blogs), blatant advertising, written pretty much by SPA. Prod deleted by article writer without comment. Qualifies for speedy but thought I'd see if anyone could turn up anything of value on them BozMo talk 09:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - there are references to demonstrate multiple coverage in third-party sources, although not all of this coverage qualifies as non-trivial and reliable (as the nominator says, some of the sources are blogs). I'd give it the benefit of the doubt, but it needs to be substantially rewritten to remove the advertising tone. Walton Vivat Regina! 11:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The references seem almost all to be blogs, and the article reads like an Advertisement. NBeale 06:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 15:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most if not all of the refs are not from appropriate sources. Written as an ad. --Daniel J. Leivick 16:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Difficult one. I vote Delete because I cannot see the notability of this outfit and the slogans in the article tending towards WP:Spam]. However, I would support a Weak Keep as well. HagenUK 20:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Had a closer look over the website and change my vote to Delete - full stop. I don't think this outfit is notable and specialist search engines are common. Therefore, on second thought I think it is more WP:Spam than useful information. HagenUK 19:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is indeed difficult. Right now, I say Weak delete, as it is borderline spam. Notability coule be proved, though, and a rewrite may make this acceptable. Realkyhick 21:15, 22 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. Neither numbers nor argument provide a slam-dunk for any one solution. Flat-out Delete is, I think, out of the question as overly destructive for an outcome endorsed by only about 1/3 of commentors. That leaves Keep or Merge. Which? This is a toughie, but my reading of it is that the Merge arguments have the upper hand. No information will be destroyed so I think this is OK. Because of the length of the articles, I will merge them into separate articles for each season. There is much too much material to merge the whole shebang into the main article. Herostratus 14:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Life Inside A Console[edit]

Life Inside A Console (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

We don't need individual episode articles for a DVD exclusive series. We are not an advertising/fan site for the show. Drat (Talk) 12:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating for the same reason:

I Feel Asleep (Mega64) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Poque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Gangs Returned To Class And Became Honor Students (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eyes of Skull Has A Secret (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This Story Is Happy End (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ode To Sue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
And Suddenly, Ezra Didn't Feel So Alone Anymore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
What The Hell Happened To Mega64? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Summer Semester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stranger (Mega64) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Drat (Talk) 12:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, It's not the most vital pages on Wikipedia, but mega64 is semi-popular, and has gotten press attention, it might as well have an episode guide Owlofcreamcheese
  • Keep, it's a legitimate show and there is enough information for each article. Kuralyov 04:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears legit and the articles are written well. - grubber 17:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 15:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom, we are not an advertising or fan site for the show. We need in-depth reliable independent coverage to turn these plot summaries into actual encyclopedia articles containing "real-world context and sourced analysis." Scanning the first few pages of Google hits shows lots of blogs and nothing we can use here. Nothing in news databases. All fail WP:N and WP:NOT#IINFO. Incidentally the topic of the main article Mega64 also appears to fail WP:N, so let's not do a reduce&merge of the episode pages into there. Pan Dan 16:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Mega64 is highly notable,, and the individual episodes are notable enough themselves ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 20:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - the show passed notability hands down, but this host of entries borders on cybersquating. HagenUK 20:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I'm not a fan of episode lists at all, and this one could be condensed and merged into the main article quite well. Realkyhick 21:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I am not aware of this series. If it's notable though, merge them into 1 article. TJ Spyke 23:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notable, in which case, merge into 1 article. 38.100.34.2 22:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You have episode guides for Pure Pwnage and it is in the same vein as Mega 64 however Mega 64 has been hired by gaming company such as UBI Soft and Vivendi Universal. They have also been featured on MTV and have made commercials for Spike TV. They are extremely notable and anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Couchmalcolm (talk • contribs) 19:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • merge per HagenUK - I'm of the biased opinion that Wikipedia shouldn't even have episode guides for The Simpsons or Star Trek. Couchmalcolm, nobody is disputing that the series is notable - rather, that there's no need for separate Wikipedia articles on each episode. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge the articles are not to long so merging them shouldn't be to big of a problem unless you got ISP <56k ... i have seen anime episodes for different series all merged in one file in a table with a short summary for each episode, but the episode summaries were much shorter than some of the articles above (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Absoultely no evidence of notability. NBeale 07:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not very notable and every minute detail from individual episodes just turns Wikipedia into a promotional vehicle. Cioxx 17:06, 31 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. WjBscribe 20:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DKP[edit]

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

This is a wondefully written bunch of WP:OR. It's obvious a lot of work and thought has gone in to this but since it's very clearly a lot of original research and completely unsourced, I cannot argue for it's inclusion here on Wikipedia. It has been tagged {{confusing}} and {{unreferenced}} for a while now without any improvement. Perhaps a home can be found for it somewhere - just not here. Arkyan 16:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if anyone can dig out sources & references otherwise very reluctantly delete. As per Arkyan I really hope someone manages to rescue this, IMO it's one of the best articles I've seen in a long time. Iridescenti 16:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I am not into these games, but I think it is relevant to the gamers who play them. I agree that it is written in an essay style, but it sounds logical enough. Throwing it out would be over the top. HagenUK 20:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Even if it needs cleanup DKP systems are integral to nearly every modern MMORPG, deletion isn't a request for cleanup Owlofcreamcheese 21:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I probably don't have knowledge enough to discern original research. It is confusing (to me), but it seems to be sourced enough. Realkyhick 21:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to the above keep votes - The problem with this article isn't that it needs cleanup but that it is OR and lacks sourcing. The sources given in the article are not reliable sources, as they are all links to DKP calculators or different MMORPG guilds' websites explaining their DKP rules. None of these provide any independent sourcing on what DKP is. If the consensus here is that digging up a guild website that gives their spin on DKP rules constitutes valid sourcing I will gladly withdraw this nomination. I do agree that it is a highly notable concept and of value to gamers, but Wikipedia is WP:NOT a game guide. Don't get me wrong - I like this article, but it's still completely original research and fails guidelines. Someone please come up with a valid reason to keep it other than "useful". Arkyan 21:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google Scholar yields this and that, a Media Theory article and a Communication masters' thesis respectively, both of which discuss DKP in a social context, but not for more than a paragraph or so. The former actually cites this Wikipedia article, which I find totally hilarious and completely useless at the same time. Google Scholar also points to it in the index of MMG's For Dummies. Nifboy 23:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The fact that one of those articles references this Wikipedia article is a perfect illustration of why WP:ATT and avoiding WP:OR is so important. People use Wikipedia as a source of information, and allowing articles that have information we can't verify to propagate information of a dubious origin would be poor editorial work. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, common in MMORPGs, but just about everything in the article is WP:OR. In a way, it is nothing more than pretty common neologism. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep!!! Didn't know what DKP is, looked it up here, article explained it, I understood it ... good job, what else you want ? User:nixman — 89.55.185.233 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 06:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep I'm not an expert on this but there would be very few citable sources on this because it it largely a concept and system that has been developed in places like gaming forums and guild forums. This article is the best overall explanation of the many different aspects that may or may not make up a guild's DKP system, and I cannot see how this could be considered a "gaming guide" because, well, it is definatly not a guide for a game. DKP is HUGE in MMORPG's and there are millions of people who play MMO's. I just can't see how this is not eligable for wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.244.36 (talk • contribs) — 66.93.244.36 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep I needed this info and couldn't have found it elsewhere. Understand the importance of sourcing - but it's tough when sources don't exist. Do we want to destroy information that doesn't exist elsewhere?Fiveoldroad— Fiveoldroad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment - this AfD seems to be getting hit with a lot of IP users and accounts with very few edits. That's not a grounds for discounting !votes but I would like to point out that by their own admission, the article is unsourced and likely to remain unsourced due to the fact that this information is not to be found anywhere. While I agree that it is a valuable source of information, that is the very definition of WP:OR. Wikipedia cannot be a primary source of information! I'm not keen on destroying information, and I wouldn't be opposed to userfying this somewhere until a more appropriate permanent home can be found for it. Wikipedia is not that place. No one has addressed the issue of lack of verifiability, lack of attribution, original research, and so on. All the arguments hinge on WP:USEFUL without addressing concerns regarding policies and guidelines. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by Mailer diablo citing WP:CSD#G12. Pan Dan 17:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Shields[edit]

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

Currently includes two people. The one born in 1954 is, in my opinion, clearly non-notable. The one born in 1970 hasn't had his notability sufficiently shown in the article. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 16:03, 22 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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beastie (roller coaster)[edit]

Beastie (roller coaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable rollercoaster. Not much bigger than would be found at a fairground. camelworks(Mclowes) 18:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 16:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - normally I'd say delete but since almost every other ride at Alton Towers has its own entry I don't see any reason to single this one out. Iridescenti 16:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as mentioned above, the other roller coasters at Alton Towers have their own articles, and they're mentioned in a template. Leaving this out would make the main Alton Towers article look somewhat incomplete. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - into the Alton Towers article. If Alton Towers cybersquats Wikipedia with a host of minor articles, a major merge operation might be recommendable. After all, Alton Towers is just one amusement park like dozen others. HagenUK 20:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Alton Towers. Not notable on its own. Realkyhick 21:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge entire category into Alton Towers article. It's inappropriate to have an entire section here. Andy Saunders 21:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wouldn't it be inconsistent to merge all the rides at Alton Towers into a single article, yet allow the rides at Disneyland et al to keep their own pages? Alton Towers is very large (the second-largest amusement park in Europe) and if the content of all the individual articles were merged into one, it would be ridiculously long. Iridescenti 17:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to expand on my original proposal a little, other rides at Alton Towers are notable in that they are/were World Firsts and most of them had extensive media coverage when opened. Although I agree with the above comment that an Alton Towers merge would make the article too long, I proposed a few weeks ago on Talk:Alton Towers that a separate article e.g. Notable rides at alton towers be created and all ride articles be merged into. However this is not in keeping with other theme park article formats. camelworks(Mclowes) 18:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to comment: An article being "too long" post-merger only says that the articles themselves needs to be pruned. I would be in favour of a merger into "Rides at Alton Towers" article, though. Andy Saunders 00:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the article needs some work, that in itself is not a reason to delete. Yes, the article needs work, and some references but it does not need deletion. With little work, this article would meet the notability requirements. Vegaswikian 23:42, 26 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. WjBscribe 19:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World So Cold[edit]

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

Lack of verifiability and notability Non notable single which contains no verifiable or worthy information for the article. I think it should be deleted. LuciferMorgan 23:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 16:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the band is undoubtfully notable enough to pass WP:Bio hands-down, but they certainly don't need an article for one of their songs. HagenUK 20:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zOMG, one line naming the title of the song, and another full of OR that claims "frequent radio play". Bal33t-K@ngiemeep! 07:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to be a single (not merely a track) that reached #16 on the Billboard Mainstream Rock charts[19]. While I'm generally against most individual-song articles, I make an exception for charted singles. The article is a sub-stub, but that's not a reason for deletion. I've never heard of the band before, but I'll see if I can dig up some more info and sources before the AfD runs out (unless someone more knowledgeable or motivated beats me to the punch). Change to delete if it turns out I'm wrong about it being a single. Xtifr tälk 10:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • After further review, I think I was mislead by AMG, who lists it under charted singles, but not under released singles in the discography section. In fact, there are apparently no singles released by this band, and the song charted as an album track, not as a single. Therefore, it is more appropriately covered in the album article (where its chart position is already mentioned). Thus I'm switching my !vote. Xtifr tälk 23:06, 23 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. WjBscribe 04:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Underpants (film)[edit]

Captain Underpants (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article fails Wikipedia:Verifiability, this article is unsourced and I can find no information anywhere regarding this film. Given the popularity of this series I would expect some talk, but all I could find was people talking about this Wikipedia article. The article was created by a very new editor, whose other edits were unsubstantiated speculation. Even IMDB does not have an article on this, and, given their very loose criteria for inclusion, I suspect this indicates that this film is not happening. Rje 17:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Speedy Delete - speculative, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". In the best case scenario a fan has gotten over-enthusiastic, in the worst case this is WP:Spam. The sooner Wikipedia gets rid of this, the better. Salt might be appropriate as well. HagenUK 20:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as far too speculative and unverified.-- danntm T C 21:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. No context, no verifiability. Realkyhick 21:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Andy Saunders 21:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. I see no need to salt the article. It's only been deleted once before. -- Black Falcon 22:55, 28 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 Ender's Game. WjBscribe 00:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ender's Game (film)[edit]

Ender's Game (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This film has been talked about for many, many years now with no sign of being made. The official site has not been updated in two years, and there has been no news in that time. We are an encyclopedia, not a crystal ball, we should not have an article on every book/game/comic that might conceivably be made into a film at some point in the future. This film has not been green-lit and is not in production, it should also not be on Wikipedia. Rje 17:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and Redirect - to the entry about the novel. There is already a little data there about the development (or lack thereof) of the film. If any other useful data from this article can be placed there, a redirect to the two or three paragraphs should be enough until the film production process is restarted (if ever). ◄Zahakiel► 17:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I keep a subpage that collects citations of upcoming films, so I've dumped the useful links there. The film article can be re-created when film actually enters production. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge as suggest by ◄Zahakiel. "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" and being in development hell is certainly not making the project notable. HagenUK 20:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per Zahakiel. LaMenta3 21:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per Zahakiel. --Roswell native 21:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Redirect The very fact that this film has been talked about means that some coverage of this information is appropriate, since well, Ender's Game and OSC are clearly notable subjects. Whether it is as part of the Ender's Game novel or just on its own doesn't mean much. For now. FrozenPurpleCube 05:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - according to the Ender's Game page here and the imdb link ([20]) the movie is now "in production". I do think the film page probably needs an update though shas 15:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant info into Ender's Game - film has been "in production" for years with nothing to show for it. TheRealFennShysa 15:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge - in fact, the film article only had 2 or 3 sentences and a couple footnotes that weren't already in the book's article, so I was bold and did it myself. WP:CRYSTAL is great, but there didn't seem to be any special information in this article in the first place. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:16, 30 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. WjBscribe 04:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Friends School[edit]

Cambridge Friends School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notablility or if it even exists. Vanity article, created by User:Rsh1993. Speedy changed to prod, then some anon decided to pull the prod tag claiming that non-notability wasn't enough to delete it. Sable232 17:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Speedy Delete and Salt is someone does not play by the rules. I think notability has not been established. HagenUK 20:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly not notable, but salting is a bit much at this point. If it shows up again, salt it like an icy road. Realkyhick 21:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Deor 22:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I pulled the prod because, IIRC, you said POSSIBLY nn and it POSSIBLY being nn isn't sufficient. Either it is or isn't notable and you make your argument. Since the article is a stub, and I will tag it as such, I would like to see it have a chance to improve. My hunch is, based on vague memories, that many important people attended this school. If I am wrong, then the issue of deleting it can be revisited. In the mean time, I would like the article to have the chance to be improved once I add the tag. Postcard Cathy 13:51, 28 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. Listcruft, unsourcable. Mo0[talk] 01:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of personifications of Death in fiction[edit]

List of personifications of Death in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not unlike all these "in popular culture" articles. List is potentially too long to be of any interest and is currently a dump of trivial and rather random information with no encyclopedic value. (not to mention dubious entries like The Doors) Pascal.Tesson 17:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Like the rest of these sorts of lists, it's unreferenced, unencyclopedic, and fails inclusion criteria. There is simply no reason to have these lists of trivial appearances of whatever, wherever. Arkyan 17:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture any appearance of "Death" or any character who in the opinion of an editor might represent Death with no regard to the importance of the character either within or outside the fiction. This is marginally better than the previously deleted list of personifications of evil since at least some of these characters are actually called "Death" but the POV/OR problems are too great. Otto4711 18:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Totally agree with above contributors. Also, there was recently a similar list along the lines of Apperance of God in ... that was vote delete for the same reasons. HagenUK 20:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Listcruft. Maybe I'm being cynical, bit it boggles my mind that someone went to the trouble to compile this. Realkyhick 21:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Deathcruft. :-) Pascal.Tesson 21:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (edit conflict) far too arbitrary and unverified of a list.-- danntm T C 21:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as-is I think an article like this might be interesting if it only showed personifications of Death that were not obviously based on the Grim Reaper or other skeletal death figures. But I doubt anyone will want to go to the trouble of sourcing that. Not me, that's for damn sure. JuJube 00:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, weakly. Much of this material was spun off of Death (personification), where many similar entries stand that are presented with slightly more analysis. (I am one of the original creators of that article.) This stuff isn't very good, and the better of it is already duplicated there. There should be some kind of intermediate place we can send lists like this for future reference, in case someone wants to organize these lists into text. - Smerdis of Tlön 05:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have that, it's called userspace. Anyone can keep pretty much anything they want there. Otto4711 19:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very general list with a weak common ground, since the personification of death is also very general. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I created the page to be a holding site for the list of personifications of Death in fiction, which was originally a part of Personifications of Death. Yes, it's very anti-WP, but I was afraid of the backlash that might result from deleting so much material. Blueaster 04:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The tide is overwhelmingly in favor of deletion here, so I'm not even going to fight it with a vote for "keep". A cursory glance at the article does show it's in complete disarray, yes. The article is linked to as a sub-section from Death (personification), which is a legitimate sub-category for that legitimate article. However, a comprehensive guide to this would overwhelm the Death (personification) article. So, the appropriate solution is to either compress the information down to the most notable examples and place it back into the Death (personification) article as a non-comprehensive section, or vastly clean up the article, perhaps so that it is more than simply a list? Just some observations/suggestions. Elijya 05:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with that suggestion is that if any of this stuff gets merged back to the main article it will serve as a license to any editor to add his or her favorite example to the list, which will cause the section to swell, which will lead someone to spin it off into a sub-article, and the cycle continues. 12:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree, that is a potential problem, but an article about the personification of Death is hardly complete without SOME mention of the hundreds of fictional examples of it. Elijya 13:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take a look at the article. There are a huge number of examples from "popular fiction," broken down by medium. Probably too many. No more are needed. Otto4711 15:06, 26 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 Consensus to delete per not being notable. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Where the Fish Lives[edit]

This Is Where the Fish Lives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

questionable notability; page created by mastermind of project Lars T. 17:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - there appear to be no indeendent sources attesting to the subject's notability. Otto4711 18:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "a small fan-base on MySpace" does not create notability. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 20:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - did a quick Google search. There is a book by this title, but no mentioning of a music project. Therefore, notability has clearly not been established. HagenUK 20:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly not notable. Realkyhick 21:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but Please, Please, Please let us know that articles with this kind of title are about bands, so we can tell that it isn't an attempt to write about fish and their nests. - Smerdis of Tlön 05:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertion of notability or signs that WP:ATT could be fulfilled. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:16, 27 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 Consensus to delete, duplicate article no meaningful content. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota main land regions[edit]

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

Article duplicates Regions of Minnesota. Kablammo 17:53, 22 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. WjBscribe 04:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid Ahmed Amiruddin al Jilani al Husayni al Haqqani al Khwajagani an-Naqshbandi[edit]

Sayyid Ahmed Amiruddin al Jilani al Husayni al Haqqani al Khwajagani an-Naqshbandi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable living person (Previous unsigned comment by Grmagne)

  • Delete/Speedy Delete - I agree with the non-notability, but I go a step further. I ran the names through Google and found no clear/apparent hits for any of the names. I am having a sneaking suspicion that this is acutally a hoax. However, I cannot be bothered to put the leg-work in, since this article does not pass notability in the first place. HagenUK 20:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a hoax ( hint: drop the patrynomics from the name and search only for the first three words) but is noted in the press as a Canadian Sufi Muslim teacher. Only claim to fame I can find is that he met some alleged terrorists. Fails WP:BIO - Peripitus (Talk) 20:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity/spam, not verifiable, possible hoax. Realkyhick 21:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - firstly, it's not a hoax. They give these people lots of patronyms. I actually think he's notable enough for inclusion. If we can have office-bearers of the KKK in wikipedia, why not deputies in Turkish Islam? However, please move to Sayyid Ahmed Amiruddin to make the title more manageable. - Richard Cavell 22:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked for his name in Naqshbandi article and found he's not notable enough to have a separate article. He's deputy of Shaykh Nazim al-Qubrusi and we don't want to write article about every deputy of notable people.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable--Sefringle 04:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment nominator too lazy to put afd template on article, does this mean it should be abandoned & started again?  ⇒ bsnowball  11:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it is in now.--Sefringle 17:17, 23 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. WjBscribe 04:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MAFIAA[edit]

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

Neologism with no non-trivial independent reliable sources. --Interiot 18:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as its already being transwikied to Wiktionary and per nom. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 20:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "no neologism" policy. Also, five or six survivalism related abbrevations have just been thrown out, against an organised 'interested parties' campaign. HagenUK 20:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete somewhat widespread term, though not really that much outside of the circle of MPAA/RIAA critics. However, I'm questioning whether we need an article of a marginal abusive term at all... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Anti-copyright or some related article. --Apoc2400 12:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can never merit an encyclopedic entry. It's just a slang term.++aviper2k7++ 02:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to proper recreation (if it's possible). It is currently just a dicdef (can it be expanded? maybe, maybe not) that has already been transwikied. -- Black Falcon 23:02, 28 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. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mariko Morikawa[edit]

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

Article doesn't pass WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 18:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Multiple videos, multiple magazine appearances, a theatrical release. "Mariko Morikawa" is an icon in the Japanese big-bust genre. This AfD is ludicrous. Its deletion would not only be censorship, it would be a culturally biased assault against the coverage of the Japanese erotic cinema on English Wikipedia. As a sign of her notability in Japan, out of the hundreds, if not thousands of actresses who have made adult video debuts yearly in Japan since the early 1980s, editors of Japanese Wikipedia give this actress a lengthy article. Pornography has long been, and continues to be a very significant part of Japanese popular culture, and English Wiki's coverage of the Japanese porn area is woefully lacking. Taking out two general articles and four articles on pink film actresses, the English Wikipedia, with going-on 2 million articles, currently has 57 articles in Category:Japanese porn stars. For comparison, Chinese Wikipedia, with less than 118,000 articles, has 67 articles on Japanese AV actresses. In 1994 it was reported that "approximately 14,000 "adult" videos were being made yearly in Japan compared with some 2500 in the U.S."[21]. Also, "In addition to the influence of pornography on mainstream cinema, the line between pornography and family entertainment, such as daytime television, is blurred. It is not uncommon in Japan for a waning female television star or singer to feature in pornographic videos. Similarly, there are women actors from pornographic videos who move into daytime television."[22] And further, "By the late 1970s the production of pink eiga together with Roman Porno amounted to more than 70% of annual Japanese film production."[23] And finally, "The market for pornographic videos is worth Y400 billion annually, accounting for around 30 percent of [Japan]’s video rentals."[24] The article is a on major Japanese celebrity, and is not a vanity page. Use of "Notability" to delete articles on lesser-known celebrities is an abuse of the term. With pornography's high visibility in Japan, her status as an AV idol gives her much higher notability in her country than her U.S. counterparts have in their country. To further chip away at Wikipedia's already meagre coverage of Japanese erotic cinema would be to further cultural bias. Dekkappai 18:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not that this will slow down the "Fails WP:PORNBIO" parrotting, but #4: "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche" After Kimiko Matsuzaka, Mariko Morikawa is probably the icon of the big-bust genre in Japan. Dekkappai 20:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe this passes WP:PORNBIO. Specifically, D Cups Japan is probably a notable or as PORNBIO says well-known magazines enough magazine, her natural endowment might classify as unique, noteworthy contributions. It is a close call and trying very hard to be objective, I think she passes. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. Dekkappai 19:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Contrary to the above vote, subject meets at least two criteria of WP:PORNBIO (notable within a specific genre niche & original film named after the performer). Caknuck 21:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dekkappai. Can't really add anything to that because he pretty much covered it all. LaMenta3 21:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dekkappai. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 1) Satisfy absolutely 2 points of WP:PORNBIO and other points of WP:PORNBIO arbitarily. 2) Dekkappai had put up good points. Definitely satisfy WP:N in Japan. 3) Cannot assume good faith of Epbr123 anymore; the criticism of his talk page was recently deleted by Epbr123, and when it was reverted, he deleted them back, stating "mind your own business". 4) Per talk page, possible sock puppet or even Meat puppet. George Leung 22:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree with what Dekkappai has already covered. --Hexvoodoo 23:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' and another per Dekkappai - good research. EliminatorJR Talk 01:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep She is notable. Acalamari 22:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Manson[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:PORNBIO. Nomination withdrawn Epbr123 21:03, 22 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 per WP:CSD#G11. --Chris (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evms consulting group[edit]

Evms consulting group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Pure spam. -- RHaworth 20:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing debate: O (Org., corp., or product ) ◄Zahakiel► 21:12, 22 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 17:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biloxi High School[edit]

AfD nomination appears to have been made because it's "not a notable school" and "not eligible for an article" I am completing this nomination as a procedural matter, not in support of it. It was half-completed. ElKevbo 04:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, next time, please don't. Someone who isn't able to list something properly clearly doesn't have the experience of Wikipedia necessary to know that this is a contentious issue. There is no right to waste people's time here. I urge you next time to use your common sense and leave it alone. Grace Note 06:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slow down there high speed. Someone else did most of the work to make this AfD nomination - I just cleaned up the mess. Don't shoot the messenger. --ElKevbo 17:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I say, next time, don't bother. Just inform the newbie of how it is and clear it up the other way, by getting rid of it. I know you're only trying to be helpful but... Grace Note 07:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that ElKevbo made the correct choice here. Per Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers If you do determine, or sincerely believe, a newcomer has made a mistake, such as forgetting to put book titles or the names of ships in italics, or failing to make useful links, try to correct the mistake yourself. Don't slam the newcomer; remember, this is a place where anyone can edit and, in a very real sense, it is therefore each person's responsibility to edit, not to criticize or supervise others. Wikipedia:Assume good faith might apply as well. Signed Jeepday 12:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I request this article to be deleted, since it is not a notable school. I'm sure it exists, but it is not eligible for an article. OfficerPhil 22:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThis article is not an important article about an educational facility with no importance. Please delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.21.139 (talk • contribs) 17:37, March 21, 2007

Delete Obviously those in charge of this article have blatantly abused what meaningless authority they posses. It is probably the "Upper crust" of said institution and not a reflection of the majority.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DrGod (talk • contribs) 15:54, March 22, 2007

DELETE This should be deleted because it exposes harmful information about students.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.76.31 (talk • contribs) 22:20, March 22, 2007

Comment You're not allowed to vote twice, and your comments, under Wikipedia deletion rules, count for much less if you don't get a user name. Any administrator who closes this discussion should take note of the two comments from the same IP address. Noroton 04:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment I actually think the "exposes harmful information about students" is on to something, although I wouldn't put it nearly that strongly. There are extensive lists in the article of names of student government officers. I think that's (a) unlikely to be referenced; (b) I'm uncomfortable giving the world their names, even though it's high school, not elementary or middle school; (c) probably going to attract vandals; and (d) there's a slight possibility of libel. All in all it's a bad idea to have it, so I'm going to delete the list. I'll repost this on the talk page. If anyone has a good reason to keep the list, I'd of course welcome a comment there. Noroton 04:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is more complicated than I thought. There's been some discussion about this on the talk page. I'm going to look into it before making any edits.Noroton 04:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article seems to meet notability guidelines and precedent set by keeping of numerous other high schools, many smaller or less notable than this one. It desperately needs to be cleaned up and properly expanded but that is no reason to delete it completely. --ElKevbo 04:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools, a listing used by the Schools WikiProject --ElKevbo 04:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's inherently notable, as all high schools are. My concern about the long lists of student names isn't a reason to delete it.Noroton 04:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no consensus at Wikipedia that high schools are or are not notable, as evidenced by the high school AfDs closed as "no consensus". However, I believe this school is notable as being the first school with cameras in every classroom, school security being a major issue in this day and age. The lists of students should be deleted per WP:A, as I have indicated on the talk page. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Schools are inherently "notable". yawn is that the time? Seems like we've been doing this one for at least two or three years now. Grace Note 06:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article appears to meet basic notability, but is in need of more resources. It is never wrong to show a newbie the Wikipedia way. Not all of us came to Wikipedia with a full range Wikipedia editing skills. Jeepday 12:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Butseriouslyfolks. Edison 15:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could someone please check if some of the recommendations for deletion come from new single purpose accounts and if so tag appropriately so the closing admin can avoid giving them excess consideration??Edison 15:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Biloxi High School is one of only three schools in the southeast nominated for Blue Ribbon Status. I believe that this in itself makes this article noteworthy. I have fought constant vandilization from students at this, being my own, school. Please give me the chance to keep this site. The voters who vote no are all the same person, please check on this. --kgregory 01:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sourced article on school with several notable features. TerriersFan 02:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree this is much more N than most high school articles., but, as for the student officers, do I understand correctly that Noroton & (on the talk page, Grace Note and ElKevbo) all three agree that lists of student officers are not appropriate for school articles, due to privacy concern, updating, and nonNotability? DGG 04:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. Wikipedia is not a directory and it's really not particularly significant which particular children hold which particular office. I say that without wishing in any way to diminish the achievements of the children involved. Grace Note 07:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone can stop talking about the lists of kids names. They will no longer be on the page, ever. If I have not replaced them by now, why would I? Just drop it. kgregory 13:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for Blue Ribbon status and possibly for cameras in schools. Xarr 16:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted as blatant hoax Newyorkbrad 23:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Edwin Davis[edit]

James Edwin Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Obvious hoax. The original version claimed a death date in the future and accomplishments in the 19th century despite the subject being in his twenties today. The external link in the article goes nowhere and I found no corroboration with a Google search. Prod was unsuccessful. NickelShoe (Talk) 20:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nonsense. Not even particularly funny or clever, just plain nonsense. Bobanny 20:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A hoax (duh!). Realkyhick 20:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious hoax. Caknuck 21:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree that it looks like a hoax or nonsense. --Seattle Skier (talk) 22:01, 22 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. Fails WP:MUSIC. Mo0[talk] 01:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Alvarez (rapper, songwriter, producer)[edit]

Juan Alvarez (rapper, songwriter, producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Poorly sourced autobiography[26] of an aspiring musician. He just doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC. NickelShoe (Talk) 20:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - does not meet WP:ATT, WP:N, WP:BIO, or WP:MUSIC as of yet. WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, furthermore. Moreschi Request a recording? 21:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable. should probably include his band, A-Men in here as well. The only wikilinks in that article land on unrelated pages.Bobanny 21:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, and there are COI issues as well, per User:PRBoi1229. At the suggestion of the editor above, I have nominated A-Men for speedy deletion under {{db-band}}, since it does not even assert the importance of the group beyond, well, the members themselves. ◄Zahakiel► 21:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've got all their albums. Bobanny 21:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Their yet-to-be-released albums? ◄Zahakiel► 21:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they don't take up nearly as much space and aren't as noisy as those "released" kind >;) Bobanny 00:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I wonder if you can nominate a user for deletion based on WP:CRYSTAL. ◄Zahakiel► 02:08, 23 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 G7) - author blanked the page. WjBscribe 19:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Porto Alegre Innovation[edit]

The Porto Alegre Innovation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is clearly non-neutral in its point of view. It takes an advocacy tone toward its subject. The article contains considerable original research, is not encyclopedic in tone, is very lengthy, and frankly is likely beyond help from someone without a conflict of interest. The author maintains that "the world needs to know" about the process involved, but maintains a web site that is even more detailed; that web site is a more proper venue for this article than Wikipedia. Realkyhick 20:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete content and redirect page to Participatory budgeting - normally I'd vote to merge, but sifting through all the OR and other unencyclopedic verbiage is too herculean a task to expect of volunteer wikipedians. The creator has not contributed to any other articles, for what that's worth. Bobanny 21:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The author has read our comments, essentially agreed with them, and blanked the article (see the article talk page). Move for summary judgment, your honor. Realkyhick 08:09, 24 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. Rlevse 02:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halogen Software[edit]

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

I speedy deleted this as an advert requiring rewrite. The author asked me about recreation, and I advised notability must be shown with sound references. It has been recreated, slightly modified, without any substantiation. It currently fails WP:N and WP:V (or WP:ATT) Tyrenius 21:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:CORP—no verifiable sources provided and still reads like an ad. Deor 01:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. Leuko 01:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found a reference and added it. --Eastmain 02:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added another creditable reference to the reference section. If there are certain parts of the article which you are specifically stating to be reading like an ad, please let me know and I will work on them. This is not meant to read like an advert, it is meant to be an information piece just like other major companies listed on Wiki. Thank you for your consideration. Kanata500 13:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC) — Kanata500 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Very weak keep I quickly removed half the puffery, but i do not know how much of an article will be left if it all goes. DGG 04:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. That's exactly what G11 is for— if the entire article is puffery, then it should be deleted and rewritten later. --Interiot 02:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Seems like clear G11 to me.--SethTisue 14:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article is much better now than it originally was, and some of the comments were made in response to previous versions of the article. I would encourage people who have already commented to take a look at the current version of the article. --Eastmain 16:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's a little better than it was, but it's still vapid puffery. G11.--SethTisue 17:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the word =vapid= considered inoffensive language on Wikipedia? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's certainly moved in the right direction, but under WP:N and WP:CORP it is necessary to have multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable secondary sources. There is a reasonable piece in the Wall Street Journal, but that on its own is not sufficient. Tyrenius 00:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete - presently still reads like an advertisement. POV-sounding statements in the article aren't supported by footnotes - I don't think a corporate article should read like a press release, but should be an independent viewpoint summarizing publicly-reported information on the company. More effort seems to have gone into the company infobox than content, so far. But please change my vote to keep if these are addressed - I don't want to vote delete for an article by a new user that got tagged for AfD 3.5 hours after it was first created (unless someone would like to demonstrate that the user created the article in bad faith). AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on closing advertisement article and consensus.Rlevse 02:11, 30 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. WjBscribe 04:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convalesce (Character)[edit]

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

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=%22kishawna+lawson%22&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 only shows this article. No notability KeithD 21:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Realkyhick 05:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't even have an article for the comic. Also delete Convalesce (a redirect). -- Black Falcon 23:04, 28 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twin City Fan[edit]

Twin City Fan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Insufficient evidence of notability FisherQueen (Talk) 21:23, 22 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:NEO. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forum pervert[edit]

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

Neologism; creator removed prod without comment. FisherQueen (Talk) 21:36, 22 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, nominator is single-purpose sockpuppet/troll. — CharlotteWebb 16:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsford Mendon High School[edit]

Not notable, no citations Andrew Robertson 21:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Until we get a set rule for schools, high schools are generally considered notable. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we go by the rationale that it's not notible (which I disagree with), then hundreds of other H.S. pages on Wikipedia would have to be deleted. And take a look at those other pages. They might have more, better organized content than Mendon's (perhaps they suffer less vandalism), but none of the info is particularly encyclopedic. Arwcheek 22:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This whole argument works the other way round. Notability has to be proven. As we have no set way to prove N for schools specifically, and no sign that we will ever agree on any, let us delete all the articles without a very firm basis according to the general rules, which would require two very solid RSs for all local institutions attesting to more than the existence. But this particular school ranks high enough to be Notable, so,
  • 'KeepDGG 04:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The Newsweek article needs to be proved, but that may make it notable. Otherwise it's just another school - i.e. non-notable. EliminatorJR Talk 01:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The school's consistent top rankings in Newsweek's annual survey, and their win in the National Fed Challenge are strong claims of notability. These claims are all backed by reliable and verifiable sources to clearly justify and support the claim of notability. As usual, it took just a few minutes to find sources to back up the article and to add additional material, and this can be done without much effort for virtually any high school in the United States. It's amazing what you can do if your objective is to improve articles, not just to get rid of them. I must say that this was one of the easier articles to find sources to demonstrate notability. Alansohn 02:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no consensus at Wikipedia that high schools are or are not inherently notable, as evidenced by the fact that high school AfDs are closed as "no consensus", "keep" or "delete" on a case by case basis. However, this school is notable as having been one of the top 50 in the country. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Until we get a set rule for schools,(such as WP:SCHOOL which is currently undergoing a tagging war and variously tagged as "rejected", "historical" or "proposed guideline") high schools are neither inherently notable nor inherently non-notable. This article at least has some content and several references, and its creators appear to have satisfied WP:ATT, the proposedWP:AI and the dispuited WP:N. Edison 15:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The reasoning for deletion has been obviated, there are now reliable sources which meet our attribution requirements. Burntsauce 17:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 19:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yet again, Alansohn does work no barnstar is big enough for. The Newsweek rankings I think make this notable under anyone's defintiion. In any event, they're all notable, and this one's a good article. Noroton 19:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a nicely sourced article on a notable school. TerriersFan 02:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Newsweek article gives notability, even under stricter guideliens for schools that don't yet exists. Realkyhick 05:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn and Realkyhick.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn and Realkyhick, though how significant (and truthful) is the Newsweek article?. Xarr 15:56, 25 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 06:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Fowler[edit]

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

(First nomination)

This is a minor presenter on a minor quiz show, about whom nothing is said to indicate any wider significance. I can't see at the last AfD that any evidence required by WP:BIO was presented — only the subjective (and, I think, untrue) claim that the programmes she's presented have been well-known in the U.K. Not in my manor, squire. Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I cannot recall ever seeing any of these programmes (admittedly I do not watch much television). But clearly fails WP:NN--Anthony.bradbury 22:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:N. —SaxTeacher (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yet again, even if the programme is notable, that doesn't make her necessarily so. EliminatorJR Talk 01:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Realkyhick 06:01, 24 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 Portland, Oregon. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winterhaven School[edit]

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

Non-notable elementary/middle school, article is content-free. Katr67 22:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Redirect and merge to Portland Public Schools (Oregon). Katr67 19:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteRedirect to Portland Public Schools (Oregon). It's an interesting concept, and a lot of schools do accelerated learning, but doesn't meet WP:N's standards. --Dennisthe2 22:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like Katr67's idea, thus the vote change. As near as I can tell, the school doesn't stand on its own. Scare up some notability and we've got something. --Dennisthe2 20:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Accelerated learning is not notable in the slightest, no other reason to keep that I can see. EliminatorJR Talk 00:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 19:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep created, apparently by a newbie (second edit) on March 20. Might amount to something. Too soon to delete. And newbies should have some leeway.Noroton 19:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N. This discussion is about the article, not the editor. If there is something notable about the school, the article can always be properly created later. --Butseriouslyfolks 20:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No encyclopedic content even with expert help from Nototon, and zero third party non trivial references, and no signs that there might be any. DGG 04:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge per nom. Realkyhick 06:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N. If notability from Accelerated learning programme can be sourced then redirect and merge per nom. Xarr 16:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alektra Blue[edit]

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

Not notable. She may have appeared in about 76 movies but by porn star standards, that isn't particularly notable. Epbr123 22:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no assertion of notability. Applying WP:N and WP:PORNBIO here. --Dennisthe2 22:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change vote to Keep per below. --Dennisthe2 20:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just another porn star, nothing special. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 00:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Nominator has significantly edited his nominating statement. Also, according to WP:PORNBIO: "modern American heterosexual performers are usually notable if they appear in more than 75 films."
    • Its actually if they've appeared in over 100 movies. Even then, it's a questionable criteria. Epbr123 00:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At least 97 known film appearances, 3 short of the magic number. Clearly notable. Dekkappai 00:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not quite. Epbr123 00:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Number of films can contribute to a porn star's prolificness, and certainly more so than the Google test, which on its own is unquestionably invalid, but it does speak to both the size of an entertainer's fanbase/following (see WP:BIO) and the prolificness of their work and can be used in conjunction with more valid criteria of either WP:PORNBIO or WP:BIO to make a determination of whether they have a significant following and/or are prolific in any genre. This actress doesn't even seem to be prolific in porn in general, or anything else for that matter. I can't find anything about this actress other than her IMDB (and similar) profiles and some minor mentions/inclusions on spammish porn sites. She doesn't even have a website of her own. While even that is not an immediate grounds for inclusion/exclusion, again, it is a piece of evidence that needs to be looked at as a part of a whole. All of the sources in this article are IMDB (or similar) and while such sites may be used as sources in conjunction with other reliable sources, including the actress' own website, if she has one, as this is an article about a person and would be considered a primary source provided the information is neutral, and preferably at least one third-party reliable source, IMDB-ish sites alone are not acceptable as reliable sources. Epbr123 20:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean she doesn't have a website of her own? She does, it's right in the article. Not that that's sufficient, but as long as you are saying it, it may at least be true. She's also pretty prolific: 76 or 97 or whatever isn't sufficient in itself, but neither is it nothing. --AnonEMouse (squeak)
  • Keep, maybe the article needs be extended, but is a notable name in the porn industry.Kamui99 05:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. She won Rookie Starlet of the Year at the 2006 F.A.M.E. Awards [27]. This looks like it's going to be a notable award, given its notable backers [28], but that was the first year it was given, so we don't have an article for it yet. She was a nominee for AVN Best New Starlet Award at AVN Awards 2007, but didn't win.[29]. That, plus the lots of films, I think is barely enough. But the article needs to say all that, which it doesn't, yet. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 04:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If she really won the aforementioned award and given that she has almost 100 movies on her record, i'd say she fulfills the notable criteria. Thus Keep. I agree though that all this should be mentioned in the article. -- fdewaele, 28 March 2007, 14:45.
  • Keep per AnonEMouse's FAME Award find. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the award information found by AnonEMouse. Otherwise, based on the # of films alone, I would have suggested deletion. I will try to add the award information to the article shortly. -- Black Falcon 23:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, per the third source, she actually seems to have won an AVN Award in 2007 (category: Best New Starlet). -- Black Falcon 23:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it was won by Naomi [30]. Epbr123 23:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You caught me in an edit conflict ;) After writing the above comment, I noticed that it was actually just that one reviewer's "pick", so that's no longer mentioned in the article. However, I have added the first 2 sources. -- Black Falcon 23:38, 28 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. Harryboyles 14:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Beast[edit]

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

Obviously invented subject. Peter O. (Talk) 22:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I'm the one who nominated it for speedy deletion when it was a few nonsense lines, I see nothing has really changed. — Pious7TalkContribs 22:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as evident WP:HOAX *Speedy Delete - WP:NFT. Original author took down the AfD notice. Always a good sign. Would post a warning to his talk page, but can't recall the template for removing an AfD notice. Upon further consideration, this really should be speedied under a slightly liberal reading of G1 (patent nonsense) As the article changes, so does my rationale. A Google search for "'Nigel Pemberton'" returns very few hits, none of which seem to be a professor at NYU, and "'Nigel Pemberton' + 'Sea Beast'" returns zilch. Amazon.com returns nothing useful. --Action Jackson IV 22:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry it looked like nonsense, i was updating it piecemeal, ill take your advice about the preview function — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvw204 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete, as either WP:HOAX, or something instantly created. As it stands, the article qualifies as speedy delete as it's empty. --Sigma 7 23:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a repost of an already speedy-deleted page. Feeeshboy 23:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion logs show this page has been speedy-deleted at the following time indexes:
22:11, 22 March 2007
19:39, 22 March 2007
05:27, 22 March 2007
also, note that this page was not blank when it was originally speedied, but contained a whole lot of fanciful information about the supposed creature's taxonomy and behavior, as well as a silly picture. Feeeshboy 23:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the author's most recent edit blanked the page. Speedy is probably correct. --Sigma 7 00:01, 23 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 Mel Etitis. utcursch | talk 12:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jiles mcfrafon[edit]

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

{{{text}}} - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 22:31, 22 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 Consensus to delete per WP:ATT and WP:NOT. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mario Party Advance minigames[edit]

List of Mario Party Advance minigames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Game guide content that is both listcruft and fancruft. Take it to a fan wiki of some sort. RobJ1981 23:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The deletion listing is not well thought out by the nominator, neither "listcruft" or "fancraft" is a suitable reason for deletion. They are not even real words, but instead merely words thrown about by people when they want to delete something they personally don't want. Mathmo Talk 23:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but game guide information, which is something the nominator pointed out, does not belong in Wikipedia, which is what this is really looking like, and I'm really considering changing my vote right about now. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 16:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is NOT game guide information, a game guide tells you : How to win, what the controls are, advice and lots more, and , if you look at the article, you will find that it doesn't tell you anything mentioned above. So it clearly isn't unencyclopedic. Henchman 2000 19:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I just don't see how this sort of list is useful in an encylcopaedia - if you want to see this kind of detailed information, go to a fansite. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 00:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Fancruft and listcruft are no reason to delete an article. Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fancruft, there you will find that many editors feel that fancruft is no reason to delete articles, and consensus has been established in support of this. If you want it to become encyclopedic, which you probably do, then edit it and turn it into a good article, just like Bowsy has done with many other lists. Henchman 2000 19:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The same information can be on multiple site you know. Henchman 2000 09:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The AfD doesn't hit any reason for deletion, but this should've been a category at least, and doesn't meet WP:ATT at all, and appears to be merely a list of unencyclopedic information. EliminatorJR Talk 00:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This information is probably better suited to article format as it would be hard to make it a category. Oh, and thinking it should be a category isn't a good reason to vote Delete. Bowsy (review me!) 09:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, but that was just a comment, the lack of attributality and encyclopedic nature is the problem EliminatorJR Talk 00:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the other Mario Party minigame lists have been nominated for deletion at some point. I suggest that AfD participants consider the following:
  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party minigames (ongoing)
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 2 minigames (result was keep)
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 3 minigames (also nominated: 4, 5; result was nomination withdrawn)
  4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party 8 minigames (also nominated: 6, 7; result was no consensus)
My reccomendation is that they all be nominated for deletion at once, because they're virtually identical in terms of content. If they're kept, they're all kept. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To tell you the truth, I really don't support the existence of this article, mainly because it's totally consisting of lists and missing sources, like most of the other articles are, but, I mean, the others have survived AfD's, one way or another, but, if sources aren't and can't be found, I'll change my vote. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 03:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sources shouldn't determine an article's fate or not. You can find sources for just about anything: it doesn't make it notable for Wikipedia. This is clearly fancruft that belongs on a fan wiki. Mini-games in Mario Party are basically it's levels, level guides aren't notable article subjects here. Also I want to point out the AFD result for Mario Party 3 was nomination withdrawn, not keep. RobJ1981 04:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Entirely unencyclopedic. --- RockMFR 05:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RockMFR. One Night In Hackney303 06:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Entirely unencycopedic, what are you talking about?! Of all the lists, I would say this one was the 2nd most encyclopedic. (the most encyclopedic being Mario Party 8's list.) Henchman 2000 09:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Keep Ever: This is not unencyclopedic, and any unencyclopedic parts can VERY EASILY be made encyclopedic. Bowsy (review me!) 09:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Keep In the Universe!: Per Bowsy, taking to a fan wiki, if there was one, would be inappropriate. It's nothing to do with "fans". Just because it is on another site doesn't mean it can't be here, something the nominator clearly fails to understand. Henchman 2000 09:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've noticed that this "the article can become encyclopedic" argument was used in other AfDs, and I've also noticed that some of these articles are still unencyclopedic lists, and I've ALSO noticed a few WP:ILIKEIT arguments, that is, no one has presented any good support for why this needs to exist. I'm not saying it can't, but I'm just noting it hasn't, and if it really can't be supported, I may just change my vote. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 16:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Screw this; I support the deletion of this article, if it can't be changed into an article that both asserts its existence and becomes encyclopedic. But, until then, with the support of WP:EMBED, WP:FAN, and WP:LC (with the argument of being non-notable, first and foremost), I feel this article should be deleted. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 16:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, it is game guide material, completely unattributable (since no professional journal/news source would ever write individually about each minigame) and the minigames themselves are not notable outside of Mario Party. There. I've cited two policies and a guideline. Axem Titanium 21:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A game guide would tel you how to play the game ie. controls and give tips. Also, it has been sourced and tere are probably plenty more sources where the current ones came from. There. I've cited how the policies you mentioned do not make it so the article should be deleted. Bowsy (review me!) 12:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. When I said fan wiki: I meant a gaming wiki of some sort. This is certainly fancruft that is suitable for a gaming wiki (made by FANS, hench the name: fan wiki). RobJ1981 08:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Theory of article is unencyclopedic and should be deleted. Captain panda In vino veritas 13:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Being unencyclopedic is not a reason to delete an article. you must show why you think the article can't be encyclopedic. Bowsy (review me!) 08:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This seems pretty analagous to a plot summary, which WP is explicitly not. There really isn't any real world reference for this list of mini-games from a single game. Wickethewok 01:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to all users saying "there is no source" as a deletion reason: I am about to add a source, so now it is attributed to a reliable source and you have no reason for a delete vote. Henchman 2000 17:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Sources don't just automatically make things safe from being deleted. Sources don't fix the cruft issue. An answers.com link isn't helpful: it's explaining the game itself (no mini-games are mentioned except for the fact there is 60). Also people mentioning sources, clearly mean somewhere not from Nintendo or an official site (if I'm understanding this right). Answers.com would've worked: if it actually listed the mini-games, but it doesn't. Throwing in any link to save the article isn't going to work. RobJ1981 19:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I posted this in another AfD, and I will post it here, verbatim: It's looking pretty obvious that this is gonna be a "no consensus" ruling and, seeing as this is probably going to be nominated again, I feel we need to set up some sort of proposal, something along the lines of "if it can't be improved after a certain amount of time to a better quality, then delete," because this is going to be ridiculous. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 21:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be better than this, but I don't think it would be accepted by all. Henchman 2000 12:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will write what I wrote on the other AFD: Strongly disagree. At worst, repeat AFDs are an annoyance. However, there is no need to set an arbitrary deadline for the improvement and/or completion of articles. I can understand the frustration (on both sides) of having AFD after AFD, but if there's no consensus, then there's no consensus. Creating a policy to override consensus (or lack thereof) won't help. -- Black Falcon 20:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I was suggesting is some way of preventing thousands of unnecessary AfDs. I'm sure, for such a case as this, that something along, but not constricted to, the lines of what I suggested. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 21:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The best way to stop unnecessary AFDs is to discourage frequent renominations that only repeat what had been noted in previous AFDs. Someone may think that a view s(he) holds fully justifies the deletion of an article, but if there is not consensus support for that view, s(he) should back off rather than repeatedly AFD the same article. A deadline is counter to the very nature of Wikipedia. On whom would we impose it ... editors who contribute to the project voluntarily? The best way to avoid thousands of unnecessary AFDs is simply to not renominate articles for deletion unless a significant amount of time has passed, valid arguments grounded in policy were overlooked in prior AFDs (deletion review may be the better option here), and/or one has gained support for a nomination on the article's talk page. -- Black Falcon 23:51, 26 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 Consensus to delete. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting anime[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article does not establish the notability of the term. Given the user who contested the prod a few weeks to improve the article but nothing has changed. I'm not going to list the policies that the article violates, it really should have been speedied Squilibob 23:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime-related deletions.
  • Delete per my original prod of Original research based on a neologism. No sources are attributed to back up any claims. --Farix (Talk) 23:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Farix. ---00:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and perhaps point author towards Shōnen. JuJube 00:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a neologism. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 00:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Farix. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Shonen, since that's what most of these are. --tjstrf talk 09:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If they're not all shounen, then it shouldn't be redirected there. Some magical girl anime and sentai anime can be classed as fighting, in a sense. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply. If I'm a newbie enough anime fan to wiki the phrase "Fighting anime" then I also am quite unlikely to know of the existence of seinin series. While it is a neologism, it is also a reasonable enough search term that making it redirect to the most related series would be helpful. --tjstrf talk 05:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Shōnen. Although the term could apply to magical girl and sentai it is used by most to refer to Shōnen fighting manga/anime. Also, the fact that people are pointing out that it could apply to many genres indicates that it is definitely transgressing WP:NEO. Coder Keitaro 21:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism pure and simple. Realkyhick 06:05, 24 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) 20:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kriya reiki[edit]

The article was on prod on the ground that the Wikipedia is not a How to guide. While the article certainly needs work on the ritual itself appear to be notable to me (though I know nothing about the Indian rituals). Can the article be saved or merged somewhere? See also Vishitao Reiki for the same problem Alex Bakharev 23:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Kriya reiki gets 47 unique Ghits and it's already on the creator's user page. Also, all of his other contributions have flown in the face of WP:NOR. JuJube 23:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, same problem as Vishitao Reiki below. Only 31 ghits for "Kriya reiki" -meetup -wikipedia, and even those 31 don't make a particularly strong case for notability. Dave6 talk 01:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain

Can you suggest the changes?[edit]

If desirable changesare suggested, I can immediately incorporate them in the article. I wish that the article stays there, and of course, meets the requirements of the site too!Rekhaa Kale 18:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retain

Did those who know the subjects vote?[edit]

I am sorry to say that again the persons not knowing a certain subject are objecting the presence of some pages. In fact more and more new subjects giving scholarly research must be added to wikipedia to enrich it. But it is not happening. I will be happy if the articles Kriya Reiki as well as Vishitao Reiki are retained and I am given a fortnight's time to edit it and bring it to your standards after your experts give suggestions about changes.

I am a writer with more than 20 books published over last decade and about 6 of them are still doing well in market. So, I am well aware of the language requirements of publishing media. So, Please be sure that the information in the articles IS meeting standards of the subject.

As far as the format of your site is concerned, I am open to changes. But deletion means killing new authors!!!

Rekhaa Kale 18:34, 25 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) 20:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vishitao Reiki[edit]

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

Violates WP:NOT (how-to guide), WP:NOR (no sources) and looks to be a spammish essay. Author is also inserting similar spam into Past life and Pastlife. JuJube 23:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did those who know the subjects vote?[edit]

I am sorry to say that again the persons not knowing a certain subject are objecting the presence of some pages. In fact more and more new subjects giving scholarly research must be added to wikipedia to enrich it. But it is not happening. I will be happy if the articles Kriya Reiki as well as Vishitao Reiki are retained and I am given a fortnight's time to edit it and bring it to your standards after your experts give suggestions about changes.

I am a writer with more than 20 books published over last decade and about 6 of them are still doing well in market. So, I am well aware of the language requirements of publishing media. So, Please be sure that the information in the articles IS meeting standards of the subject.

As far as the format of your site is concerned, I am open to changes. But deletion means killing new authors!!!

  • Retain

I would love to have suggestions about desired changes[edit]

I know that this is an article on a totally different subject, but that must not be the cause of deletion. I wish to share this knowledge with all. Also, there are many who wish to get this info, but are not conversant with ways to vote and so on.

Can I know how I can edit the article so that it meets the requirements of the site?

Being a writer, I am aware of the norms of publishing and media. So, if any section of the article is violating these norms according to you, pl. let me know. So that I can Improve.

Rekhaa Kale 18:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. How-to guide, unsourced, no notability, not even sure what this is. —Ocatecir Talk 10:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete claims that this is somehow "scholarly research" are offensive bunk. This is nothing but original research and Wikipedia is absolutely not a forum for you to promote your latest crank theory. This article should be deleted because it has absolutely no sources and is completely unverifiable Gwernol 15:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious delete per Ocatecir, without prejudice against recreation if it demonstrates notability and provides verifiable and reputable sources. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:56, 28 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_22&oldid=1116878075"