Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 24

< March 23	March 25 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete.--Wizardman 03:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scrot rot[edit]

Dubious slang term. Would redirect to Jock itch but article makes no mention of fungal infection which is principal in that syndrome. Listing for community input. No Vote exolon 00:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable neologism. Only a handful of GHits outside of slang dictionaries like Urban Dictionary. --Haemo 00:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you want Urban Dictionary, you know where to find it. --Dennisthe2 00:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable and written in an informal tone--$UIT 03:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable neologism. Send it back to the junior high school locker room where it belongs. Lankiveil 04:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Haemo. NN. Scienter 04:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Resolute 05:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- WP:NEO. Non notable neologism. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign! | review me} 05:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it be urban slang, and a neologism. Realkyhick 06:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT#DICT for WP:NEO--I already forgot 08:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely unnecessary and badly written. -- Wenli 17:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NEO TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jock itch, I can imagine someone searching on this. - Iridescenti 18:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NEO], unsourced, plus WP:NOT#DIC. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 19:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I understand it this is the UK term for Jock Itch. So redirect at least. A clear example of systematic bias. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 21:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In which case, it's still a dicdef and belongs on Wiktionary. --Dennisthe2 19:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this since there are over a thousand hits on google and a redirect could be usefull for people who are searching for the term.[1] Mr. Berry 22:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as the term may be used, but this article won't be. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Iridescenti. it seems entirely appropriate to redirect to the subject that the term refers to. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to jock itch. Dicdef, and of dubious notability to boot. Herostratus 14:31, 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 07:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of computer and video games not released in the USA[edit]

Wikipedia isn't apparently 'indescriminate information', and this list is pretty much that. It would be near impossible to complete (there must be thousands of video games not released in the USA), especially as the criteria is so broad that stuff like Animal Forest (the Japanese version of Animal Crossing, which was released in the US on the Gamecube) or alterernative versions of games like Kingdom Hearts 2 - Final Mix are included. FredOrAlive 00:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this would be positively innumerable, and unmanageable list. --Haemo 00:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom.--$UIT 03:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No real use for list, and it would be HUGE! -- Theshoestore 04:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - vaguely defined lists of things that have happened are bad enough, ones about things that haven't happened are even worse. Lankiveil 04:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Scienter 04:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Japan gets hundreds (if not thousands) of games not released outside of the country, not to mention the hundreds of shoveware crap released in Europe (like ANYTHING from Phoenix Games). TJ Spyke 05:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unmaintainable, not really much of a point to this one. --Merovingian ※ Talk 05:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Impossible to maintain this- there must be thousands of video games not released in the USA! CattleGirl ^{talk | sign! | review me} 05:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How could one possible properly maintain a list like this? Dump it. Realkyhick 06:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JALOUF. What defines "released" anyway? What if I bought it online from Japan and the UPS guy released it? --I already forgot 09:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unmaintainable. Delete per WP:NOT. --KZ ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 10:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear WP:NOT#IINFO Orderinchaos78 14:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unmaintainable. 23skidoo 14:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's unmaintainable, impractical, and not useful. -- Wenli 17:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - way too overbroad, could easily span 10,000 or more items if kept. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - keeping it would set a horrible precedent for a list for every other country. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this list or repository of loosely associated topics. szyslak (t, c) 20:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While criteria for inclusion ought to be tightened up (and stated in the intro to the list), I find it hard to believe that this is "indiscriminate information". Clear criteria for inclusion can be formulated, and any vagueness is a cleanup issue in any case. The page serves a valuable indexing function for people interested in games without a US release. - Smerdis of Tlön 22:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. To some extent I agree with the last user. But in its current form, the list is unmanageable. There are a lot of noteable games not released in the U.S (and Europe too), but then some criterion for inclusion is needed.Dr bab 23:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this as the subject is nationalistically POV, in addition Computer and video games not released in the USA is not an article and there doesn't need to be a list for it. Mr. Berry 23:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list is unmaintainable, and as such, Wikipedia is not a repository of lists. --sunstar net^talk 23:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - entirely unmaintainable, and in pretty bad condition. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as US-centric and unnecessary. Punkmorten 09:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 02:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: I would like to propose that instead of maintaining such a problematic list as this, we simple create various region exclusive lists. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:04, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 14:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.P.Gururaja Bhat[edit]

This article is entirely unreferenced. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 00:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No prejudice to a keep if attribution can be found. --Dennisthe2 00:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same as above, unless it acquires some sources. --Theshoestore 04:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep, Apparently this chap wrote a book [2], which seems to have been cited in a few online essays. Notability established, in my opinion. Lankiveil 04:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. Many relevant google hits, [3] however article needs a major expansion. Notable. Article is only a few days old, we should probably give it a bit more time. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign! | review me} 05:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I got only 7 unique G hits.[4] ----♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 10:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands now. If you can show more of these alleged sources, I might reconsider. Realkyhick 06:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename/move to P Gururaja Bhatt. Author of Studies in Tuluva history and culture, from the pre-historic times upto the modern and Antiquities of South Kanara. Assumming good faith in hopes of additional source from users familiar with India and its culture.--I already forgot 09:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Writing a book alone doesn't get you through WP:BIO, and the article still lacks viable references. Move to appropriate name if kept, of course. A Train ^{take the} 16:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia. Mr. Berry 23:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an article, no sources, writing a book isn't sufficient evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:per nom. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 10:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Professors and historians are not rock stars or cricket players. Obviously, not everyone would have heard of them. Unless someone gets down to study Tulu history or maybe Karnataka history they might not come across this author. But for someone who is a student of these less glamorous subjects, Prof. Gururaja Bhat is certainly notable. A quick search on books.google.com and worldcat.org can throw light on his notability. For example, a search on books.google.com reveals that Rama Jois has used P. Gururaja Bhat's books as references in his own books. Now did somebody say, "Who the hell is Rama Jois?". Well, Rama Jois was a Judge of the Supreme Court of India and later Governer of Chattisgarh. These are only the highest offices that he has held and needless to say he's held and holds several more. And where has he referred to P. Gururaja Bhat? Well in his book, "Legal and Constitutional History of India: Ancient, Judicial and Constitutional System" which is considered a most seminal and definitive work by students and scholars of the subject. Go to books.google.com, search for this book and then search the book for "gururaja bhat". If a Supreme Court judge who is himself a respected historian can refer to another author, then by implication, the other author is certainly no quack! btw, the book that M.Rama Jois has referred to is Gururaja Bhat's "Tuluva history and culture". Now that notability has been established, do a speedy keep and mark it as a stub. Sarvagnya 22:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added some refs and content to the article. A search with alternative spellings indicates that he was a notable historian who was an authority on Tulu-related stuff("Gururaja Bhatt", "Gururaja Bhat", "Gururaj Bhatt", and "Gururaj Bhat"). utcursch | talk 05:23, 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 speedy deleted by Mailer diablo [5]. Michaelas10 ^{Respect my authoritah} 13:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decide band[edit]

This article is entirely unreferenced. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 00:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an article with no context (A1?). So tagged. The article contains nothing more than a list of records with release dates and the genre they play. --Dennisthe2 00:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete because the article title is a typo. The records are by Deicide who already have an article. No point redirecting as its not a likely search term. EliminatorJR ^Talk 03:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per above comment by User:EliminatorJR. Lankiveil 04:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Delete per EliminatorJR. Tag has already been added. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign! | review me} 05:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy! Speedy! Speedy! No notability, no context, no nothing. Realkyhick 06:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as the article exsist under the correct spelling. See (Deicide (band)).--I already forgot

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. John254 22:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pale (band)[edit]

This article is entirely unreferenced. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 00:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just about notable, I think - one album on a major label (A&M) and nationwide tours outside their own country (Ireland). I have cleaned up the article and added a few links, though they are hard to find, given bands with "the pale" in their name. Also not helping: this band, who are not the same one. EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to meet WP:MUSIC, given that they've released a record on a major label and toured outside of Ireland. Lankiveil 04:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSIC- released a record on a major label, toured outside Ireland, and a chart-single. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign! | review me} 05:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major label, charted single, meets WP:MUSIC clearly. Realkyhick 06:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per user Lankiveil and CattleGirl. --I already forgot 10:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they meet WP:Music. They have an article here in another language Wikipedia.--Paloma Walker 17:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite - It seems like a complying article, but could use some rewriting. -- Wenli 17:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Music; however, they are not the same band as Paloma Walker linked to on de.wiki -- Dragonbeast 21:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this subject is suitable for Wikipedia. Mr. Berry 23:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The band meet the criteria for recording artists on Wikipedia. However, a rewrite may well be needed. --sunstar net^talk 23:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs to be fixed, but notable enough. Captain panda In vino veritas 00:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a {{sofixit}} issue more than anything, so fix it. RFerreira 00:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Can we get some WP:SNOW in here? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - entirely notable per WP:BAND. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:56, 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. WjBscribe 07:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amphetamine in popular culture[edit]

Another indiscriminate "pop culture" spinoff article. Nothing but a list of every time this particular drug is mentioned in some obscure song or movie; plenty of OR and entries of questionable notability.

I am also nominating the following nearly identical pages for the same reason:

— Krimpet (talk/review) 00:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of these examples aren't even significant to the works in question. Croxley 01:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per nom. Strongly oppose any suggestion that any of this stuff be merged into the articles on the various drugs. Otto4711 01:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per Otto4711. Scienter 04:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Indie Rock singer-songwriter Elliott Smith mentions Amphetamine use in a song titled "St. Ides Heaven" from his self titled album." You don't say? Some of these "in popular culture" articles are useful, but this certainly isn't one of them. Lankiveil 04:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete all. Listcruft, or listcrud, whatever. Realkyhick 06:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Biased Delete. Find most "In pop culture" list about as usuful as google add farms. This one is no exception. --I already forgot 10:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic. --Guinnog 13:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all anyone who cared would be looking on Google, not Wikipedia anyway. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and remove OR and entries of questionable notability.--DorisHノート 19:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a list or uncyclopedic info Captain panda In vino veritas 00:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:NOT --Mhking 00:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - could go on forever. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 08:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if Kept or Deleted definitely No merge. - Francis Tyers · 12:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although this is often the case for the "x in popular culture" articles, these are obviously hiding their true title which should be "stuff about drug x we don't want to keep in the main article but don't really want to delete because some editors will keep adding it back". Actually, I firmly believe that as the quality of articles grows, people will give more and more second thought about adding a trivial reference to their favorite drug user in an otherwise perfectly encyclopedic article. Pascal.Tesson 03:31, 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 Merged. kingboyk 18:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sajdah[edit]

Two dictionary definitions, complete with the strangest/funkiest looking redirect I've ever seen. kingboyk 00:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect There is an article about this issue:Sujud--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well go ahead and do it and the AFD can be withdrawn. The articles can't stay as they are though, as they're just one line definitions. --kingboyk 05:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected it and we can move this AfD.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 05:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wonder if that redirect was ever used, aside from the link above. Realkyhick 06:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I redirected the first one but the second has remained. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 08:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no vote, because while I am sure it is a relevant topic, it lacks sources.--Sefringle 10:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD should be closed.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 14:32, 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. WjBscribe 08:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic place of Sajdah[edit]

Delete Arabic place of Sajdah per complete lack of content and sources.--Sefringle 10:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not remotely encyclopedic in its current form. I'd entertain an argument that it's a CSD:A1 candidate. A Train ^{take the} 16:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Almost no content, and the article doesn't seem to be notable. -- Wenli 17:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete there's probably a useful article to be written here - I've always wondered why that character's included in the Unicode set - but this isn't it. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Sajdah. --DorisHノート 19:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this subject is not yet suitable for Wikipedia. Mr. Berry 23:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable or encyclopedic. Really, it could be speedied if someone tryed. Captain panda In vino veritas 00:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, not encyclopedic --Mhking 00:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question before we remove it, can someone please explain to us why this should have a Unicode character in the first place? Sajdah redirects to Sujed, the Muslim practice of prostration in prayer, which does not seem relevant. Just what is "House of Sajed"? and why whould it have a character? Taking a wild guess, is it analogous to the conventional symbol for Sign of the Cross in Catholic prayer-books, indicating where one should make the sign of the cross-(a symbol which by the way is not used in that article) -- but why should it be "house of Sajdah"? DGG 18:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pure guess, but maybe it's used on maps in the Muslim world to indicate mosques? - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or develop I think the article should be kept. While it doesn't really qulaify for notability, I'm sure there's a lot to be said about the history of that character. I don't really think any typographical symbols have a lot to be said about, nontheless, there ought to be information available about them. There should be a mention or a description about that symbol somewhere in wikipedia, after all, if I crated this article in the first place, it's because I was intrested in knowing what that symbol was and I couldn't find it anywhere in wikipedia ! So yeah, if it HAS to be deleted, please make sure it is mentionned somewhere in an article what this symbol is. But the better would be if somebody could give more info about it. Dread Specter 02:23, 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 keep. Punkmorten 09:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Sunday[edit]

This article is entirely unreferenced. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 00:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep African Player of the Year - notable. Added some sources. EliminatorJR ^Talk 03:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If being named the best football player on an entire continent isn't notable, I don't know what is. But the article needs to be expanded. Realkyhick 06:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable, but is currently a very short stub- can be well expanded. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign! | review me} 08:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--I already forgot 10:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not sure what kind of reference the article needs, since it only states basic facts like date of birth, one former club and that the player won CAF player of the year award, which is a well-knwn fact. The article needs to be expanded though, unfortunately I haven't found any more information on the player so if anybody willing to help, that would be appreciated. None the less, once best football player in Africa definitely deserves a mention. User:BanRay
Keep but rewrite - It's notable but badly written. -- Wenli 17:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons stated. --ChaChaFut
- Comment:Entry has been copyedited and expanded. Please re-evaluate the deletion nomination based on its current status ---ChaChaFut 20:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 22:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played in the Bundesliga, the top professional league in Germany and one of the strongest leagues in Europe if not the world, thereby satisfying the requirements of WP:BIO even without taking the African Footballer of the Year award into account.....ChrisTheDude 22:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Mr. Berry 23:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject played in a continental tournament, and won African Footballer of the Year, which make him very definitely notable. Being unreferenced alone is merely grounds for improvement and review, not deletion. Qwghlm 23:54, 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 withdrawn by nominator. John254 23:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Maria Schenkel[edit]

This article is entirely unreferenced. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 00:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, can't be verified. Realkyhick 06:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is obviously the author of Tannod. Just need to give the article time for a German user to expand on the article. I don’t see why we need to delete articles about people from non native English speaking countries just because the refs are a little more difficult to dig up. Assuming good faith here.--I already forgot 10:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; notable author - but stubify until references can be found. A Train ^{take the} 16:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for her to be notable a third party has to say her book is important. (See WP:BIO Did it or she win any awards. Was it reviewed. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Publisher's Weekly[6] shows her as #2 in the German bestseller list so she's notable enough that it's likely a German-speaker will expand the article. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. --DorisHノート 20:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this person is suitable for Wikipedia. Mr. Berry 23:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The writer of a top bestseller in a major country is notable. --Charlene 01:38, 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 withdrawn by nominator. John254 22:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keiji Ozaki[edit]

This article is entirely unreferenced. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 01:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --I already forgot 10:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep World champion in a major sport, with 2500 Google hits. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. --DorisHノート 20:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It appears that references have been added. Dekimasu よ! 01:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it is only fair to say that when nominated for deletion it was really unreferenced by any standard.DGG 02:47, 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. Harryboyles 03:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TV Guide's List of the 50 Greatest TV Characters of All Time[edit]

Article about an article that appeared in TV Guide. Non-notable, only references to it are in blogs or trivial sources. Incidentally, if people create articles I think they should at least name them accurately, rather than an interpretation of the original (compare the title to the actual TV Guide cover).

(Similar to yesterday's nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 25 Most Controversial Movies Ever). Croxley 01:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio, if not speedied then delete as indiscriminate and lacking notability. Otto4711 02:17, 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. --Wafulz 21:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast Asia Imperial & Royal League[edit]

I think this page should be kept. It is about a verifiable (if not fashionable) political body, links to other appropriate articles, and documents a real cultural group about which Americans probably know little. I'm not really sure why it was included for deletion? Markwiki 20:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete no supporting only copies via googleBnguyen 19:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This AfD nomination appears to have never been listed properly. It is listed now – Qxz 01:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless verification can be shown. Even so, may not be notable. Realkyhick 06:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep about as informative as a stub gets, about a major organisation all of whose members are notable. Not sure where Bnguyen gets the "only copies via google" from; leaving out Wikipedia & answers.com I get 292,000 Google hits[7] including prominent mentions on the official websites of all the relevant royal families. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you search for the exact term, you get only 8+5 results[8][9]. utcursch | talk 12:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Iridescenti --DorisHノート 20:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination - the subject is not suitable for wikipedia until some kind of verification can be found. Mr. Berry 23:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mr.Berry Captain panda In vino veritas 00:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Artaxiad 21:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What exactly do they do? What is the agreement they signed? For all we can glean from the article and the lack of reliable sources, they meet to compare crowns and make Yul Brenner jokes. Caknuck 17:01, 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 Speedy keep large Australian company --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General Property Trust[edit]

Procedural listing, it was speedied without notification, which I disagree with, and hence restored it. However, I'm also not able to improve it beyond its present content, due to my lack of comprehension of the financial dailies and the like, although it *does* merit more as a large Australian corporate player - I created it as I was amazed it didn't have an article. The present version of the article is slightly better than the one that got speedied, but my main newspaper archive seems to have dropped AFR :(. I'll leave it for the community to decide what to do with it. Orderinchaos78 01:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my own reasoning above. Orderinchaos78 01:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Orderinchaos78 01:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; attributable, NPOV, notable. Hesperian 02:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable Australian company with references in Google News [10] and Google News Archive see [11]

Possible speedy keep as the nominator wants to keep it and no-one has favoured deleting it.Capitalistroadster 02:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep notable company, with a profit after tax of $A1.384 billion for 2006 [12], I'm surprised your struggling to find information. Gnan garra 02:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it's not information I'm struggling to find - I got 7900+ hits on Factiva at least 119 of which were in major Australian newspapers since November 2005 - it's comprehending them. I'm not a business person. :) Also the important stuff regarding Lend Lease and Stockland, and the history with Growth Equities Mutual during the 80s and early 90s, is not in there - it seems to be dead wood only now since AFR pulled most of its historical stuff out of Factiva :/ Orderinchaos78 02:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a keeper, definitely. $A 1 billion plus is definitely notable. Might need some fleshing out, though. Realkyhick 06:35, 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 No Consensus. There are arguments for deletion, merger, and retention; arguments for notability of the topic are persuasive, but should be documented better in the article by formal citation. It is unclear whether the article should be merged or kept as a stand-alone article based on arguments presented. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Box in a Box[edit]

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

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

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

This article is too umimportant, and having a million views on youtube doesn't change that and neither does it being a parody of a popular videoRodrigue 13:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails notability guidelines for web-content - mentions in published sources appear to be either trivial or non RS. --Colindownes 15:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. thecomedian 12:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete, relevent content, true facts, current pop culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.203.187 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-09 19:44:04
If this is deleted, then the Dick in a Box page should be deleted to. No one has tagged that yet. And the fact that this is tagged when the other one isn't means that the user that tagged this for deletion is probably misogynistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.135.31 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-10 22:35:15
- Delete:who ever said that last comment,Dick in a box is much more notable than this article for several reasons:It has more that ten times the amount of views,it was created by a well known broadcasting company,and more importantly,there are plenty of videos on youtube with one or two million views,and this is no different from the rest,but dick in a box is the 3rd most watched video,inlike most othersRodrigue 17:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Dick in a box is famous,and this version is proof of its fame,but it is not alone a notable subject for an article192.30.202.18 19:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of modern pop culture and should not be deleted. A pop cultural phenomenon on YouTube is no less "real" than one that originated on network TV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.135.162 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-12 00:54:56
Don't delete. This video, along with many others, are an important lesson in how social media and networks like YouTube, MySpace, and even Wikipedia, among others work. Just because it is a parody, doesn't make it unimportant. I would say the opposite is true. It shows how the right online content can propel communication across all forms of media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.172.170.80 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-13 22:28:19
Don't delete. Attracted national media attention (Olberman, MSNBC et. al.) User:Gerardw:Gerardw 19 March 2007
Yawn. Everyone wants to be famous. Trite. Useless. Ditch it. 21 March 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.53.116 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-22 02:52:00
Comment: This AfD nomination appears to have never been listed properly. It is listed now – Qxz 01:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added the not-a-ballot tag because I'm concerned that people have been rallied to vote. I am also concerned that there may be some sockpuppetry going on here. Pablothegreat85 01:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... if they were rallied to vote, it was two weeks ago. So I doubt there's much chance of a problem now. See the comment dates; as I said in my previous comment, the listing was incomplete – Qxz 08:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Dick in a Box as a parody. LaMenta3 02:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per LaMenta3. Realkyhick 06:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Suggest changing the internal link on Dick in a Box into an external link to the video. FiggyBee 07:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit it down to a sentence and merge with Viral video. PaddyM 16:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge per LaMenta 3. -- Win777 17:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pop culture trivia. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per LaMenta3. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BlueLotas 05:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge per LaMenta3 X96lee15 15:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. This is a good example of the power of new technologies. You Tube allows ordinary people with limited resources to produce a parody of works (SNL Dick in the Box) produced by multibillion dollar companies. Before the advent of such technologies, the likelyhood of such a parody succeeding would be non existent. This article documents the effect of technologies such as You Tube on the evolution of the media. --Dan 20:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC) — Danbeck0208 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
merge per LaMenta3 - insert a sentance into Dick in a Box Cornell Rockey 13:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable internet meme that passes WP:WEB. As to those that are saying "merge per LaMenta3," who only really said "merge as a parody," how is that even an argument. Where is there consensus that being a parody is grounds to merge anything on Wikipedia. Where, for example, do we merge "Weird Al" Yankovic? Essentially I am contending that nothing resembligna reason for merging or deleting has yet been given. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge per LaMenta3 -- It's a spoof on a spoof. I'm sure there were videos made spoofing this one, but do they need their own article? No, not popular enough. This one is, but it's still based entirely on Dick in a Box--just needs a subsection. Mouse 21:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one wrote aan article on them, though. Back to the point, though, why does this only need a subsection? youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 23:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:WEB criterion 1. Major blogs, Philadelphia papers, MSNBC. She got her picture in Rolling Stone for this. How is this non-notable? Matt Fitzpatrick 06:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge... yet. It's ~~premature in an AfD discussion, and~~ probably generating a big compromise effect already. ~~Merging and deletion need to be considered in their own time, in their own space, according to their own criteria.~~ There are certain reasons for merging, but I haven't seen any of those reasons mentioned so far on this page. Merge shouldn't be used as a synonym for weak delete. Matt Fitzpatrick 06:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Honestly, I had heard of this a few weeks ago and when I saw this on AFD, I was expecting to vote the other direction as a cheap Dick in a Box knockoff. I did not realize that this has received so much direct and very non-trivial coverage such that I can only give this a firm and solid endorsement to keep. RFerreira 05:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SakotGrimshine 16:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per outstanding non-trivial coverage, i.e. Rolling Stone, MSNBC, and major newspapers. Burntsauce 20:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article does not strictly fail any of the notability guidelines; the Wikipedia "be liberal" pillar prevails here I think. Notability is very relative and this video would certainly be classed as notable in the university student community and I suspect other similar groups. This alone is sufficient rational for a keep decision on my part. 24.226.31.7 20:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dick in a box as a separate sub section. Berserkerz Crit 19:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? This isn't a vote but rather a discussion. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 00:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh I know? That's why my opinion on this discussion is that it be merged as a sub section. It doesn't deserve it's own article. Did you want me to say Delete instead? Berserkerz Crit 21:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care how anyone feels as long as they back it up. Specifically, does it fail WP:WEB? youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 22:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well duh I would say Keep if it didn't fail WP:WEB. It's just a parody of the original more popular skit. It's millions of views are credited to the original because no one would watch that if they didn't want to see the original parodied. It fails WP:NOTE and WP:WEB so it's still Merge. Berserkerz Crit 20:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - a video on YouTube. Has the coverage been of a nature that we can be certain anyone will care 3 months from now? Is this bigger than the Paris Hilton sex tape? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 19:54, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Lincoln[edit]

Non-notable. It seems to be an article about one joke made on one episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I can't find any reference to Jesus Lincoln anywhere else. Mysdaao 01:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete As nom says, just a punchline to a single joke. Jon Stewart makes up a silly name on TV and someone has to create an article about it? Jesus... Lincoln. Croxley 02:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not-notable and it isn't necessary to make an article about every single thing--$UIT 05:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Does every Jon Stewart joke deserve its own article? For the love of Jimbo, no! Realkyhick 06:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Kill~~ - Delete - One person's idea of comic relief is not Wikipedia's idea of an article. Sfacets 11:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty obviously useless — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevRagnarok (talk • contribs) 19:00, 24 March 2007
Delete per above. Captain panda In vino veritas 00:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Nonsense again. Artaxiad 21:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nail to a stick in a theater. 'nuff said. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:12, 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. I verified the existence of several news articles establishing notability by adding links to them in the reference set. Notability according to Wikipedia:Notability (music) established. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Herstand[edit]

No mention of why he is notable. No references, and has only released independent albums. Google search results came back with a relatively small amount. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since this, this and this media mentions establish that for one: the band is real & we would have enough reliable & independent sources to create an article with. Mr. Berry 01:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply does not meet the minimum criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (music). A few local paper reviews (as noted above), a live set at a local club, and an indy release do not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Come back when at least one of the criteria is met. Akradecki 03:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Akradecki. --TM 04:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable enough (yet). Realkyhick 06:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His music has been played on MTV, he has been positively reviewed by the Grammy winning producer Kevin Bowe and a national paper (arts section of The Onion), as well as numerous local papers spanning numerous states. He has played at two national music festivals (Austin, TX's SXSW and Milwaukee, WI's Summerfest) of which musicians like Guster, John Mayer, Jamie Cullum, and Hanson have played at. He has played with major label artists such as Matt Nathanson (March 30th, '07), Joshua Radin (who is on the Grey's Anatomy soundtrack), Sandi Thom, Schuyler Fisk, and This World Fair at more intimate settings and he has also played trumpet at Carnegie Hall. He has fused a new genre of music (Folk/Hop) which has started to spread among other indy artists. The person who wants to delete this article has simply not done their research (there are over 10,000 articles for the search "Ari Herstand" in quotes on Google, this may seem small, however, Herstand is the only "Ari Herstand" in the world). Though he is an independent artist, his vast number of performances at the aforementioned major venues as well the widespread acknowledgment of his success as a musician (every single newspaper article being positive) makes him a notable addition to Wikipedia. I can provide more evidence if needed for all of my above statements. In response to Akradecki: according to Wikipedia:Notability (music) he meets the central criterion of notability, namely, "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." Your case is therefore completely null and void.HighOnYou 07:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/response The problem here is that you don't seem to understand how things work at Wikipedia. You said "The person who wants to delete this article has simply not done their research", but our policies make it very clear that it is your responsibility to do the research, not the person nominating it for deletion. The burden of demonstrating notability is up to you when you write the article, and you didn't bother to put any of the above detailed information into the article. Notability is based on what's actually in the article, not on all the stuff you leave out. Re-write the article, detail what you've said here, back it with citations and I'll be happy to change my "delete" to a "keep". Again, and this is really important for you to understand, it's your job to do the research and properly document how the article's subject meets our notability criteria within the article, not here! Akradecki 13:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Then why isn't any of it sourced? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I apologize that when I made the page I solely put links to newspaper articles on the bottom without incorporating their contents in citations. I will work on that, however, these facts are not made up and this page does not need to be put up for deletion because of a sloppy article. An unreferenced tag would suffice. Do you mind if I change the tag to {{unreferenced | date=March 2007}} until better citations are added?HighOnYou 07:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with Edits: If citations can be made for the Summerfest concert and use of the artists music on the Real World, I would say that this musician has proven national credibility. A resume with those features would get him somewhere; however, I will agree that the citations for this work need to be included. I would not agree with a delete for this page. If citations cannot be brought forward in a reasonable amount of time, say two weeks I would then suggest deletion Themaskeddrummer 13:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability.--Bryson 02:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - References have been added and notability has been established. HighOnYou 12:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the 7 references added since the AFD was started (see diff). Sources do not have to be from international newspapers to count. -- Black Falcon 22:46, 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 delete. WjBscribe 07:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of worship centers in Lake Charles, Louisiana[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory. Croxley 01:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ISNOTYELLOWPAGES EliminatorJR ^Talk 03:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious violation of WP:NOT. Noroton 06:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, per all above. Not even close to being notable. If this is notable, so is the membership list of the Noon Rotary Club of Fungus Creek, Tennessee. Realkyhick 06:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best, a directory entry and Wikipedia is not a directory. (Worship centre? What a phrase! How PC can you get?) Emeraude 14:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. -- Wenli 17:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP != YP. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A simple list of churches is not encyclopedic. — ERcheck (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per statements made above. Does not belong on wiki.--Bryson 02:13, 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 broken beyond repair. The page had been moved to an non-existent userpage; to clean all of this mess up, the page has been moved to a user subpage of the creator, and the four or so redirects along the way have been tagged for speedy deletion. As it is now a user subpage, it is pointless to continue this discussion here. If you want to nominate the user subpage for deletion, you may do so at MfD. Instead, I advise that we educate our creator how she can improve that would-be article to a status worthy of Wikipedia. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haruko Lisa Haruhara[edit]

I'm not really sure what this is; it's pretty confusing, but it seems to be some kind of vanity article presented as fiction, created by a user with the same name as the article. Masamage 03:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will make note of this article more clearly on what it's about. This is a tribute to Haruko. Please do not remove this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haruko Lisa Haruhara (talk • contribs)
- Please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~). The actress for Haruko from FLCL was Mayumi Shintani, and the actress for Chibiusa from Sailor Moon was Kae Araki, so I am confused in general. --Masamage 03:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I'm aware of this, this is not about the voice actor/actress. However, voice acter/actress name will be added as a part of improving this article. Please give me 24 hours improve the whole article. Any suggestions from you will be very much appreciated before editing/fixing. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haruko Lisa Haruhara (talk • contribs)
    - Like all AFDs, this discussion will go on for about a week. --Masamage 03:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fictional biography of a fictional person who played other fictional persons... no wonder the poor nominator was confused :) ◄Zahakiel ► 04:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, article updated! Please go to Haruko Lisa Haruhara to read updated version. This should clear up most of the confusion. Please notify if any confusion spots that need to be explain in the article in more detail. Thanks. Updated as of March 23rd, 2007 at 10:22 PM PDT Haruko 05:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~). --Masamage 05:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And never remove or edit other people's comments, even when you have taken care of their concerns. --Masamage 06:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it's good that someone did a great job on making a fictional article. Whoever did this, also stated the names of the voice actors/actresses and developers. He/she also said to give them credit. I think it's very creative! I can understand what the objective of this article is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.231.22 (talk • contribs)
- Please note that this anonymous user has just spent the evening adding nonsense to the Characters of FLCL article. --Masamage 06:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do anon contributions count towards AfD's? UnfriendlyFire 05:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The lead pretty much sums it up: an article based on creativity. Fails WP:NOR and WP:MADEUP. UnfriendlyFire 05:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see were you are coming from. He/she may have did some editing to an exsiting article, however, I do not know what addtional info was added to that existing article, so I cannot not personally call it non-sense, whoever did that. As of this debate in this created article, I can see some work put into it and he/she is not calling it his/her own. If you go to "references" section in the article, you can see the names of the real people that drew the fictional people and the voice actors/actress as well. Due to the information I see in the article stating to the public that this is all fictional and is trying to explain the detail about it to the best of his/hers ability, I would say, keep the article. Lets give this one a chance and see what happens once this debate is closed. Lets see if this person abuses his/hers privilege of making an fictional article, offical on this site to it's own category. But, hey, this is my personal comment regarding this. Many of you may see it differently than I. ChrisRB 06:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this is this user's only edit. --Masamage 06:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - So are you saying the user that made up the article is doing edits to everyone else's comments based off this? ChrisRB 06:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only pointing out that you're new. The administrators who make the judgment on these discussions may or may not decide to take it into account; sometimes only established users' votes are counted. That's policy. --Masamage 06:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. And by what means is established mean? Does it go by how long have you been with the site? ChrisRB 06:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin, but I think it is left up to their individual discretion according to the person's edit history and past contributions. --Masamage 06:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I can see this user has to be a big fan of FLCL. I give whoever credit on the possible time that was spent, but I can see why this should be deleted, or should it? I'm more of a computer guy, so I'm not good and making calls on this. I only go by My own personal actions. When was this article made anyways? I've been on this site before and I know what show Haruko is from, but the info provided on ths new article is not true? or is it? I guess I'll just have to search for sources to answer my question. Anyway, I know this is maybe out of topic, but can I use HTML and Java code to build my page? ChrisRB 06:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This particular article, as it says at the top, is not true. Visit the Welcome page for detailed info on using Wikipedia. --Masamage 06:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The opening sentence says, This is a fictional article. Huh? Why is it on Wikipedia, then? Realkyhick 06:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. I see cartoon people on wiki, and their fictional. Is this article the same? I mean, please explain the two differences. ChrisRB 06:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the notability guidelines, especially the one about fiction: "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance." The subject of this article has no real-world historical significance. --Masamage 06:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Now, I have another question. Lets say I'm doing a project that has been copyright by me, and I want to make an article about it. Can I do so without it be in the same shoes as this article I'm seeing now? I will not bug any of you anymore for such info, lol. As for the fictional deal, I see now. So this fictionl character maybe getting deleted due to the fact of it not being his own character profile and 2. Because this character is an FLCL character, yet different profile, it will be deleted casue of it. ChrisRB 07:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's generally frowned-upon to make an article about something you created because of the inherent conflict of interest. If what you made is famous enough to merit an article, someone else will eventually write one for you. And no, this article is up for deletion for reasons that have nothing to do with copyright or ownership. It's more because it is about a fictional creation that is not famous or influential in the grand scheme of things. FLCL gets an article because it is important and well-known. This actress-character is not. It seems shallow, I know, but that's how the policy works. Wikipedia is a big thing and there have to be some qualifications about what gets in, otherwise everybody and their imaginary friend would have an article, and it would be impossible to find any solid information. --Masamage 07:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What in God's name is this junk? Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. JuJube 08:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said earlier, it's just a major fan more likely. ChrisRB 08:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, 99.999% of fanfiction is not notable and this is no exception. --Kunzite 16:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Non-notable and admittedly a vanity piece ("tribute to Haruko" - see above) by creator (who, coincidentally, shares same name).Jill Teed 17:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's now been moved into a nonstandard userspace, leaving behind double redirects. --Masamage 21:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note The author moved the article to various locations. It's at User:Haruko Lisa Haruhara1 now. JuJube 22:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete what is left-- a redirect to a redirect to a page in userspace. Leave the userspace page alone. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The userspace should probably at least be moved. Right now it's the main page of a user that doesn't exist. --Masamage 04:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move the main page of the user that doesn't exist to a user subpage of the article author, but make sure the article author knows what's going on when this happens so this isn't repeated. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll help by moving it to said user page and tagging the redirects for speedy deletion. Once that's done, I'll close this discussion as "broken beyond repair." Sound good? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:51, 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 and protect, closed early per unanimous consensus (and 5 previous speedy deletions). For future reference, the article in its entirety read: "Xbox 720 is a possible name for Microsoft's upcoming console, which will be the successor to the Xbox 360, and is expected to be released in the 2010 - 2011 time frame." Sandstein 20:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox 720[edit]

The Xbox 360 has been out only a little over a year. It will probably be 4-5 before any actual info about its successor comes out. Let's wait until then, instead of making random claims. Theshoestore 03:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. And I think you mean 'successor'. :) --Masamage 03:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.There, I fixed it..oops ;)-- Theshoestore 03:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There's no references saying that it's coming out in 2010 and no references saying it will even be called the Xbox 720. Until references are found, I say delete. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 04:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Unexplainedbacon 04:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically unsourced speculation. The name of the console could equally well be "Professor Hubert Q. Gates' Magical Virtual Entertrainment Contraption". Lankiveil 04:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and I demand that the Encyclopedia add an article for Professor Hubert Q. Gates' Magical Virtual Entertrainment Contraption immediately. No, seriously, delete what the heck. --Haemo 05:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Protect The article has been deleted 5 times before [13]. When the next Xbox (and its name) is unveiled, it can be unprotected (assuming they use such a stupid name). TJ Spyke 05:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT and WP:CRYSTAL. Resolute 05:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per above. MER-C 05:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt. per about a half dozen criteria. Realkyhick 06:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Considering there is now considerable talk about the new Xbox 360 black coming out in the next few months, a new case and enhancements to the current one, I don't think Microsoft are dedicating themselves to a new machine in the near future. Completely made up. Ben W Bell talk 07:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. "Possible name?". Thats not even verifiable --KZ ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 10:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 15:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unverifiable claim. -- Wenli 17:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good Lord. Not even the name of the console is verifiable. The one-sentence article is speculative crystalballery. Pablothegreat85 18:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:V and WP:RS (no sources whatsoever) and also clearly violates WP:NOT a crystal ball. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:36, 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 02:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salisbury Manor[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable building. Less than 100 ghits, and many of those that exist seem to be for an apartment building in New York City. Lankiveil 04:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.[14] Such structures are generally considered notable because this is a peer-reviewed designation. Offline sources surely exist. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough to keep based on being in NRHP. --Seattle Skier (talk) 06:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A National Register designation makes it pretty much automatic for me. Realkyhick 06:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:NN. --KZ ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 10:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Registered historic landmark. --Oakshade 21:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the State Historic Preservation Officer found the building notable enough to nominate it for the National Register, and the National Register approved it, then it's notable enough for Wikipedia. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:11, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vortekz[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion by 198.138.41.54, with this message: non-notable indy wrestler; if for some reason this page does not qualify for speedy deletion, could somebody please put it up for afd? I can't because I don't have an account and don't wish to make one. Thank you. I'm not sure it is speedyable, so I'm bringing it here as asked. No opinion from me. – Qxz 04:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Unless it gets some sources and a good cleanup. --Theshoestore 04:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No sources, smells faintly of a hoax. Realkyhick 06:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - not a hoax [15] but nothing to indicate he's achieved any more than any other pro wrestler. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo/fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:00, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scalent Server Repurposing Software[edit]

Appears to be promotional material for a non-notable product. Only ghits for "Scalent Server Repurposing Software" or "Server Repurposing Software" seem to refer back to Wikipedia. Lankiveil 04:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ah, the great taste of Spam!. (I though I already speedied this once.) Realkyhick 06:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:SPAM - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability.--Bryson 02:19, 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 Deleted by Sandestein Speedy deleted per (CSD g12), was a blatant copyright infringement

Scott Newton (Philanthropist)[edit]

Reads like promotional material for a non-notable realtor Lankiveil 04:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - copyvio from [16]. MER-C 06:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Definite copyvio as per above, and not notable either. --Seattle Skier (talk) 06:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, copyvio and not notable. Realkyhick 06:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Advertisement/vanity. Though if he was really born in 1970 and graduated from college in 1984, that might be notable. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SD copyvio. Fails WP:V too.. --KZ ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 10:01, 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Central High School (Erie, Pennsylvania)[edit]

nn school,no attributed sources, no assertion of notability. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article basically just says that the school exists. TJ Spyke 05:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable school--$UIT 05:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all high schools are notable, as I argue here, and there's some good information in the infobox. Noroton 05:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Until guidelines are changed, high schools are pretty much automatically notable, though this is still subject to debate. Realkyhick 06:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To the above two posters. Do you know how policy and guideline works? Explain how it passes WP:N or any other guideline/policy? If they don't, then the article must go. God I hate people who say that BS that "all high schools are notable". WRONG, they have to proove why they are notable. TJ Spyke 07:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we use the ancient and honorable WP:IAR provision of our Wikipediology to !vote in deletion discussions. Somehow, somehow most high school articles stay in the picture at the end of the discussion. Must be divine intervention. My humble essay actually says something about that. When I get a little less busy, I hope to make a proposal about schools which I hope will bring around Wikipedia written policy to something closer to what Wikipedians actually want, or at least what we actually do (or maybe some fine Wikipedian will do it first). Then we can all bend down and worship that idol. Seriously, you make a good point, but WP:IAR is policy and maybe that's what allows practice to outpace policy writing. By the way, where did we put that rule that allows small towns to have articles without passing WP:N? Noroton

Comment I will lead that genuflection, N. It would certainly be a great benefit to the community to have a consistent policy on schools we could all live with. --Butseriouslyfolks 00:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as per Noroton above, high schools are notable within their local area. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Sufficiently notable. — RJH (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 20:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep for the academic championship. 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. This one has it. I think a school with an academic championship is more notable than one with a great basketball program, but this particular contest is only fought in 39 states, hence the weak in my keep. --Butseriouslyfolks 00:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete Actually Noroton said it exactly: "most high school articles stay ." Most, but not all. I do not see how one can use the true statement that most stay in, to deduce that all stay in, or that all should. . What we should be trying to do is to find the guidelines on their merits so we don't have to start from the beginning each time, and all understand what clearly is and what clearly isn't, and only need to discuss the borderline ones. Saying that all should stay in (or out) makes it impossible to even discuss guidelines.

This one is borderline. The 2 championships might show some notability, except that they are not documented. they could be, I think. . The other Erie high school articles show that more content can often be found. I'll change to weak keep if there's any non-trivial 3rd party RS. GreatSchools is not a RS for notability: beyond recording the state Dept of Ed data, it "allows principals to add a great deal of additional information about curriculum, programs, activities, school vision and leadership." That is, it consists of directory data plus self-advertising. It is a convenient RS for the directory data, so as not to need finding the official state basic information. To list Central High School Official Website, Erie School District Profile of Central High, and Central High's main Web page at Great Schools Web site is one source, not three--and all of them good only for the directory information. DGG 03:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:N. Xarr 13:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn school. Eusebeus 18:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Noroton. --Masterpedia 02:14, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Car Experts[edit]

Some industry-specific notability alleged, but seems to be mostly V/advertisement. Sneftel 05:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only mention of notability comes from a crystal ball article in a non-notable magazine, and the site reads too much like a company profile aimed at promoting. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spammy. Looks like their PR firm wrote this. Realkyhick 06:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like advertising. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Boy, when you people said it looked like advertising, you sure hit the nail on the head. This totally reads like something the PR department would type up and distribute to potential clients. The text is to an encyclopedia article as an infomercial is to a documentary. (Krushsister 23:54, 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 No consensus, defaulting to keep. Many of the 'Keep' arguments are not terribly strong, but the point that it appears to meet WP:MUSIC is well made. While sourcing could be improved, it does seem likely that more reliable sources will be available in the reasonably near future. Shimeru 16:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blaqk Audio[edit]

Not notable per WP:MUSIC, no third-party, reliable sources. RJASE1 ^Talk 06:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. blaqk audio is awesome!
Delete, maybe even speedy. When all your sources are your own Myspace, your own blogs and your own web site, you're likely not notable. Realkyhick 06:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Blaqk Audio certainly is notable - it's a project run by two members of AFI, a band that has reached the number one spot within the United States, and garned considerable attention elsewhere. Frontman Davey Havok is a notable figure. That, I believe, satisfies the criterion that a notable band "Contain at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable."

The Blaqk Audio project has been bubbling underground for around six years. Entering Blaqk Audio into google heralds [over 26,000 Results]. They have, as of this post, [10,041 myspace friends]. Their first song, released only eleven days ago, has achieved almost ninety thousand hits on their [Myspace]. The release of that song has been documented on many other sites not run and maintained by the band members: [17], [18], [19], [20] are all examples. I appreciate that it does not satisfy the criteria in that the band has not released a studio album yet, but Havok himself has stated that the album should be released in the summer of 2007. At the very least, this should form part of the AFI page, but then it will only need to be re-expanded when the album is released.

It's worth noting (per the suggestions under AfD Wikietiquette) that I am currently the primary author of the article (although I did not create it.) I appreciate that I'm new to Wikipedia and I don't understand how everything is run, but I do believe that this is a useful article, and one that will continue to grow and prove useful. Mnesimache 07:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that article should be kept. Blaqk Audio is signed to Interscope Records, as stated by the Administrator of the Official AFI Message Board and the Official AFI fanclub, the Despair Faction, meaning that an album will be released in due time. In addition to what Mnesimache has mentioned, this project has been predetermined and expected for quite some time, portraying its longevity. It has been hosted on VH1.comin 2003, and again in 2004, provided by MTV News. Punknews.org has also posted various updates on Blaqk Audio project, including mentions in September 2003 (referring to an article in Rolling Stone), February 2007, and again in March 2007. Furthermore, the project has been mentioned in various other printed magazines, including Alternative Press (June 2006 issue) and Guitar World (August 2006 issue). Regardless, even if it is decided that this article should be deleted, it will definitely be reposted once the CD is released and once the project is further noted by the media. Stellaaa 17:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)— Stellaaa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'd like to further point out Blaqk Audio's credibility by linking to Blaqk Audio merchandise offered by Cinderblock, a major music artist merchandise company that sells products for a wide variety of other creditable bands (see list here). Ergo Blaqk Audio is a legitimate project. Stellaaa 17:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN, and no doubt about that. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 21:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo/fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Article!In my oppinion the article now gives a lot of information about Blaqk Audio, the begining of the project, the new song, the upcoming album.It also hasa paragraphs, external links and references.It's a good article.Also Blaqk Audio will be very successful project and should have its own article in wikipedia.Xr 1 19:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.This article should definitely be kept. It has improved greatly since it was first created. As the above users stated, this page will just be recreated once the album comes out. The group does have notable members. This article is useful because it provides information. It is not just some fan created article with just spam; the info is presented a knowledgable way. I agree with Mnesimache in that the article should at least be moved to the AFI page. Lizzysama 23:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See other comments for my reason why. DavidJJJ 12:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Discounting myspace and blogs as reliable sources, we are left only with a non-independent press release and an article in Rolling Stone that only mentions Blaqk Audio trivially. I was unable (in a cursory search) to find other sources to prove the subject's notability. -- Black Falcon 22:50, 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 no consensus. WjBscribe 08:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PPStream (2nd nomination)[edit]

Fails WP:WEB, I don't see a reason for notablility here. Has already been deleted once in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PPStream —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 06:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, strike two, same pitch. It's no more notable now than then. Realkyhick 06:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt the earth. Reads and feels like an advertisement. MaxSem 09:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Possibly not in great use in the US, this is very popular in Europe. Additionally, I am unable to find any sort of discussion anywhere with regards to improving the article. AfD is a last resort, not a first option. Cloveoil 13:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above, incredibly popular software in Europe, especially for watching football matches that aren't being screened live. Google isn't notability, but PPStream returns 3 million hits, and even 'PPStream Football' over 56,000. The problem is sourcing, as a lot of articles are either reviews of the software, forums, blogs, or in Chinese, but I found [21], [22] & [23] in a couple of minutes, and there's probably a lot more. EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is one of the most ubiquitous pieces of software in Europe & certainly notable. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two "sources" above are blogs, third one is trivial. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, its mentioned in at least one scientific paper [24]. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:04, 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. We cannot cobble an article together on the basis that a number of artists have called themselves "DJ Mystik"- it must be shown that one or more such artist is notable. If necessary this page could one day be a disambiguation page. However the notability of the artist presently described under that title (in terms of WP:BAND) has not been established. WjBscribe 08:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Mystik[edit]

This article is about a DJ whom no verifiable or attributable information is available, failing WP:ATT/WP:V. Searching google for the phrases "tony tran" and "dj mystik" yields only Wikipedia and mirrors. Googling without phrases just brings up thousands of unrelated results. As is, there are no sources cited in the article. It doesn't seem he was ever signed to any labels or had any media coverage, so delete as failing WP:BAND and verifiability in general. Wickethewok 07:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a long list and a one line bio of a minor DJ who article admits hasn't worked for 6 years. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Weak Keep Records are available for purchase online, and artist has a current MySpace page and listing on Last.FM. Bio information on both sites is nearly identical to the WP entry (the MySpace page is a word for word copy). Brief review of genre albums (Happy Hardcore) reveals some use of tracks by this artist. If further information can be found, this article should be kept.Revpfil 22:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo, unsubstantiated. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid topic - but ... probably not a valid nomination for deletion. The unverifiable bio info should be moved to the talk page until it is sourced correctly. Deletion means that no article for DJ Mystik should ever be written, which in this case is not right since this artist clearly does exist and appears on CDs for sale in North America, Korea and Europe, which meets WP notability standards - it IS verifiable that the artist exists (a quick check shows that even I have had about a dozen or so DJ Mystik tune remixes on my iPod for a few years) - Davodd 11:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the complete lack of sources (failing WP:ATT)? And how does having CDs for sale mean he's notable. Also, please note that there are many DJs who use the name "DJ Mystik" - a quick Google search brings up one in Belgium, one in California, and one in New Mexico and thats just on the first two pages of Google hits. There are no reliable sources on any of them. Wickethewok 13:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Articles for deletion is for articles that NEVER should be on Wikipedia. A vote to delete effectivle bans any future DJ Mystik articles. Your complaint is easily fixed by removing the unverifiable content and making the article a stub. A visit to various .torrent sites, [25] [26] [27] [28] shows that DJ Mystik tunes are being downloaded. It looks to me that all of our research has verified a few things:

That more than one person claims the name "DJ Mystik"
That Music has exists ('sic')for a decade or so from "DJ Mystik"
That "DJ Mystik" tunes are available right now on many bittorrent sites (isn't this a crime?)
That we do not now have the ability to verify any biographical facts about who "DJ Mystik" is, although we can verify that the music exists

I am under the opinion that as a TOPIC, DJ Mystik is a valid Wikipedia article. As for the current entry - it has many fatal flaws. But that doesn't warrant an all-out ban on an article (which voting to delete effectively does). All of our issues can be remedied with a non-deletion route (always preferable in WIkipedia) by a CLEANUP in making the article a stub until some future editor has the ability and resources to flesh it out properly. Davodd 18:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think cleanup is possible as I don't think any information is available anywhere. I assure you that if no one can find any information on something, that IS a reason for deletion. Also, AFD does not "ban" articles. If sources are found in the future, the article can be simply be put up again, you don't even have to go through DRV or anything. Wickethewok 18:55, 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. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Craig[edit]

Concerns over notability Sfacets 07:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per WP:BIO, unless independent sources demonstrating notability are added. The article has been tagged for quite a while, and the refs are still to Craig's self-published website. MastCell ^Talk 17:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a Google search on "Gary Craig", and was unable to find any information other than what is on his self-published website, and small articles by other EFT practitioners. WatchAndObserve 19:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam spam spam spam spam spam eggs tomatoes bacon and spam. Hi Mr Craig. Please seek your free advertising elsewhere. Tnx a lot. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gary Craig is an important person, just look at the size of the following. even if you dont like, take notice. Ben Meijer 18:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Rather than WP:ILIKEIT and IDONTTHINKYOULIKEIT, we need independent sources demonstrating his notability in accordance with WP:BIO. MastCell ^Talk 20:33, 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 Keep. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Comics Journal interview subjects[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory or an index of tables of contents of publications. Otto4711 07:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm a long-time reader of the Journal, and have found this list useful. Perhaps it could be expanded with interesting quotes, or merged with the Comics Journal article Rhinoracer 14:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violates WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Useful to some editors it may be but it does not belong here. Perhaps it could be rewritten and expanded into a list of issues and their main themes/interviews but even in that context I feel it may not belong here. Robbielatchford 14:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Journal's interviews are themselves notable-- even TCJ enemy Harlan Ellison conceded that they were the equivalent of the Playboy interviews. They are remarkable documents.

This article can usefully be expanded, but as it stands I see it as a good, encyclopedian resource.

The person who nominated this article for deletion, against all policy, hasn't bothered to justify his nomination.

I will give him 24 hours to do so, after which I shall take down the AFD template.

It is interesting to note the timing of this AFD, in light of the current lawsuit by Harlan Ellison in large part over a TCJ interview. What a coincidence. Rhinoracer 21:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith regarding the reason Otto nominated this for deletion. I see no indication that he is doing so in relation to Ellison's suit. Also, please do not remove AfD templates from articles. This will not change the fact that there is a nomination, it will just prevent visitors to the page from being aware that this discussion is taking place. ~CS 00:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That said: Weak Keep. The Comics Journal is as close as comics have to a scholarly journal, and its interviews are a significant (arguably, renowned) part of that. Although I agree with many of the delete votes that the article in its current state is inappropriate, I can't help but feel that improving the article -- perhaps so that it is no longer a list -- is the direction to go with this one. ~CS 00:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the consensus is that this shouldn't be an article, I would suggest that it become a Wikiproject Comics project page instead. It could be very useful to people looking for sources for comics-related articles. —Cel ithemis 00:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure what the process would be, but this suggestion seems like a good idea to me. This seems like something that would fit in neatly as a directory to complement the project's sections on reliable resources for comics articles. ~CS 01:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ Comment (see later comment) I really can see the value of this, but I can't see it fitting the format, guidelines, and policies that are in place. Even as a "Project protected reference/resource page" I can't see this fitting. If someone could point out a ref to the process/precedent for that type of page, I'll support moving this, but otherwise, it'll, reluctantly, need to go. — J Greb 01:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is an established process, as such, but there are existing pages in Wikipedia space devoted to helping people find sources for articles; Wikipedia:Newspapers and magazines request service and Wikipedia:Research resources come to mind.

Why would lack of precedent be a problem, anyway? Helping members do research for articles is an obviously useful thing for a Wikiproject to do. It helps the encyclopedia, so why not do it? —Cel ithemis 03:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's a much closer analogy: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Magazines. —Cel ithemis 03:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My main reason for wanting examples/precedent pointed out in this case is that I wouldn't want this being moved attacked as an attempt by editors to save a page they "like" that doesn't belong on Wiki.
That being said, Video games/Magazines is a good example for moving this to a Comics sub-page. But in moving this a few other things would need to be addressed:

Page title. The title would need to be tweaked.
Layout. It needs to be converted from a bullet list to a table.
Information. While the subject and issue number are a good start, it should be like an expanded footnote/reference with the interviewer, month/year, and page(s). The title, if it's something other than "Interview wit..." should be there also.

That would also set it up for expansion to a list covering TCJ contents in general, if there is such a desire.
- J Greb 03:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody STRONG Keep. This is useful to researchers. This is useful information. This is entirely in keeping with the point of Wikipedia. There is no better reason to delete given here than "I don't like it". You know what? Tough. This is an extension of the article on the Journal, and were it a category people would say listify. It's solid, sourced information that is utilised by scholars. It does not violate WP:NOT in any shape, manner or form. I would note the people who are trying to force their opinion through with the claim that it violates Wikipedia_is not an indiscriminate collection of information miss the vital point that policy makes, that "there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries". The section even goes on to detail the only areas that have consensus, none of which this list meets. WP:NOT asks us to consider what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia. I would suggest this article fits the bill. You don't personally happen to like it? Ignore it. Edit your style sheet to pretend it doesn't exist. But don't delete it. It's information which is of use. Hiding Talk 14:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know what would be really useful? If someone would index my cookbooks so I can find recipes by ingredient without having to search through them all. Now that would be useful. It would also be, like this info dump of an index, completely unencyclopedic. --Calton | Talk 06:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know where your argument ceases to bear any relationship to mine? It's when you refer to "your cookbooks". Hiding Talk 18:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. God almighty, what an info dump. Let Comics Journal have it. --Calton | Talk 06:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christ yes, let's get rid of all this pesky info that's dumping the place up. Hiding Talk 18:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though the list needs plenty of expansion (like, in my opinion, at least the dates of the issues). This looks like it meets our Wikipedia:List guideline and has potential to meet the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. Is there any precedent for deleting such lists? The idea behind this list seems fairly consistent with such lists as List of SLAM Magazine cover athletes, List of celebrities who have appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine, List of people in Playboy 1990-1999, etc. --Dragonfiend 06:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable magazine and an academic source. The Journal is a respected, quality publication with a solid history in comics journalism and criticism, an its interview subjects (such as the likes of Robert Crumb, Harvey Kurtzman etc.) are definitely more notable than the list of people in Playboy. Counterrestrial 06:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, it is useful but I think something needs doing with it as it stands. Possibly best discussed on the Comics Project talk page after this deletion is decided. (Emperor 19:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
A few notes - First, to the person who's accusing me of colluding with Harlan Ellison, rest assured that I have no knowledge of said suit. The lawsuit or lack of same has nothing to do with this nomination and the notion that a lawsuit could somehow be influenced by the existence or non-existence of a list of interview subjects is ludicrous. Second, I have explained the reason for the nomination, which is that Wikipedia is not a directory. That a number of people were interviewed by the same publication does not create the sort of association that would warrant an article. Compliance with WP:LIST, which is a guideline and not policy, is irrelevant if the list itself fails WP:NOT, which is policy. Third, It's useful is an incredibly poor reason for keeping an article. All sorts of things that all sorts of people find useful get deleted off Wikipedia every day. Finally, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is also a horrible reason for keeping an article. If other articles which don't meet Wikipedia policy and guidelines exist, then the proper response to them is to deleted them, not to point to them in an attempt to save other non-compliant articles. Otto4711 12:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, "Is there any precedent for deleting such lists?" I'm all for setting a precedent if necessary, but I don't believe you've made any sort a case that this list fails WP:NOT, or that other similar lists fail WP:NOT. This list seems as much like a directory as any other list or category. Is there any reason you feel that this particular list fails WP:NOT? Do you feel that the other lists I mentioned or List of Oklahoma birds or List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry or List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes also ought to be deleted? --Dragonfiend 16:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you could list off a million different list articles and none of them have any relevance to whether or not this article should be kept. However, I have in fact put a couple of the lists you posted up earlier for deletion. Do I have a specific precedent of a specific list of interviews in a specific magazine being deleted? No. But there are any number of precedents of poor list articles being deleted. I have no idea if other such lists of people interviewed in a particular magazine have been nominated for deletion. It strikes me as rather irrelevant whether or not such a similar deletion exists if this list is one that should be deleted. If you read WP:NOT#DIR you'll see that it bars lists of loosely associated topics. The happenstance of being interviewed by a particular journal or magazine is just that sort of loose association. Otto4711 17:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Offered as possible precedent: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Escape Magazine contents Otto4711 19:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that, I've just userfied that to User:Hiding/List of Escape Magazine contents. If this goes the deletion route could someone please also userfy to my user space. Hiding Talk 19:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has value. It could also serve as a useful category. GarryKosmos 23:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Projectify per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Magazines. Nifboy 03:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a loosely associated topic. Asserts a component of notability for each interviewee. –Pomte 03:11, 2 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 Keep. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Piece terms[edit]

As per the sentence that describes the article: This is a list of locations, characters, items, and other terms from the anime/manga series One Piece. As I read through alot of the article, it appears to be just a dumping ground for anything One Piece related. A form of listcruft/fancruft in my opinion. Also: it should be noted, there is character and location (as well as plenty of other One Piece lists) on Wikipedia already. This list seems to be just repeating alot of information, that's listed elsewhere. RobJ1981 08:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hmm... There are no characters here. No locations as such (maybe one or two noted). There are a lot of articles linked to this page. As for repeating info... Well I can ensure you a LOT of this is here as back up for those articles linked to here and in MOST cases the info is only here. It is here to save the other articles being clogged up with a TON of info that is little relevent to the article. Maybe it is list/fancruft but it is not a dumping ground. Angel Emfrbl 09:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some of these would end up as stub articles... I'd rather see them all collected onto one page rather then a dozen in-universe stub articles which people hate even more. Angel Emfrbl 07:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As a llst, it doesn't very well defien the contents, and essentially turning it into a dumping ground for anything somebody wants to write about the anime / managa -- Whpq 13:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Perhaps then it just needs som serious wikifying and rewriting rather then deletation to make it work better? Angel Emfrbl 12:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note the existence of Category:Glossaries, which has been under debate. –Pomte 15:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: No VALID reason for deletion was actualy given, what the entire nomination boils down to is: "This looks like fancruft, and dispite the fact that that is not a reason for deletion, I don't like it, so let's delete it." (Justyn 01:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep: This article isn't perfect, but it's a good start for something that could be edited into something better. It did help with a lot of the questions I had.--NukeMTV 03:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NOT#PAPER, WP:LIST. Meets notability guidelines. Matthew 21:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a part of a larger topic. It wont fit on other pages. Extremely notable series. It doesn't seem to duplicatE much, which wouldn't be a reason for deletion anyways. See WP:SS, WP:NOT#PAPER. It's probably the result of some the items receiving a result of merge on their own AfDs. It it isn't, it soon will be if this is deleted. - Peregrine Fisher 21:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:FICT point 2, according to which: Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters" ... -- Black Falcon 22:55, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of rappers[edit]

What does this do that a category can't? —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An answer is it provides red links that could potentially become articles, but this could be done elsewhere (at a WikiProject). –Pomte 10:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are too many articles like this one, a category is much better suited for this. Sfacets 11:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List articles such as this are of very limited encyclopedic value. a category is a much better home for this data.--Anthony.bradbury 12:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be a category (if anything) --Mhking 00:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate list (i.e. no inclusion criteria). Punkmorten 09:23, 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 delete. WjBscribe 22:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teenwag[edit]

Several reasons. Firstly, I'm not sure it meets WP:WEB. Secondly, it reads like an advert. Even the external links are advert-like. And a similar page was deleted in December 2006. I'm posting this here because I admit I'm not up on this kind of stuff. And maybe this is just something big that I've never heard of. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Clean-up A Google search of Teenwag brought back 57,000 results, while a Google search of Teenwag.com brought back 24,200 results. I say that makes it Notable, although it does read like a huge advert. So Keep and add {{advert}} tag --Twipie 09:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:WEB. No notability or coverage by reliable sources. Zero Google News Archive results. -- Dhartung | Talk 09:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Isn't verifiable. No media coverage by independent sources. --KZ ^Talk ^• ^Vandal ^• ^Contrib 10:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most of the Google hits are hits on the site or blogs about it. Less that 1000 independant hits and none of the first few pages are reliable sources. No news articles to be seen. Fails website notability requirements. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Fails WP:WEB, no 3rd party reliable sources to establish notability. User:Loopthaq has removed the afd template from the teenwag article and added teenwag links to various articles under external links, just like User:Webforall has, leading me to believe they are the same person (web stopped just when loop started). Smells like a spam campaign to me. —Ocatecir ^Talk 21:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:WEB, and google-count is no test for notability. No secondary sources.

Hello this is loopthaq, the site is a growing social network and Social news site, And pointers to the site at relevant places are relevant. Much like pointing to Youtube video. And regarding external news source coverage, it is going to come when there is going to be more
http://www.google.com/search?q=site:teenwag.com&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=1lw&filter=0 Gives 35000 - KEEP AND CLEANUP...
http://www.google.com/search?q=teenwag&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Gives 77000 results
The site is growing rapidly and is not a Spam campaign - when you last quoted you said there were like 34000 results
http://www.geeklike.com/fired-digg-employee-launches-teenwag-and-trounces-the-hell-outta-competiton/
From a separate site, it seems to be the site is launched by a Fired Digg employee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loopthaq (talk • contribs) — Loopthaq (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was merge to Islamic dietary laws, which I went and did already. Will be a redirect now.--Wizardman 21:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and alcohol[edit]

Deletion was suggested by User:Matt57 on my talk page, who started Islam and pork. This article is similar in that it has little to no real content and also has a POV statement about Muslim youth drinking to seem more "western" (it goes without saying that there have always been Muslims who drink alcohol since the beginning of the religion, since every society of earth has had alcohol since the dawn of time). Whatever. Simply an unnecessary article considering Islamic dietary laws. Khorshid 09:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Islamic dietary laws per nom. Not enough information to sustain a separate article, plus unsourced armchair-sociology. A bad mix. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, doesn't require a separate article. Sfacets 11:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now and get rid of unsourced speculation. It would be possible to write a full-length article on this subject, but at the moment there is not enough material here to make one. --Folantin 11:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful content to wherever is correct - per everyone else. Despite finding the last couple sentences laugh-out-loud hilarious, one does have to say this just a redundant POV fork. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, into the dietry laws.--Matt57 13:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, there only seems to be one or two sentences of worth. ITAQALLAH 13:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 13:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 14:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or Expand, per Folantin's point). Jakerforever 17:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's interesting that we have an article on Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork, but none on Religious restrictions on the consumption of alcohol. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Very interesting and complex subject that deserves its own article without a doubt. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 21:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above.--Sefringle 02:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What exactly is there to merge?--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 23:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tell me about it. Merging of Islam and pork is also pointless since there is nothing there to merge! Khorshid 00:19, 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 DELET. i WIL aD A LiNK aT SIMPLIFiD SPeLiNG xO, aND MAK IT A REDiReKT. Herostratus 02:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nooalf[edit]

Novel concept, but IPA it isn't. Only people who've written about this are its creators, making this unsourceable through reliable sources. Was deleted via prod earlier but recreated, so it's here. - Bobet 10:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fascinating idea but this is not the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard. Cannot find any sources that meet verifyability from reliable sources. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per everyone else. No reliable sources, no attribution, no article. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Simplified_spelling#Proposals_for_English_spelling_that_augment_or_replace_the_basic_Roman_alphabet. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete without prejudice, because there will probably be articles or Eric reports fairly soon. DGG 03:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm the author of the article. I'm fairly new to Wiki, so forgive me if I don't understand everything. My Intention in posting it is to explain Nooalf in a succinct manner to people who don't want to spend the time reading the Nooalf website. It's also a matter of matching the style to the audience. You will immediately note that the website is not the usual scholarly desertation you would expect for such subjects.

Please correct me if I'm wrong here: Wikipedia is supposed to be the ultimate Encyclopedia. More info and especially newer info than a paper encyclopedia could ever hope to contain. So is it not a good thing that people can get the basic facts about Nooalf here?

I will try to be brief in addressing the above comments:

No, it isn't the IPA. The IPA was made in an era when sound recording was not a practical matter for linguists. Today, transcribing the odd vocalizations of remote tribes is not neccassary, and the entire activity is probably near extinction. Although it is not intended to encompass all possible sounds of the human speach organs, Nooalf does provide ordinary people with a keyboard friendly means to write what they hear. It's based on English, which has more phonemes than most other languages, so it covers most languages fairly well. Plus, sticking to it's basic philosophy, more letters must be added to if needed.

The use of the term 'Unsourcable' seems to imply that something must become widespread before inclusion in Wiki. If somebody searches 'nooalf' I think they would probably want to get the info from the world's foremost authority. Judging from my samplings of the fantastic width, breadth and depth of the information contained in Wiki, you don't require the imprimature of degreed scholars for everything.

I'm not sure why you reference the Dvorak keyboard. However, Nooalf is typable on all ordinary keyboards in either the QWERTY layout or Dvorak.

About Wikifying the article. I would appreciate it if you could add it to the appropriate catagories and lists.

Merge and redirect, per Iridescenti, I looked at some web pages written in Nooalf, reminds me of my daughter's IM chats. =killing sparrows 04:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the guidelines for articles to be included in Wiki and can see how Nooalf could fail on the source requirements. Although Noo alf is discussed in many places on the web and the chart is available from at least 1 other source, there is no real paper coverage that I know of. I don't know how much leeway you have in your decisions, but maybe you could take a few days to consider this. Maybe listen to Closer To The Heart by Rush. But, Merge and redirect is OK by me.````JO 753

Comment: The reason I brought up IPA is because it is widely used, and has been for a long time. It doesn't matter if you think nooalf is a great invention, what matters is that no one's written about it, making it not only non-notable, but also unverifiable. Merging novel original concepts into another article is not a good option. - Bobet 11:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to be in wide use, nor does it look like it will be anytime soon. Just 44 unique Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion Upon further reading of Wiki guidlines, I can see that there is a problem with how to consider notability and sourcability. The definitions become unusable when the subject is obscure. This is pretty much the case with any current English spelling reform effort. Since the entire field of endevour has never been very well known, newer attempts, no matter how well known in the spelling reform community, have virtually no media coverage. The only 3 organizations in this field are the Simplified Spelling Society, the American Literacy Council and the Saundspel discussion group.

I first researched spelling reform on the internet in 1999 to see what was already in existence. Joining the Saundspel group and getting critiques from the other reformers is currently the highest level of peer review you can find on this subject. You may be able to find archived discussions from 1999 thru 2001 about Nooalf. (I don't seem to be able to do anything with Yahoo. If you forget your password and secret answer, you're screwed!) Also, you could check with Joe Little at ALC. ````JO 753 3-30-2007

Redirect to Simplified_spelling#Proposals_for_English_spelling_that_augment_or_replace_the_basic_Roman_alphabet. I really don't see the need for a merge, but am not opposed to one if someone wishes to perform it. -- Black Falcon 23:00, 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 delete.--Wizardman 21:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Stylianou[edit]

The player is not notable at all. He does not satisfies the criteria of WP:BIO which says for players who have played in a fully proffessional league. Cyprus league is not fully proffessional. user:KRBN 12:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional delete on the basis expressed above. If the Cyprus league is not professional, about which I have no data, then fails WP:BIO.--Anthony.bradbury 12:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 15:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And then removed, because this AfD concerns a basketball player :) Oldelpaso 17:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is also a football (soccer) player of the same name, who played for the Cyprus national football team in the 1970s, presumably where the above confusion arose. Oldelpaso 17:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article itself seems confused as to whether the subject is the basketball player or footballer, as the comment re his transfer to the APOEL football team clearly refers to the latter. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just a synonymity.There is a basketball and football player with same name. KRBN 03:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a reexpression by the nominator of his motion to delete. Also, this article is about a basketball player (who now plays for the APOEL basketball team) and has nothing to do with the former football player. Spacepotato 01:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsubstantiated, unprofessional. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has played basketball at the highest level existing in Cyprus. Spacepotato 01:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- National top leagues are not automatically notable. Punkmorten 09:19, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madhyageha Bhatta[edit]

Someone's father. Doesn't qualify for an article. Sfacets 11:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC

Delete While I am sure that this gentleman was wholly devout and worthy, there is no indication in the article of encyclopedic notability. Family links do not of themselves satisfy WP:NN.--Anthony.bradbury 11:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability given, no reason why we should care. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Emeraude 14:49, 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. Daniel Bryant 10:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UWA Mahjong Club[edit]

Non-notable university mahjong club. Contested speedy. Guinnog 12:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--Mattinbgn/^talk 20:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I added the original db tag also finding it was non-notable. One reference is a primary source is from the university website and the others refer to MJ topics rather than the club itself. I left my concerns on the talk page. I might change my mind pending an adequate response from the article creator. UnfriendlyFire 06:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Almost certainly written by a member of the club, in which case it would trangress the guidelines in WP:COI. --Seattle Skier (talk) 06:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry am not familiar with the protocol for leaving messages here. I do not believe there is a conflict of interest here - although it HAS been written by a member of the club, there is no advertising or information that would make it biased. Although there are few, if any at all, secondary sources available for this club, it is certainly one of the very few mahjong clubs in university campuses worldwide. As stated in the article, mahjong is commonly seen to be an underground activity, and the aim of the club is to bring it into the open where it is less associated with gambling and more as an intelligent, interesting activity. --Twenty_something (talk) 10:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the things I didn't understand was why this club was considered a non notable organisation, when other clubs that exist in The University of Western Australia were considered notable clubs - not to say that they shouldn't exist, but just out of curiousity - perhaps I could then structure the article like that. --Twenty_something (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: I'll try to address all three of your main points. First of all, in WP:COI it states "you should avoid or exercise great caution when editing articles related to you, your organization,...". The entire article can be viewed as an advertisement to increase membership in your club. In addition, listing yourself in the "Committee" names can be viewed as self-aggrandizement. Secondly, you state "there are few, if any at all, secondary sources available for this club", which almost automatically implies that it is not notable enough for inclusion. 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 your club were notable, there'd be numerous newspaper and magazine stories about it, but there are none and so your club is not notable either. The article thus fails to meet the official policy (WP:A or WP:V), which state '"Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." Third of all, you wonder why your club was targeted for deletion versus all the other UWA clubs. Please see WP:INN, which although not a policy or guideline, states "The presence of similar articles does not necessarily validate the existence of other articles, and may instead point to the possibility that those articles also ought to be deleted." It is likely that all non-notable clubs at UWA will show up here at AfD in time, and you can help improve Wikipedia by nominating for deletion any other club articles which you are aware of and which fail to meet the notability criteria. I hope this clarifies why the UWA Mahjong Club article is likely to fail this AfD and be deleted. It is simply not notable enough for inclusion in WP, unless you are able to find reliable secondary sources which discuss it. Thanks. --Seattle Skier (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Most of those mentioned at University of Western Australia Student Clubs are redlinks or links to some other entity of the same name, or links to disambiguation pages. But following you pointing out the notability - or lack thereof - I have visited the links and added requests for additional references where appropriate.Garrie 01:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - There's one more UWA club article which isn't on that list: UWA Martial Arts Club. This one fits the non-notability criteria for speedy deletion WP:CSD#A7 (as do all of these clubs, really), so I have reluctantly added a {{db-club}} tag to it. The list itself (University of Western Australia Student Clubs) is a strong candidate for deletion, or merging into the University of Western Australia article. I really find no joy in this, since I'm much more of an inclusionist than a deletionist, but we have to draw the line somewhere. WP is not the place to host extra, highly-Google-visible websites for these clubs. --Seattle Skier (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Update: UWA Martial Arts Club has now been speedy-deleted by an admin. --Seattle Skier (talk) 06:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Update: University of Western Australia Student Clubs has been speedy-deleted, undeleted, and now again speedy-deleted by admins. The remaining non-notable UWA clubs articles in question are UniSFA and The University Computer Club, the latter of which has now been tagged with {{prod}}. --Seattle Skier (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 08:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It needs independant coverage to establish notability. One article does not get it there. Ga rr ie 21:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I do not believe that this club is notable. However, calling it a COI is going a little bit too far, don't you think? Lankiveil 12:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Reply: Perhaps you are right that COI is too strong a term to use for a student club. Yet the article falls solidly within the guideline listed at WP:COI#Self-promotion, since it is certainly meant to increase exposure for the club and perhaps also to drum up membership. So I think I was justified in quoting from that guideline. --Seattle Skier (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Peta 05:45, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bikini Carwash Company[edit]

Speedied in good faith - "no unsourced article on a low-budget soft porn comedy film that made absolutely no assertion of notability (CSD A7), and just about every name in the list of cast was redlinked (itself an indication of how important the topic is)" by JzG. Probably should have been debated (shrug) so sending here.--Doc^g 12:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. A little struggle with this one - it's an old enough film where sources likely exist, but aren't readily available. We have the allmovie link, which is reliable and independent, and the IMDb cast listing, which is reliable and independent, so we have what we need for the stub covered. The film was notable enough in the director's resume to warrant mention in his obituary, which means something, so I see no reason to delete. The speedy, while in good faith, was completely improper, so please do not allow your comments to possibly reflect that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent references (IMDB is user editable); no evidence of significance; virtually everybody in it is a nonentity (i.e. redlinked). Generic low budget soft-porn comedy of absolutely no objectively provable significance. Guy (Help!) 12:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The cast and crew areas are actually vetted by someone else before they're updated, and they are independent. The amount of redlinks has nothing to do with something's significance, it simply means we have poor coverage in this area. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite an awful movie, but that's not a valid reason. I am not convinced by the redlink thing. If you take movies by Robert Bresson, for instance, who was using amateurs as actors at the end of his career (see Mouchette or Lancelot du Lac for instance), you will have redlinks everywhere too. And you won't say that Bresson's movies are not notable. IMDB is not user editable, afaik, you can suggest edits but they are screened. And there is a second source, with the allmovie link. Hektor 12:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed no. Lack of independent sources is the reason. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why All movie guide and ImdB are not independent source, plus the obituary in Variety. Hektor 19:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - demonstrated existence does not equal notability: if it did, we'd have articles on this girl, this chap, this lass, etc. We don't, for a good reason. This just doesn't assert notability, so delete until it does and backs that up with some third-party non-trivial RS. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are discussing about a film, and you are providing arguments about persons. Hektor 13:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Roughly speaking, the rules apply universally to persons and films. Existence does not equal notability for films, either. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 14:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable film. The nominator defining it as "soft porn" is a POV judgement call. It wasn't at all. I agree not every film can be listed, but this one has a cult following and includes cast members such as Landon Hall and Sara Suzanne Brown who are quite prolific in the 1980s-1980s B-movie industry. I'm also pretty certain this film was issued or distributed by a major company, however the new version of IMDb doesn't appear to list this information anymore. 23skidoo 14:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable based on what sources? Guy (Help!) 17:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Badlydrawnjeff. A Google News Archive search for this film yields over 100 hits [29], although virtually all of them are accessible only for pay. (Some of the hits refer to this film's sequel, and there appears to be a band named after the film as well.) However, if we had access to Showtime or Cinemax's records, I suspect we would find that this movie played on those channels more than all of Bresson's works combined. --Metropolitan90 15:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm not convinced this can't be sourced, although it currently isn't. Neriah Davis is not a non-entity and this film is supposedly her first film appearance. Mango juice^talk 16:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jeff's reasoning. If you participated here, you might also be interested in the ongoing discussion towards a film notability guideline. A Train ^{take the} 16:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. No amount of window dressing will help the fact that if there are no reliable secondary sources, we cannot (per policy) and should not (per consensus, not a directory) have an article. Verifiable existence is not enough. Please cite some non-trivial independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 17:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Jeff explained in his original comment and response to you above, we have independent sources in AllMovieGuide and IMDb. I'm quite certain that this movie could be found in Leonard Maltin's movie guide or some other such reference book. It's a crap movie, but reliable secondary sources exist. A Train ^{take the} 19:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, 4 Google Books hits for the film's title, one extra if you separate "car wash." Not much extra in Amazon's search under books, but it's obviously of note to be discussed in print as well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep If someone wants to spend the time to create this article, there is no reason to delete it. It is a mildly notable B-movie. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - any movie that achieved widespread U.S. release should have an article. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was a terrible movie but had a wide circulation and still has a cult following today. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's been released in at least two territories (US and UK). The redlink comment is a redherring, redlinks are one of the ways in which we expand the encyclopaedia. Malla nox 20:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not in this case, I think - those people are redlinked for a reason! Guy (Help!) 23:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly because I haven't gotten around to making them bluelinks. d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though this is a tough one. What makes a film notable? It's a minor commerical release to be sure, but if you get a film released onto DVD, it's probably notable (and the director is notable as well). The article needs to be better, though (those who care about adding more sources can start here. Oh, and anyone wanna buy this for $190? --UsaSatsui 21:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pr0ncruft. Another fine product of the pr0n industry assembly line. Indistinguishable from 1000's of other fine, interchangeable products. WP != All-Pr0n Guide. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Except, well, it's not Pr0n. (ok, maybe softcore). A regular on latenight Cinemax/Showtime. SirFozzie 18:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm satisfied that the references are reliable enough, particularly All-Movie Guide and the Blockbuster movie guide, even if you disregard IMDB. Was released on DVD in the UK as well as the US, that's pretty notable. Sure there are redlinks, but there are enough bluelinks as well including the director and some well known adult stars. --Canley 08:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability/Verifiability is met. 18:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It's a directory listing, period/full-stop: if all that can be turned up is regurgitation of IMDB-type directory information and recounting info obtained by watching the damned -- in other words, if no reliable sources have bothered expending any prose on this subject -- then it's a warmed-over IMDB listing. --Calton | Talk 06:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought a deletion debate was about the interest of the subject, not the size and quality of the content. Otherwise you can delete any one line stub in wikipedia and scores of film articles. Hektor 12:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's about whether it can be documented from relibale secondary sources, and whether these establish encyclopaedic notability. Guy (Help!) 12:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep—for once I find myself in full agreement with badlydrawnjeff. I struggled a bit with this, and my first inclination was to say delete, but I think there's sufficient evidence that it has achieved at least a minor cult status. The fact that it was mentioned in the obituary, the fact that a band is named after it, regular appearances on television (including, apparently, USA Up All Night, international distribution, Neriah Davis's first film; all of this adds up to sufficient notability, IMO. On-line references do seem a bit weak (although the existence of the same-named band makes searching difficult), but that argument leads to a "recentism" bias. I see enough to make me confident that there are reliable sources to be found, even if Google has trouble finding them. Xtifr _tälk 00:21, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hydro Cannon[edit]

This is a description of an attack from the Pokemon games, it is game guide and violates WP:NOT Bhamv 12:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not redirect. This can certainly be discussed in a relevant pokemon article. A Train ^{take the} 16:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not redirect? If it's discussed somewhere, a redirect will help a user find that information and discourage recreation of this article. — brighterorange (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because a description of the features of a single, specific attack from the Pokemon games, including its tactical uses and strengths/weaknesses clearly crosses the line into game guide information, violating WP:NOT. I don't think any Pokemon article on Wikipedia could include such information. Bhamv 04:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete aggree with A Train -- Diletante 17:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to whatever Pokemon-related article is most appropriate. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utter rubbish. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 21:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pokécruft. JuJube 23:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT, and it's quite factually inaccurate... SuperDT 23:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 02:25, 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 No consensus to delete. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-American War[edit]

This war has never happened and is only hypothetical. Even the Israeli-Lebanon War was not classified as a war until nearly weeks into the 2006 conflcit. No attempt has been made to create a Iran War page even though that as recevied much mroe attention and is more likely. In addition the only edits to this page have been made by radical conservatives, and the enitre page seems to promoting a view point. --Stalin1942 00:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical or not, the article cites several good sources that discuss the possibility of such a war, including ISBN 0679454632, which is a 245-page book on the subject. Uncle G 13:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Crystal-balling, unencyclopedic. --Guinnog 13:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read our policy properly. Speculation is only unencyclopaedic when it is unverifiable. There are several entire books on this subject. Uncle G 13:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." --Guinnog 13:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Now read the rest of the policy surrounding that sentence, which shows that that sentence doesn't apply here. As I said, please read our policy properly. Uncle G 14:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I already read it. I find it slightly offensive that the only reason you can imagine that I might support the deletion of this trashy piece of OR would be that I was ignorant of the policy. Delete, with extreme prejudice. --Guinnog 14:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Nonetheless, you have not read it properly, because you are clearly mis-applying it. You are also mis-applying our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Please learn what the crystal ball policy applies to and does not apply to, and what does and does not constitute original research. The crystal ball policy does not apply to speculation on future events that is verifiable from good sources, as this is; and content that summarizes such already published speculation and analysis, as this one does, is not original research. Please read and apply our policies properly. Uncle G 14:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Rubbish. --Guinnog 14:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The policies are quite clear. Please read them and apply them properly. You apparently have no counterargument based in policy. Uncle G 15:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. About four fifths of article consists of books and sources relating to the subject, while the article itself says not much more than that there have been speculations over a US-China war after the Cold War. That is too thin a basis for an article, an article needs some description of the subject matter. Something could probably be written here given the sources, but this article is not it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What you have described is a stub that has copious sources cited upon which further expansion of the article can be based. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy we don't delete stubs that have scope for expansion (especially ones where the scope for expansion is handed to editors on a platter with lots of citations). We expand them. Uncle G 15:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am changing my vote to keep because of the expansions to the article. I do stand by my opinion that the revisions initially nominated were deletable. I agree with you that we don't delete stubs for being stubs, but I felt that the revision I described above was not even a stub, but a mere collection of literature with no "body" of encyclopedic content. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete There are too many things which may happen and we don't want to make articles on the basis of guess or forecast . --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 14:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, per our policy we allow articles with credible research (i.e. research published by reliable sources — once again, witness the published books on this subject) that embody predictions. There is no speedy deletion criterion matching your rationale. Please apply our policies properly. Uncle G 15:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per Uncle G. This AfD debate is a spectacular demonstration of how our eyes too often allow us to see only what we want to see and nothing else: "If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." And this one is well-documented. Resurgent insurgent 15:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World War III for another brilliant application of WP:NOT#CBALL. Resurgent insurgent 15:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I think World War III is a considerably more encyclopedic topic than this one.--Guinnog 15:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And both are "future events" that are by no means certain to occur, no? Resurgent insurgent 15:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And one has three quoted references, all taken in turn from one book. The other has many dozens. Therefore one is a delete, and the other is a keep. --Guinnog 15:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just because someone can't be bothered to actually get the refernces into the article, even though they are certainly out there on the Web, is not a valid reason to delete. Resurgent insurgent 15:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - By all means feel free to provide some more encyclopedic references and content; this is the only thing that might change my mind. --Guinnog 15:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, lack of content in a valid encyclopedic concept is a reason for expansion, not deletion. The cites are well-out there - Factiva returns 48 hits for "Sino-American War" (in quotes) while JSTOR returns 23 for the same term. People have been writing about this anticipated conflict. There is already sufficient material for a well-sourced stub. Resurgent insurgent 16:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't quite agree, and as I said, I would need to see evidence rather than argument before I would change my mind. As it stands it is a delete I'm afraid. --Guinnog 16:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Evidence was presented to you before your above comment and it has been expanded after. Sources have been commenting about its possibility as far back as 1965 and if your !vote is not elaborated upon by this AfD's end it sounds pretty invalid. Resurgent insurgent 13:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, it does seem to be sourceable. I am concerned that this is going to open the floodgates for hypothetical wars between X and Y, as long as a handful of people have commented on them. This would not just include wars of the future, but past hypothetical wars which never happened, including alternate versions of real wars, if they started earlier or later. Reliably sourced speculation probably extends to all manner of subjects, not just wars. I note that commercial products which have not been confirmed by their manufacturer, particularly video games, are almost never allowed to have articles, even if there is 'reliable' speculation about them; Gears of War 2, for example. The extent to which we want Wikipedia to have articles about hypothetical things is a question which goes beyond this AfD. I sympathise with Guinnog's view; it's easy to see this as being against the spirit of the policy, if not the letter. Finally, this article will probably end up as a grab-bag of pop culture refs, like the WW3 article. We should revisit this in a year; perhaps the policies will have been made more specific.--Nydas^(Talk) 17:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep If such a possible war has been noted in reliable sources, then it is notable enough for an article. Just as the U.S had plans 100 year ago for war with Canada Mexico Japan, and Britain, I am confident that official and think-tank planners are making analyses of another possible China-America War (seeChina Relief Expedition for the U.S. invasion of China in 1900). But this article is more of a memo about how an article could be written from the sources cited. It does not discuss more causes for such a war than Taiwan, ignoring conflict over oil, and ignoring competition for markets for goods. It does not discuss the relative military strengths and vulnerabilities of the two parties, or their alliances, Janes publications should be cited. The relative manpower and the relative military spending should be discussed. The U.S has what? 5% of the world's population and about 50% of the military spending? With China loaning us all the money? And manufacturing an increasing portion of the high tech components? And soon to demand more food and oil? Edison 19:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Because of a rise in hostility between the United States and Venezuela, should editors assume that the rationale articulated by Uncle G for keeping this article would equally be applied to a Venezuelan-American War article? What about an Iranian-Israeli war article? It is very possible, and commonly speculated by authors and pundits that those two nations may come to nuclear action against each other in the future (should Iran acquire nuclear weapons). Perhaps an article over the possibility of a future military conflict between Ecuador and Peru, styled the Ecuadorian-Peruvian War? Ecuador and Peru have had loud squabbles over their shared border for years. I can understand both sides of the discussion here, but I'm not sure that keeping this article is the right way to approach it. Don't articles such as these create a precedent that implies that any event that could possibly occur in the future should warrant a Wikipedia article, provided that a few authors provided their opinions on paper? No disrespect whatsoever intended here, and I would enjoy any responses. Many thanks, Scienter 21:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Vfd onChina as an emerging superpower a very similar article that ironically this article links to. Just to remind everyone if this is allowed to stand it will be the FIRST wikipedia article of this kind and set a dangerous precedent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_7 For thoose of you who said "weak keep" couldn't any "relevant" infomration just be merged into Sino-American relations?--Stalin1942 23:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment It might really help to change the name, to something like "Possible future Sino-American War." . There are zero books about the war. "Thinking about China and War", "The Coming Conflict with China" , "Hegemon: China's Plan to Domnate Asia and the World.", "China Threat" These are all books about speculations concerning a possible future war. To use the present title is an unjustified confusion of fact and fiction. I don't see the point of deciding on the basis of our own opinions about what will or will not happen, but on the usual basis of RS. None use the term in the title. Even the ones that seem to expect it don't use the term in the title. Even the posts on google don't use the term in the title except for a single discussion forum. With the present title,

Delete DGG 04:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- If a page has an incorrect title, don't we move it instead of deleting it? Resurgent insurgent 05:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research and crystal balling. Besides, we could make up hypothetical wars all day long: the Helvetic-American War, the Greco-Tibetan War, the Samoa-Latvian War, the Ruso-Uruguayan War, etc. Lovelac7 07:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is original research, yes - but by published authors and not our editors. People at the Far Eastern Economic Review, Asahi Shimbun, and The Florida Times-Union, among other sources, are doing the speculation for us. We are allowed to document other peoples' published reasoning. Tossing scare words like "original research" and "crystal balling" without justification will get you nowhere. Lastly, show us the published reliable sources for all these other hypothesised wars you mentioned. There will be none. Unlike them, this war - or rather the spectre of it occurring - is causing people to act and publish things. In reliable sources. Resurgent insurgent 11:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If "[p]eople at the Far Eastern Economic Review, Asahi Shimbun, and The Florida Times-Union, among other sources, are doing the speculation for us", then this information should go in those articles, not this one. By combining their theses into one article, Wikipedia is drawing its own conclusions, hence original research. Lovelac7 18:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Original research by Wikipedia editors is where the information has not been published anywhere else before. Since even you are not denying that someone elsewhere has published their own notes about this hypothesized conflict, these notes are not original research. The article as it stands now is nothing more that a summary of what writers of certain published articles have articulated about this possible conflict. Anyone with access to the listed publications, or a database like JSTOR and Factiva, can verify that none of the editors of the article have inserted non-published thought into it. Combining "thesis" that have already been published elsewhere into one article is not original research; to say otherwise is a distortion of NOR. Resurgent insurgent 18:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even the "this information should go in those articles, not this one" part is totally contra to what WP:NOR really says... Resurgent insurgent 19:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Verbatim quote from WP:SYN, part of WP:NOR:
        Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.
      - Synthesizing existing research is still original research. Lovelac 7 20:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Please read your own provided links again! What SYN forbids is: "A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research." Position C is only permitted if: "a reliable source... that specifically comments on [positions A and B] makes the same point about [position C]. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia." And I have presented in the article only conclusions and opinions (based on other facts) which are already published in the referenced works. I hereby challenge you to quote exactly from the article any unpublished "position C"s, or else your !vote is invalid. I am doubly sure you will find none. Resurgent insurgent 23:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        You told me to "shut up" in your edit summary. I do not appreciate your lack of manners. This debate is over. Lovelac 7 02:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I am sorry for the edit summary. Resurgent insurgent 02:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Apology accepted. :) Lovelac 7 02:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever we can into a Sino-American relations article of some sort. Also everybody, please calm down. Heads need cooling around here. We should remember that all opinions should be respected, even if we disagree with them(it's best to just say sometimes "I disagree" or "I strongly disagree" rather than other more potentially hurtful or provoking things.)Just H^{editor review} 23:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly merge into the "China as an emerging superpower" article. There is definitely sourcable speculation on this topic (unlike a Belgian-Pakistani war), so it seems to meet guidelines. SnowFire 02:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- China as an emerging superpower is a redirect. The article was deleted, apparently. Resurgent insurgent 02:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sourceable speculation is still speculation. Mangoe 02:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, this could be part of an article about Sino-American military conflicts that have actually happened (the stuff during Viet Nam), or factual info about US and/or Chinese war planning. I have to say the speculative, weaselwordy tone doesn't help things although I know that poor writing is not a reason to delete. =killing sparrows 05:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)=[reply]
Delete, this is very much crystal balling. If it comes to that, someone can archive the current information and if an actual war breaks out, can turn it into an "academic predictors" section. Polymathematics 03:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT#CBALL only forbids unverifiable facts about future events; whether they are likely or not is beside the question: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." If the article is indeed festering with unverifiable information, it should be easy to quote some of these unsourced parts here. Resurgent insurgent 04:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 00:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems a case where not only is there doubt about whether the event will occur , there is doubt about what kind of event it will be, it it ever does occur, with most of the proposed sources talking about it under only general terms. DGG 02:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is speculation and inflamitory speculation at that. Tirronan 20:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, and expand. Lots of 1990's sources not here yet. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too speculative. May actually be original research, despite the sources. RashBold (talk · contribs) 22:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The historical parts of this topic should be covered in articles on Sino-American relations and the speculative parts are crystal ball gazing. --Nick Dowling 23:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Various authors of books have conducted original research and written about a possible Sino-American War. This article is about the concept of such a war, not about the (nonexisting) war itself! The article is well-sourced and WP:CRYSTAL is utterly inapplicable here as there are more than enough secondary sources about this subject. -- Black Falcon 23:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One more thing: yes, we could make up articles for millions of hypothetical bilateral or multilateral wars. That would be original research. Summarising what other people have written about this one war is not. -- Black Falcon 23:07, 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 per WP:CSD G7: author blanked the article. A Train ^{take the} 16:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaws[edit]

Notability has been asserted. However, it seems to fail the notability criterion (google search) May the Force be with you! Shre shth91 13:38, 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. Daniel Bryant 10:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H-Dub Beeper[edit]

ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

This is an extremely non-notable software considering that a Google search returns no other results (other than Wikipedia and mirrors) that mention it together with its creator. [30] Its proposed deletion was contested with the reason "This piece of software is not open source, so there are no internet sites where a person can download it. Sales of this product are currently only available in Australia, not from internet sites." which really does not address the key point - that there are no independent write-ups of this software from reliable sources. Whether the software can be downloaded online was, and is, irrelevant. Resurgent insurgent 14:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable as the nominator suggests. --Diletante 17:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at the least non-notable and a strong whiff of a hoax. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - software seems to be quite notable. 60.225.47.127 00:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect that you are the author of the page based on this edit [31]. Diletante 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no sources cited and a search of Google News and Google News Archive does not show any.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously nn software. Lankiveil 03:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as above.--cj | talk 03:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.--Mattinbgn/^talk 03:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why would anyone pay for VB scripts to make their computer beep? About as non-notable as software gets, I'm sorry. --Canley 07:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have purchased this product via independent sale and have profitted from the many hours of enjoyment since. I like especially the H-Dub Pwnage Beep - the songs are terrific and almost perfect replicas of the originals. Perhaps those who do not have the required sense of humour for such products should leave these beepers to those who enjoy them. Pytho7 22:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)— Pytho7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - like pytho, i got this ages ago and use it all the time. its real good fun for when u have some time, especially the keyboard one - its perfect if u dont have a computer keyboard HeadShott 9:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)) added by Pytho7 who has already !voted, above. Resurgent insurgent 07:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ditto irridescenti. Shmimon 12:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)) added by Pytho7 who has already !voted, above. Resurgent insurgent 07:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clever idea for a program, it probably got full marks in a school prject or something - see if you can get it open source so no one can complain.--Riana 13:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)) added by Pytho7 who has already !voted, above. Resurgent insurgent 07:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I got this ages ago and i love it--Stewie 5:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)— Stewie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. , probably the same person as Pytho7, see [32] Resurgent insurgent 08:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have purchased this product, just like Pytho7, from an independent seller. Its ingenuity never ceases to amaze me. Its cheap price and sheer fun create a novel program. Deletion would be a miscarriage of wikipedian justice.--Tokyoakira 17:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)— Tokyoakira (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. , vandalously removed delete !votes, see [33] Resurgent insurgent 08:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - idiotic idea for a program. Do not even have to look to know that this is completely non-notable - Peripitus (Talk) 10:53, 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 the content but recast as a redirect to yearbook and merge a bit (the opening sentences) into that article. Herostratus 03:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digital yearbook[edit]

I am nominating this for deletion because the page is un-sourced, culturally biased, poorly written and not relevant to wikipedia as it is a very minor subsection to yearbooks as a whole and does not meet notability criteria. The use of a question as a categorisation on the page to then comprise a list, this is not productive pros that wikipedia aspires too. I think far too much work is required for this page to be salvaged and the notability of the subject as a stand alone is unjustified.--Jjamesj 13:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.--Jjamesj 13:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to yearbook as its electronic version; this article is a total advertisement that contains nothing of merge value. Resurgent insurgent 14:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to yearbook and include a graf or two stating the basics of what a digital yearbook is. A new trend that may be interesting, but no need to go further until they gain in popularity. [[Briguy52748 18:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Redirect per Briguy52748. --Matt 22:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to yearbook at least. I found one ABC news story on this and a few other independent sources in just a few minutes. The writing problems could be easily fixed and are not criteria for deletion IMO. The list of possible uses greatly expands on the possibilities of a traditional paper yearbook. The linkfarm at the bottom has to go either way. I also propose to merge horseless carriage to surrey.:) =killing sparrows 05:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)=[reply]
Comment, if it stays I'll rewrite and source. =killing sparrows 05:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)=[reply]
Redirect to yearbook. Do not delete prior to redirecting in order to preserve the edit history if it will aid killing sparrows in rewriting the article. -- Black Falcon 23:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the result is merge or delete can this be sent to my user page (or a subpage) so that I can cull it for a mention in the Yearbook article? I don't know the ins and outs of all the processes here. Thnx --killing sparrows 23:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 90-95% advertisement. - Aagtbdfoua 02:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cambia CM[edit]

Vanity page, makes no assertion of notability. Hairy Dude 14:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination -- Diletante 18:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advert. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, as most of this is copied from the company website. =killing sparrows 05:50, 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 13:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purple turd[edit]

Prod with statement "Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Unsourced. Not notable.", was removed with out addressing concerns. Jeepday 14:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator voting delete, in agreement with prod poster User:Eaolson the article is unsourced and the topic is not notable. Jeepday 14:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The deleted prod was mine. There's no assertion of significance to this, and no evidence it isn't WP:NFT. And what is a "certain type" of men's club? Is this a euphemism for a strip joint? eaolson 15:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT a bartending guide. Drink sounds gross as hell, also. A Train ^{take the} 16:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete delete delete You've got to be joking. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete vandalism (creator was indefblocked). JuJube 23:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense/WP is not a drink guide. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT, not for things made up in a men's club one day. --Seattle Skier (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Show me that it's a real cocktail and we'll want it back as a redirect to Cocktail. For now, get rid of it. Happy-melon 14:38, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of the song (song)[edit]

No sources, I couldn't find any other information about it. AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 15:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - from a brief search, the correct title is possibly "What's the Name of That Song". Accordingly, delete this version, without prejudice to someone else writing an encyclopedic article with reliable sources about this subject. Addhoc 15:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Should we have an article for every song ever sung in a children's show? Feeeshboy 15:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking notability and sources, per Addhoc. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spongebob Squarepants, good grief. Herostratus 14:39, 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 13:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attri[edit]

Unsourced stub, doesn't appear to be a notable surname. Addhoc 15:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 15:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, was de-prodded per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. In my opinion, this fails to meet WP:NOT. Salad Days 19:03, 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, and recast as a redirect to Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Cannot redirect to Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis#Children because redirects currently ignore section titles (I'll write it that way, though, as the software may be able to do this someday). Redirecting to Jackie rather than Jack because Arabella Kennedy is mentioned in Jackie's article.

While perhaps not G4 Speedy as repost, it is basically the same article, generally, albeit with more material. So in closing I allowed myself to take into account the comments on the earlier article. But I would have closed the same regardless anyway. Herostratus 01:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arabella Kennedy[edit]

This article was originally deleted via AfD, but since then a different (as opposed to identical) article has appeared, making it ineligible for CSD G4 (deletion of recreated content). A dispute has broken out over the merit of the article, so as a neutral party I am bringing it to AFD so it can be reviewed by a wider user base. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 15:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change back to a redirect. The original article about this stillborn child was changed in October 2005 to a redirect to John F. Kennedy#Image, social life, and family because the subject was considered to be non-notable. Although the revised (2007) article is longer (though still a stub), there is (as I read it) still no assertion of notability. Plus the (small amount of) important information is also at Kennedy Curse#Chronology. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding notability, at the time of Arabella Kennedy's death, John F. Kennedy was a U.S. Senator, not the President. There was probably a small article or two in the local (D.C. and Boston) papers, or possibly not at all (privacy). The death certainly was not national news, and there almost certainly was never any subsequent article that was primarily about Arabella. In short, this is an incident in the lives of JFK and Jackie, and it is already included in those articles. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Substantially different from the older version, and it does assert notability as the stillborn child of John F. Kennedy. 1ne 16:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge. A stillborn child, even of a future President, strikes me as the epitome of a non-notable person; that is, if you imagine them to be a person at all. Don't see this rating a separate article. - Smerdis of Tlön 22:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only worth a mention in the JFK article if sourced, which this is not. =killing sparrows 06:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)=[reply]

Now it is. 1ne 20:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis#Children. There is more information about the stillborn child there rather than at the JFK article. -- Black Falcon 23:17, 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 01:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Campbell[edit]

A stub about a physician. The article provides no reason to think he's notable in any way (other than having once expressed an opinion). Lee Hunter 15:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nn, bordering on speedy. David Mestel^(Talk) 15:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Took the article as definitive. Clearly a mistake. David Mestel^(Talk) 19:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Article was started 4 hours ago. And the nominator admits this is a WP:POINT violation here. While it doesn't have much yet, there seems to be plenty of material on him we can use, as a simple google search for "Anthony Campbell homeopathy" will show. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator admits no such thing! Yes please do a Google search. There's nothing more than a few thousand hits on Campbell. He has a few obscure pop medicine publications, some of them electronic, some of them not much more substantial than pamphlets. As far as I can tell, he's virtually unknown within his field and completely unknown outside of it. He doesn't seem to be cited by anyone as far as I can determine. The very definition of a minor figure in alternative healthcare. If anyone is curious about how WP is being gamed by a small group that is trying to remove balanced articles that show homeopathy in a neutral light and replace them with articles about homeopathy's critics (eg. Anthony Campbell) they should absolutely read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Vithoulkas (Second nomination). Compare the information provided to support Vithoulkas' inclusion in WP and compare it with the Campbell. Notice that it's the same people voting to get rid of one and add the other. Nominating Campbell for deletion has nothing to do with making a point, anyone can see in two minutes on Google that he is, at best, a minor figure. --Lee Hunter 19:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Lee, you need to chill out and assume good faith. It looks like the George Vithoulkas article will survive its AFD, largely through the efforts of some of the editors you are accusing of cabalism. Cheers, Skinwalker 21:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending addition of sources. This nomination is a pretty egregious WP:POINT violation based on arguments at Talk:George Vithoulkas and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Vithoulkas. I would like to see non-crufty reliable sources demonstrating this individual's notability, but as the article is very new I realize that they may be forthcoming. Skinwalker 17:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~pending addition of sources~~. as Skinwalker. Further bio info to be forthcoming. .. dave souza, talk 18:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC) change to keep as sources added dave souza, talk 09:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending addition of sources Jim62sch 20:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being the long term editor of the major journal in the field is notable. (And since there will easily be sources) DGG 04:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Give it a chance. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 05:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is clearly a bad faith nomination made in the setting of a rancorous dispute. Lee Hunter is frustrated and is making a statement here about the hypocracy of saying that this guy is notable enough to have a page while George Vithoulkas is not. I urge Lee to withdraw the nomination, and I urge folks who have voted to keep this page and delete George Vithoulkas to think about whether that is reasonable or not. Abridged 18:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable. Lakers 00:43, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Owner's Agency[edit]

Utterly non-notable. Merely a group of friends doing a class project. Edits following notability tag proceeding toward vanity. Feeeshboy 15:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and as fiction written from in-universe perspective (see WP:WAF). --Metropolitan90 15:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, good one. I ought to cite that one more often. Feeeshboy 16:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Metropolitan90. JuJube 23:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Isn't this a speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7? Fictional company which is even less than non-notable. Created by single-purpose, single-edit account (see Special:Contributions/Lamppost123456). --Seattle Skier (talk) 06:44, 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 NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. I don't see this as a straight Keep because there are too many hedges around some of the keep comments - not to many editors want to keep the article as it is, rather (those that don't want to straight-out delete it) desire some fixments, which may or (more probably) may not be forthcoming. No prejudice against a renomination at some future time. Herostratus 03:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits[edit]

Comment. I clean-up a lot of disambiguation pages, but this dab page is problematic. The page's purpose is namely to help people disambiguate "Greatest Hits" albums. After I had cleaned up this page per MoS:DAB and went for the disambiguation of pages under Special:Whatlinkshere/Greatest_Hits, I noticed pretty fast that this dab page was NO help and that more and more to-disambiguate GH albums (non-existant yet) of rather less notable artists showed up and should also be included on the dab page now. Out of curiosity, I checked Special:Allpages/Greatest_Hits (a index page that lists all existing wikipedia articles starting with the letters "Greatest_Hits"), and that list was enormous. I am nominating this dab page not to get it deleted in the first place but to gain consensus whether it should be trimmed or to get to know more ways to make the dab page more helpful for disambiguation purposes. Because as it stands now, it doesn't fulfill its purpose and makes disambiguation even harder. (See also Talk:Greatest Hits#Cleanup.) – sgeureka ^t•c 15:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compilations are useful as a introduction to artists...that being said, this article is unhelpful as is, just "Greatest Hits of X", "Greatest Hits of Y"...it needs to be better organized, by genre or...time, or something. My vote is keep (conditional on cleanup). Jakerforever 16:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as violating Wikipedia is not a directory. Gathering all albums together just because the artist or the record label happens to put the words "Greatest Hits" in the title, with no regard to the mishmash of artists or genres, is untenable. Not every "greatest hits" album is called "Greatest Hits" (c.f. Madonna's The Immaculate Collection or Cyndi Lauper's Twelve Deadly Cyns...and Then Some) and not every album called "Greatest Hits" is necessarily a greatest hits album. Otto4711 17:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As you can see in Talk:Greatest Hits, there is a strict rule to only list those albums that have the name "Greatest Hits" (i.e. no "Best Of" albums etc.) For many albums with the same name (e.g. Shine), the dab pages are manageable. It's just that almost every notable artist will have a greatest hits album (see the unrelated page greatest hits) at some point, and chances are high that the album will be called "Greatest Hits", so that's where it becomes unmanageable to provide further disambiguation. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - we have an extensive categorization scheme in place for compilation albums and greatest hits albums. While lists are not automatically supplanted by categories, in this instance the category will be much more useful than a massive list. Otto4711 18:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unmaintainable. Or maybe redirect to Compilation album? meshach 21:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems needlessly tangled, to me. My suggestion would be to merge the articles in chief compilation album and greatest hits; merge the two categories at Category:Compilation albums; and merge this with any other related lists at List of compilation albums. Until such time as all of these things can be achieved, I'd recommend that we keep this provisionally. - Smerdis of Tlön 22:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, actually looks and feels like a dab page. --kingboyk 22:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but (a) it doesn't help DAB editors such as me, and (b) it is not complete, up-to-date and never will be whereas e.g. Special:Allpages/Greatest_Hits is. As it is now, the dab page has 127 individual entries. Special:Allpages/Greatest_Hits lists 312 entries for GH albums (unfortunately including a couple of redirects and some unwanted GH albums that are called something like GH Live etc.) that should actually all be included on a good dab page. All the yet non-existant GH album articles whose artists have a wiki article should also be listed on a good dab page, so that would make (guessing here) 400 entries, maybe even much more in a couple of years. After more thought on this matter, what about this proposal: Delete content of Greatest Hits dab page, redirect that page to greatest hits, and change dab link on greatest hits to Special:Allpages/Greatest_Hits. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep unless an alternative mechanism is suggested. This disambig page is intended not to help DAB editors, but rather to serve as a target for a plausible search term. The term "greatest hits" is a plausible search term even if it has no incoming links. So what if it's not complete? An incomplete dab page is better than nothing. -- Black Falcon 23:38, 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 as unsalvageably incoherent (CSD G1). The well may indeed be notable enough for an article but until it can be written clearly enough to be understood (and verified) this one has to go. WjBscribe 08:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well of Yanayacu[edit]

This article is about a non-notable well in Peru. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 15:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What I know about Peru you could write on the back of a postage stamp, but this article makes some potentially interesting claims if they can be backed up & expanded on. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Who translated this, Babelfish? It is on the bubble of being speediable as non-English. On the other hand, it is English (sort of). And it seems at least possible that the well is notable. It is old. Herostratus 14:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is pretty incomprehensible, and without any links, pretty useless.--James52 04:47, 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 merge and redirect to Mette-Marit, Crown Princess of Norway.--Wizardman 23:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Borg Høiby[edit]

The son of a drug dealer and Mette-Marit Tjessem Høiby before she became a public person. Not a member of the royal family and not a public person himself. Spacecrowd 16:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as potentially useful to anyone researching the Danish royal family, but I'm uncomfortable with keeping up the photo, especially if he's the subject of potential legal actions in privacy cases. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weakest possible keep~~. Although there are probably neutral press references to him constituting notability, all the information necessary is already in Mette-Marit, Crown Princess of Norway. (But I don't know where Iridescent gets "potential legal actions", the article merely mentions a request to the press.) -- Dhartung | Talk 20:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, merge and redirect as there is no harm either way having this point there. -- Dhartung | Talk 20:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Merge and) redirect to Mette-Marit, Crown Princess of Norway. Definately notable enough to be mentioned, appears in press time and time again. As of now however, there is not enough to be said about him that it warrants an article of his own. Therefore: redirect.Dr bab 23:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect he appears in media less often than the children of other "stars", who - barring royalty for some reason - have redirects to their famous parent. Marius is no different. I will also be nominating his father, whose only claim to notability is fathering Marius. Carlossuarez46 20:21, 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 08:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keltie Colleen[edit]

Non-notable person per WP:BIO. RJASE1 ^Talk 16:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I would almost speedy except the author seems under the impression that being a Rockette or dating an emo band guy constitutes notability. Or that somehow all of these "as seen on TV" things add up to actual notability. -- Dhartung | Talk 20:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't add anything, Dhartung said it perfectly. -- Selket ^Talk 23:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree because she hasn't done anything notable. This article was obvioulsy made by a teenie. PrincessOfHearts 19:24, 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. WjBscribe 08:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free Minds[edit]

A WP:CSD candidate which I declined due to a vague assertion of notability and a {{hangon}}. kingboyk 16:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fails WP:WEB. seemingly not the subject of multiple non-trivial works by reliable sources. appears to be self-promotion/advertisement looking at the article creator's user page. ITAQALLAH 17:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Itaqallah; may be recreated if and when notability can be established.Proabivouac 17:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Give me the sources. Ab e g92contribs 15:23, 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 02:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodes Tower[edit]

Unreferenced article about a skyscraper owned by Cleveland State University. It's not even one of the taller buildings in Cleveland, as it is 13th. Clearly non-notable. R.smithson 16:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A notable building in Cleveland, although it does need expansion and references. If I have time, I can dig some up for this. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think "tallest on campus" of a major university is sufficient notability. [34] Here tallest academic building in Ohio. It is also the university administration building. -- Dhartung | Talk 20:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. I'd keep it based on the sole fact that it's a university admin building, but the height is an added bonus. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to be notable per links posted above. --Seattle Skier (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable building. Rhino131 12:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per everybody else. 11kowrom 23:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Tallest academic structure in Cleveland, per ref above. Even here in Los Angleles, we don't have academic structures that tall. --Oakshade 01:30, 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 Delete. If that page wasn't nonsense I am Jimbo Wales' sockpuppet. kingboyk 17:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!![edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Original research throughout. Marshwell102 16:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to wikitionary or change title It certainly isn't vandalism or nonsense. It has been made to some extent to be true, but the title; Makes it seem hoaxful and silly. Retiono Virginian 16:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Wiktionary has this covered already. Article meets WP:CSD#G1: patent nonsense, except nominator removed the {{db-nonsense}} tag to make this nomination. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 17:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete the creator of this article had just made Wheeeeeeeeeeeee!!!! containing only some nonsensical remark about "pigs sliding down that slope", if I remember correctly, leaving me to strongly doubt the etymological claim here. Sure, there is some semblance of truth here, people do say "wheeeee!!!" when excited, but we don't need an article about any interjection. -SpuriousQ (talk) 17:03, 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. Absent any sources describing the organization (beyond a stale blog) an actual article is surely an impossibility. Mackensen (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Azerbaijan National Liberation Movement[edit]

This organization is not notable. A Google search brings up nothing regarding this organization other than the Wikipedia page itself: [35]. It was obviously created to promote this organization and not for the sake of an encyclopedia entry. The User who created this article simply registered for one day to edit the page of the founder of this organization and to create this page and made no edits afterwards: [36], which makes one believe that this User was working on behalf of the organization itself. Again, this article is not note worthy to be on Wikipedia and was simply created for promotional purposes. Azerbaijani 17:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per the above.Azerbaijani 17:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Page does need major wikification, but a Google search brings up a number of non-Wikipedia/mirror hits[37], many of which seem to indicate that this is a recognised political force in the region (and I assume the number would be far higher if searching in Azeri, Russian or Farsi). Given that this page refers to an illegal political party in Iran, I can perfectly understand the creator's remaining anonymous. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those minor hits are Azerbaijani pages. This organization is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article and was obviously created for promotional purposes. Secondly, your comment about Iran is pure speculation and should not influence any vote in anyway. Also, we are all anonymous here on Wikipedia, this user simply created a one day account so he could promote this organization, one which he could possibly be working for. Furthermore, the Iranian government has no way of acting upon any user on Wikipedia in any way.Azerbaijani 21:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most of the WP users with every POV are anonymous: for example me and Azerbaijani and that user!--Pejman47 21:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete first it seems an aparent copyvio, and every organization considers itself "important". Even if it has only 10 members. You need to support your view, by third party sources. --Pejman47 21:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you may search and rescue the article by finding "third-party" sources. --Pejman47 23:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I don't care that much about it - IMO as it stands it's a wretched page, I just think it's potentialy salvageable - but it would need someone who speaks the language & understands the region to rescue it. Anyway, it's probably more suitable for Russian Wikipedia. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it is impossible to write this article according to Wikipedia standards, as there are no third party reliable sources that discuss this organization. I have never heard of this organization, which leads me to believe this is not as big as the other major one (GAMOH), and is probably a competing organization. Again, this seems like it was created for promotional purposes only. There is nothing on the web to base an article for this organization.Azerbaijani 02:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per norm --Rayis 23:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given there are two rival organizations, as agreed even by the nominator, they should both have articles. We are not an international tribunal, and the only fair practice here is to be inclusive (and fix up the article--I agree its present state is not exactly reassuring.). DGG 04:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said they were two rival organizations, I said that this is probably a less well known organization trying to promote itself. Its not notable at all, do a Google search. Also, I've searched for information on this organization in an effort to re-write the article, but I was not able to find any information, not even from biased websites.Azerbaijani 18:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can find plenty of information on this organisation even on a brief Google skim but unfortunately most of it's in Azeri (see this for example) so I can't make any judgement on it. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the problem, there are no third party neutral sources to use to create a fair Wikipedia rticle on such a sensitive topic. The article you mentioned is far from neutral, and infact, looks like the organizations own website! Here is the English version: [38] Look at all the propaganda and bias.Azerbaijani 19:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough. The article should be further improved and expanded. Grandmaster 18:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it notable?Azerbaijani 18:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is the english homepage of this movement[39],where you can find any info about it, and also it is mentioned in this openly anti-azerbaijani pamphlet of one pseudo-scholar who accuses everyone from Heydar Aliyev to Brenda Shaffer of panturkism [40].It has a yahoogroup of 687 members[41](the biggest azerbaijani group is 1000 members+ a few, and the most read internet article in azerbaijani is hardly 300-400 readers due to the low internetification) Also wikipedia contains article about its creator Piruz Dilenchi. Elsanaturk 21:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot use the organizations own website to write a Wikipedia article about it. The group is not notable (outside of Azerbaijani circles) and there are no third party reliable sources to create a Wiki article for such a sensitive topic. I know very well that these same users who are voting keep would never allow an article as sensitive as this to be created with only Iranian sources.Azerbaijani 22:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This "organization" is nothing but a webpage maintained by fantics. It is not significant enough for an encyclopedic entry. Arash the Bowman 21:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the organization does exist and has affiliated publications and television, I don't see why the article should be deleted. Obviously the organization has a certain broad audience, and its worthy of mentioning in encyclopedia. Atabek 23:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is in horrible shape and its not notable. Artaxiad 23:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Arash. Hakob 01:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's against WP:NOR policy. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 08:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please pay attention to South Azerbaijan National Liberation Movement. I'm not an anti-Turk or pan-pharsist but this article is against WP:NOR. I think it should be deleted. Can you improve it by adding some reliable sources? --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 08:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That is not an existing organization:The only use of this web page and it's name is to provoke political tension for putting pressure on Iranian government. If wiki does not delete the page ,then hundreds of pages may appear in this encyclopedia that are only created in imagination for putting political pressure on the nation-states.AlborzFallah 26 March 2007
Keep. The page needs major improvement, but it is about a notable organization, and hence should be kept. --adil 17:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Users who are voting keep with such reasons as this organization being notable and that the article should be re-written still have not shown in what way this article is notable (again, Google search brings up close to nothing) and what third party reliable sources can be used to even re-write this article (so far, the only source provided as been that of the organizations own website!). There is no basis for this article not to be deleted, as it is not notable, and it is impossible to re-write.Azerbaijani 17:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don’t think that the info about irredentist movement in Iranian Azerbaijan should be suppressed in Wikipedia. Regardless of what you think about this organization, the reader has a right to know about it. The current state of the article is not a good reason for deletion, and google search is not the only criterion for establishing notability. The info could be available elsewhere. This article should be improved, and not deleted. Grandmaster 19:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So far, no one has brought up anything to show the notability of this organization, nor has anyone brought up a means to re-wrtie this article (i.e third party reliable sources). No one here has brought up any means of fixing this article. This article was created for in order to promote a relatively unknown organization, simple as that, which is against Wikipedia policies.Azerbaijani 19:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The page needs wikified and other works required by Wikipedia. But it should stay and expanded. google search actually gives some links, unlike the claim of user:Azerbaijani. For example this UN source [42] and here is the blog [43] Since this organization is involved in human rights activity in Iran it is not coincidence that pro-Iranian circles try to suppress information about it. As a relatively young organization its notability perhaps will gain more attention in the future.--Dacy69 19:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is hilarious! You present a blog and say it can be used as a source to write this article? And the article from the UNHCR says nothing about the organization, it mentions it once. How do you expect us to write an article on an organization such as this, when it isnt even notable enough for other third party reliable sources to have already written about it? There is no information that can be found (and I searched) that can be used to write this article. Again, the users voting Keep are obviously not taking into account any of these factors. Furthermore, this users personal attack that says the only reason this article was put up for deletion is because we are part of a "Pro-Iranian circle that tries to suppress information" is ludicrous, as there are many articles that "Pro-Iranian circles" may not like on Wikipedia, such as Human rights in Iran, along with other anti Iranian seperatist and terrorist groups.Azerbaijani 19:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that is, I think we found at least two non-azerbaijani sources, which mention this group, one is United Nations's UNHCR site[44], and another one is this openly anti-azerbaijani pamphlet of one pseudo-scholar[45].thus, at least we have one third party source(UN) and also one source from opposite direction. so why to delete? this organization is not a hoax.If UN can rely upon them, then why not wikipedia? Elsanaturk 21:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you calling a pseudo scholar? Dr. Kaveh Farrokh is a world renown Iranian historian who gives lectures at many famous universities and published many intellectual articles and books. I have even seen him on the History Channel. Secondly, two sources are not the basis for notability, and thirdly, we still have not seen any sources that we could use to create such a article. This article needs to be deleted, there is no other option, rewriting it is impossible as there are no sources to use.Azerbaijani 22:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My comments that pro-Iranian circles try to suppress information about this organization is not related to Wikipedia users per se. It is general comment about Iranian government policy and those who supports it. If you take it personally then it is your bussiness. And obviously, even if you, me or someone else don't like article as Human rights in Iran, nothing can be done about that. It is notable fact. Actually, many countries has problem with that, including US and others. Here, in Wikipedia our role - editors - to give as much as possible accurate and verifiable information. Definitely, if such notable organization like UNHCR mentions the organization in question - then it is accurate. And there is a nubmer of links in Azeri language Google about this organization, for example [46], [47], and article in Azeri Wikipeida about it [48]--Dacy69 22:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, the UNHCR mentions it once, thats it (further showing that it is not notable organization). And you said it right when you said that our role - editors - to give as much as possible accurate and verifiable information., exactly, by that basis, this article must be deleted, as there are no third party reliable sources that can be used to create such an article. And please, do not use an Azeri Google search to try and show notability, this is English Wikipedia. The article you posted from Azeri Wikipedia is about GAMOH, not this SANLM! Are you trying to trick people now?Azerbaijani 22:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is not notable enough and it contains original research. Gol 21:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Let's not promote minor militant/terrorist separatist groups. If the US/Israel pays them to do something maybe they'll become notable. The Behnam 22:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It already has a wiki entry: [[49]]. Why create two!? Looks like a one man organization made for ethnic provocation (dismayed to see it was Baku based). Many false and baseless claims too, like Azerbaijan extends to Khuzestan or Western Azerbaijan which has large number of Kurds is all Azeri or .. etc or Bahmanyar ibn Marzaban who was a Iranian Zoroastrian student of Avicenna predating turkification of the region as a Turkic person(I guess Bahmanyar needs an article)). If this article stays of course all these points should be responded to as well. There are some Iranian based organizations in Iran called "Irani-e-Shomali" (Northern Iran) who also claim the territory of the republic of Azerbaijan. I am wondering what the limits are and if these organizations can get their own wiki article? I do not think think any of these organizations are noticeable enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia. In fact, anyone can create a small one man or few man organizations and then state their political goals. An organization should have at least some weight and be mentioned like the Tamil Tigers or PKK. Also I note that the user who created this article commited a major violation of Wikipedia rule by erasing the delete votes of some users. [50]. I guess that speaks pretty well for the democtratic platform they claim to represent. --alidoostzadeh 23:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, I did not even notice that Delete votes were removed by Aztap (the same person who created this article), which again supports the fact that the intention of this article was to promote this very small and unknown organization, rather than to create a beneficial article for Wikipedia.Azerbaijani 00:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the fake ethnic map that has many non-Azeri groups deleted and marked as Azerbaijani, it is consistent. --alidoostzadeh 00:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Google search becomes more relevant when the right keywords are entered, such as the URL of their website or proper name, including in Azerbaijani language. The name itself is too long for most Western or otherwise journalists to reproduce, so most would go by an abbriviation or just the name of the leader or main spokesman of the organization. None of the organizations are really Baku-based (Chehregani can't even visit Azerbaijan, or Turkey, without being asked to leave), but they have of course chapters there, with regular press contact. --adil 05:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. SANAM seems to be mentioned on the UNPO website [51], so my guess is it's notable enough. However the article needs to be reorganized big time. Parishan 06:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it has a entry already: [[52]]. --alidoostzadeh 11:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve per Parishan.. Baristarim 08:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per Parishan&Baris.. Makalp ^TC 09:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this article's sister article, Piruz_Dilenchi was incorrectly tagged for speedy delete; I've removed the speedy tag and AfD nominated it here. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SANAM (GAMOH http://www.gamoh.org/) and SANLM are different organisations. M. Chohregani is the leader of the first, while Piruz Dilenchi is of the second. --Ulvi I. 13:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wikifyRaveenS 22:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Iridescenti and Parishan. The article needs wikifications, but there is no reason to delete such an informative article. E104421 13:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Iridescenti. The name is mentioned in a report by the United Nations Refugee Agency UNHCR [53] and also in publications by The Jamestown Foundation [54] and Global Security[55].Heja Helweda 05:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Wikipedia shouldn't be used to promote fringe organizations. --Mardavich 05:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I live in Irani azerbaijan all my life and never heard of this movement --Jalil Azermehr 08:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Totally rewrite or Delete at this moment it's a mere promotional text without any wikificaion. --Armatura 12:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, unsourced, original research, possible WP:COI. Niko Silver 12:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per User:Gol.--Zereshk 12:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I am wondering why it is not Speedy Deleted. Acoriding to Item 11, Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic should be deleted without debate. (Shahingohar 13:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per nom - POV, unsourced, seems like advocacy, and the list goes on.--Domitius 13:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I refuse to get to the substance of the article, since, as it now, it is nothing more than a promotional article, having nothing to do with an encyclopedia. Inacceptable content and format. This is a party declaration! What is it doing here?!--Yannismarou 16:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This is nothing more than a fringe political movement run by a handful of people who are not even native Azeris. For the last few months, these individuals have been using the "Youtube.com" self-broadcasting service as a springboard for propagating their political POV's and since being largely banished by Youtube, they are now attempting to leverage Wikipedia.org as their new political tool. I advise all editors to be vigilant -- even after this article is deleted, they will retaliate by vandalizing existing articles as was seen on the Reza Shah article, etc.Mehrshad123 19:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete An organization (or movement as it says in the title) should be notable to have a page in Wikipedia. Has this organization done any notable activity other than lunching a website? Has this group been studied by a notable reference? If yes why it is not reported by any reliable source. Please note that a local newspaper in Baku is not considered reliable. This article seems to be from Self-published sources. Wikipedia should not be abused by unknown groups for obtaining fame.(Arash the Archer 19:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Rewrite or Delete as per Armatura. Kaveh 21:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an article on the opposition groups in Iran(if this organization is proved to be notable enough through *reliable sources*). I am not sure how much this organization is notable. I even doubt its popularity among Turks. If it was an organization regarding Kurds, I would have probably gave it a more paused before writing this. --Aminz 07:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, copy vio, solely for promotional purposes, unencyclopedic, promoting violence. Shervink 11:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve per above.Caglarkoca 11:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per alidoostzadeh, alot of these have been popping up recently... - Fedayee 14:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per alidoostzadeh and Azerbaijani. original research, unencyclopedic, solely for promotional purposes. lol, it sounds like a one-member party. Maybe the leader and the only member of the movement wrote this article.--behmod talk 19:15, 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty underwear fetish[edit]

Original research, unverifiable, probable hoax/joke article. Slig303 17:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - I am not suprised that this is a fetish, but it definitely does not need its own unsourced article. -- Diletante 17:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to satisfy WP:ATT. Nonnotable sex fetish, one of a infinite number of such. Edison 19:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm surprised this wasn't speedy deleted, especially given the edit history of the new account which created this. - Quietvoice 19:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For heaven's sake! - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to panty fetishism. -- Dhartung | Talk 20:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as a probable hoax and unverifiable regardless. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 20:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete I agree with Niffweed. probably a hoax April_I_R_Fooled 20:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This is systematic bias again! Dirty underwear fetish is massive in Germany and the low countries. And if it wasn't for DUF (as it is known), there would be no sex at all in Siberia. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 21:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no redirect per wp not a page for some crap you just thought up. meshach 22:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, probable hoax, unverifiable, no reliable sources cited - take your pick. --sunstar net^talk 00:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletehoax --The Phoenix Enforcer 01:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erm... - hoe can this be a hoax if there are so many results? [56]? Can someone translate this into German, then we can see how popular this fetish is. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 01:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR then, just so long as it's deleted! - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 01:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I understand that last exchange correctly? Delete under any rule, appropriate or not, as long as it gets deleted? DGG 05:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the sound of that. How about delete per WP:IDONTLIKEIT? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article isn't well-developed, but I don't doubt that this fetish exists given the billion or so google hits. So, I recommend that the article author look for published work that discusses this fetish. Breast expansion fetish went through a similar deletion discussion, and several reliable sources were found. Consider writing the article in a user subpage until it is ready. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will of course try, but I certainly never expected to be the local expert on documenting parasexual fetishes and related subjects--I really do not have any specialist qualifications. Help for this would really be appreciated, because I expect some of this will be video and other material I can not easily work with. (smile) It will be easy enough to recreate if I cant do it with the time span needed. DGG 06:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it currently exists is really no loss if it's deleted, so feel free to take your time. I was mainly saying that to the creator of the article, who (I now see) doesn't happen to be participating in this discussion. As long as the article isn't salted, I'll be happy. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fetish for now; once we have enough material for this to break into its own article we can revisit. Vectro 16:56, 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 22:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airbus A350 vs. Boeing 787 Orders[edit]

A table in fruitless search for an article. The information here is already present on the two aircraft articles, so there's nothing to merge. This is unsourced, unverified information, and basically unencyclopedic. I'm an active member of WP:AIR and this doesn't even come close to fitting any Project standards. Akradecki 17:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Agree with nom. This tabulation likely only has propagandistic value. — RJH (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article and while I thought it was valuable information, I have no problem with its deletion. user:mnw2000 17:26, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutantimes[edit]

Spam for NN website doing little else but scraping Google News for stories mentioning Bhutan. Bramlet Abercrombie 17:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until there's something to really say about this topic. - grubber 18:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB --J2thawiki 19:11, 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. WjBscribe 22:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Banggs[edit]

Non-notable biography. Undeleted from a CSDA7 because of nagging by creator. No claim of notability beyond having acted in porn films, no independent third party reviews of her work. She fails all the "Valid criteria" in WP:PORNBIO. We need to remember WP:BLP in these cases and weigh how much useful information is in these articles against the possible harm they can do to living people. This article makes no case for her being anything more than your standard run-of-the-mill porn actor. Delete. Mak (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is notable by the fact that she has appeared in over 100 movies, as stated in WP:PORNBIO. WP:PORNBIO states 'modern American heterosexual performers are usually notable if they appear in more than 100 films'. The article had reliable sources proving that she is a prolific pornstar. That is all that is needed. There is nothing written in the article that isn't sourced. The WP:PORNBIO criteria are derived from results of past AfD discussions which shows that precedants have been set. I've seen many articles like this at AfD discussions and they've always been kept. There are many less notable porn stars than her on Wikipedia. This is clearly not just a vanity article. Epbr123 17:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed that it was vanity. Also, the fact that there are less "notable" pornstars on Wikipedia is a bad reason to keep an article. Also, things change, AfD is not strictly based on precedent. It also says usually notable, not always notable. The only point in her favor as far as notability is concerned is that she's prolific? I think that's somewhat absurd. Mak (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of her film performances have been independenly reviewed at dvdtalk.com, for example [57]. Epbr123 18:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Number of films in a genre 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, as Googling her gets under 400 hits. I get more relevant hits if I Google my name (real name, not WP name), and I'm not notable enough for a WP article. 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.LaMenta3 18:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your POINT. Epbr123 20:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason she has low Google hits is that there are numourous variations of her name. 'Mia Bangg' comes up with over 200,000 hits. Epbr123 20:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's still significantly less than most (if not all) of the other AfDs in which I voted keep. I searched the variation you suggested on Google and still came up with anything that could be considered a reliable source. Even what appears to be her official website provides no information so as to be used as an acceptable primary source. If you can expand and appropriately reference this article with sources that I have overlooked, please do. I never vote in an AfD without first seeing if there's something I can do to "save" the article in question (unless of course it obviously appears to be crap or otherwise inappropriate for WP). I am not at all unopposed to changing my position on an AfD if the article is improved to acceptable standards. Also, WP:AGF, etc... LaMenta3 22:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hmmmm. Carmen Hayes 199,000 hits, Mariko Morikawa 25,000 hits, Amanda Lexx 123,000 hits, Alexis DeVell 30,000 hits, Anastasia Christ 179,000 hits. But OK, I'll assume good faith. Epbr123 23:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure to satisfy WP:ATT and per LaMenta. The "100 films" criterion is disputed as an easy way to obtain a Wikipedia article as free advertising for a porn performer. Edison 19:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether or not she is "a contender for notability" based on some criterion or another doesn't really matter. We need to see reliable sources and we need to see them pronto. --kingboyk 22:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Epbr123 seems to have done some further research, and found a reliable source or two. She was apparently a FAME award nominee, and owns a modeling agency. Good enough for me. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources, no article, porn industry is highly adept at manipulating Google, no indication provided she passes PORNBIO. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article provides reliable secondary sources so she passes WP:BIO. She passes WP:PORNBIO through her number film appearances, her noteworthy news piece and her notability in both the big-bust & anal sex genres. Epbr123 11:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This AfD seems to be part of an anti-porn campaign. Google gives over 230,000 hits for Mia Bangg. -- Petri Krohn 23:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, would you point out any other Porn bios I've nominated recently? Mak (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maemki, I don't think that he was singling you out personally, its just that the bulk of these ill-conceived nominations seem to come in waves. RFerreira 05:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Petri Krohn. Acalamari 20:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of Porn star deletions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten, article now provides sourcing in compliance with WP:A and meets WP:PORN BIO guidelines as well. RFerreira 05:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RFerreira. bbx 05:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PORNBIO with flying colors. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:55, 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 delete under WP:CSD G1; obvious sock-supported hoax. A Train^{take the} 22:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xenoharbingers[edit]

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

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

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

No proof of notability, google turns up zero hits for "xenoharbingers" Diletante 17:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources provided, no way to verify the content of this article. Jkelly 17:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously not notable, probably a hoax. ... discospinster _talk 18:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Looks to be totally bogus. -Nv8200p talk 19:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced figment of the imagination. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a hoax April_I_R_Fooled 20:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Certain hoax, even more so if google turns up zero. Primarily the product of two single-purpose vandal accounts which have now been blocked (see Special:Contributions/Adonaiii and Special:Contributions/Kendra_Ardnek), plus a single-purpose IP vandal (Special:Contributions/80.33.103.14). --Seattle Skier (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete this, my friend has ego problems. He's just looking to show this to friends to get attention for himself. Please don't satisfy him by allowing this to linger. WP:MADEUP -- feb^talk 17:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A person i knew tried to recruit me once, i don't think it's widespread (just in the netherlands), but real. Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.220.75.184 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 26 March 2007 — 89.220.75.184 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep I know this is real! It's a deffinant keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.255.19.22 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 26 March 2007 — 206.255.19.22 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep This is real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.159.94 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 26 March 2007 — 69.76.159.94 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: These three IP users have, respectively: Only edited this page, Only made a minor edit outside this page, and edited other than this page, but obvious vandalism sock puppet of the above party -- feb^talk 01:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is legit, i've heard on this cult on a documentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.72.52.203 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 26 March 2007 — 82.72.52.203 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
delete not notable--Sefringle 02:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - complete hoax with no truth at all. Jayden54 12:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This cult is real, i know a friend of mine who got an invitation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.165.102.114 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 26 March 2007 — 62.165.102.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep There are some resources on them under the name "Amethwynn society", but this is there real name. I know they have been trying to convert people a while ago. --62.143.138.60 17:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As this is seen as a hoax by established wikipedia users, please provide WP:RS if you wish to be taken seriously -- feb^talk 04:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Looks like a hoax.Shindo9 Hikaru 03:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, simply violates WP:N and WP:V. Apple •_•w••o•_•r••m•_• 18:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Verifiable, the deventer local newspaper wrote about it a month or three ago. Notable enough. The fact it lacks back-up on the internet does not mean it can't be verified. --82.72.56.88 20:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One, we have no reason to beleive this newspaper is a reliable source, two, you're provided no reason to beleive this newspaper has actually published this or anything of the sort, and three, a single newspaper article does not mean notability, in almost all cases -- feb^talk 20:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.RaveenS 21:55, 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. WjBscribe 22:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airbus A380 vs. Boeing 747-8 Orders[edit]

A table in fruitless search for an article. The information here is already present on the two aircraft articles, so there's nothing to merge. This is unsourced, unverified information, and basically unencyclopedic. I'm an active member of WP:AIR and this doesn't even come close to fitting any Project standards. Akradecki 17:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Agree with nom. This tabulation likely only has propagandistic value. — RJH (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. You probably should have combined your nominations, as they are very similar. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:21, 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. WjBscribe 22:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taupok (game)[edit]

Non-notable local game, only relevant details from wikipedia:reliable sources are about the stir over just one letter to a major newsletter complaining about it. example description I'm not sure we need an article for everything students do in school that have caused letters to be written in newspapers. Resurgent insurgent 17:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Dr bab 23:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly falls under WP:NFT. --Seattle Skier (talk) 07:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Tnomad 13:12, 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. --Wafulz 21:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baller[edit]

This is an article about the slang term "baller", it is unsourced, and therefore violates Wikipedia:Attribution. The slang term obviously exists, but unless there is enough sourced content on this to write an article, this should be deleted/redirected somewhere, as it's already been transwikied to Wiktionary Xyzzyplugh 17:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Instructions to source should be added to this good attempt at an article about an important slang term. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. Belongs in Wiktionary. Edison 19:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a terminal dicdef; apparently it's already in Wiktionary. szyslak (t, c) 20:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more than a dicdef. Abeg92contribs 15:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Attribution does not make an exception for "more than a dicdef". Articles where reliable sources can't be found, even if they are "more than a dicdef", still do not belong. Have you found any? --Xyzzyplugh 20:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some serious reliable sources are added pronto. PubliusFL 04:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If reliable sources are found that discuss the term then it can be recreated per WP:NEO. Mike Christie (talk) 18:09, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inkthis[edit]

Self-promotional, conflict of interest. Notability not established; does not include references that satisfy WP:A. — ERcheck (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per my nomination. — ERcheck (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Feeeshboy 18:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant spam. The article has already been speedy deleted once today; is there a reason why it wasn't this time and came to AfD? --J2thawiki 20:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - grubber 18:15, 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 speedy deleted per A3/G11/take your pick. Salting in a minute. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 18:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hacker Safe[edit]

This page has been speedied and deleted before, yet it has come back. Let's decide on this one, please, and salt if deemed necessary. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 18:29, 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 No consensus, defaulting to keep. Discussion of a possible merge/redirect is a separate editorial decision that can be undertaken at the talk page. Shimeru 16:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super transformation[edit]

Blatant original synthesis. See the talk page, where it comes out that this is based entirely on playing the games in question and drawing conclusions. As a result, this article is a constant source of edit warring over whose interpretation is correct, with no possible end in sight because there aren't any sources from which to build this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to note that I've added a whole bunch of references to the super forms and their abilities as mentioned in various guides from down in my parents' basement. Yes Virginia, I've been playing Sonic games since the Genesis days. The dusty library down fhsds reflects this. Sadly, not all the guides had useful information - thanks for nothing, BradyGames, on your 'SuperSONIC Tips' guide. Anyway, this should help quell the "original research" issue by and large, although I still don't have anything to cite for Blaze's section. --Bishop2 18:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ...you can't even put a damn AfD up properly >_>. Anywho, there's a keep vote from me, because it was decided in the past not to delete the Super form articles, or to merge them with their regular counterparts as it only inflates the article. Also, there's a second super article which appears to be untouched. Deleting the game article and leaving the comic article is sure to start massive chaos. Also, all of the Sonic articles suffer the same "problem" so the only real way to solve it is to delete them all.GrandMasterGalvatron 18:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It seems to be covered in enough detail in Sonic the Hedgehog (series). It really isn't a large enough of a gameplay mechanic to warrent an article(only final boss battles in the most recent games). The separate character section can easily be trimmed, and merged with the actual characters. Nemu 19:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was actually decided against in the past for the sole reason that it inflated the articles..mainly Sonic's. Also note that there's a second article which remains untouched.GrandMasterGalvatron 19:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if those articles are inflated with original research, we could lose the original research (which is the entirety of this article). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By your definition, it's the entirety of all of the articles.GrandMasterGalvatron 20:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both super transformation and super transformation (other media) to power-up. This is really, really fancrufty and how-to-ey. -- Dhartung | Talk 20:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know..I actually went there and asked about it and nothing was said :/GrandMasterGalvatron 20:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Why delete? To inflate other articles? No, it's excelent where it is.

Keep, not original research. It is sourced to both reliable primary sources (the games) and reliable secondary sources (creator confirmation external to the games), albeit minimally in the latter case. --tjstrf talk 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's an original synthesis of the games, and the "reliable secondary sources" are not only primary (interviews of the designers of the games performed by sites run by the publishers of the games are not in any sense secondary) but also selectively quoted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of fictional subjects, the creators are indeed a wikt:reliable wikt:source of information, and because they are interpreting the information rather than being the information, they are also secondary. --tjstrf talk 01:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively quoting primary sources is not how we write articles on Wikipedia. Additionally, the author of a work is not a separate source from the work itself. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, the author of the work is definitely a separate source. We consider each publication in a series of novels a separate source, so the same should follow if the author of a particular work states something in, say, an interview or on a webpage. It is information that is not encapsulated within the game, hence it is from an additional source. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 21:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind the fact that said interviews of the creators of the games performed by the publishers of the games neither establish notability nor do they make the claims advanced in this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a red herring. Questions of notability are not part of this AfD, and more to the point there was no assertion that these sources established notability. These are merely additional, secondary sources which help establish verifiability. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 08:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I fail to understand how "original synthesis" is a reason for deletion as applied to this article. By definition all Wikipedia articles are synthesis, "a putting together" of information from multiple sources. It is only when that information advances a position that it runs afoul of WP:NOR. So far all the information I can see is either directly attributed to a specific game or source, or is an uncontroversial notation of difference between two games. (With the exception of some of the Trivia section) Both of these are clearly allowed under WP:NOR. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 01:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article takes scraps of personal observation of many different games, and puts them together to form original conclusions that have been published nowhere. That's original research by definition. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I see no original conclusions that are not uncontroversial or straightforward statements of difference. (With a few exceptions in the Trivia section) These kinds of comparisons are permissable under WP:NOR, so long as they don't advance a position. (e.g. that Sonic 3 is the best Sonic game for being Super Sonic, etc.) It's no different than having a basic mathematical conversion for numerical facts: it's a basic, logical deduction that can be easily verified. As far as it being combined from personal observations, with video games, books, or any other works of fiction, personal observations are merely the conduit for information from the primary source. Nothing wrong with that at all. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 21:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did link the talk page for examples, but, hey, I can always provide more.
According to whom is flight a defining trait?

"The air can become a "virtual ground" as shown in Sonic Heroes, enabling the player to jump and use the same abilities as if in a regular level." How is that sourced to anything but experimenting and examining the results?

The player can ... break open an Item box with an "S" on it." - The source for this is entering an unspecified cheat code and, again, reproducing the personal observation of the author of this article.

"It takes 50 Rings to enable the transformation and one Ring is lost per second." Also sourced to personal observation and analysis, and it isn't even always true.

"When the character runs out of Rings, the transformation will be undone and can not be re-enabled unless 50 additional Rings are collected." Likewise.

There's five examples of original research in the first section. Cheese isn't sourced to a trip to the store, bird isn't sourced to examining birds in flight, but this article is sourced to examining the works in question, and even its strongest proponent admits that there are no sources other than personal observation to support the claims made in this article. I would hope that the closing admin could see such problems for what they are, instead of bowing to the pressure of Sonic fans who want their fanpage kept. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some replies:
No idea what you're talking about.

It's sourced to the game, though the "virtual ground" line is a bit far. It could be rephrased simply to state that the player can jump and perform other moves as though they were on the ground.

Probably a little game-guide-ish, but again, it's sourced to the game.

Again, sourcable to the game. Also sourcable to any innumerable FAQs, guides, reviews, or other such secondary sources.

Same as the above.

I still fail to understand what your problem is with using primary sources on this one. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing this article to the games is exactly as bad as sourcing cat to your cat Mittens. It's original research. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're comparing apples and oranges. You're applying a standard crafted for real-life information to works of fiction. For realms of fiction, each publication within that fiction is a primary source. Such is the case here: each game is a primary source. Each piece of information need only be cited or sourced to an individual game or other in-fiction source. Saying that it's original research because it "is sourced to examining the works in question" is like saying articles on TV shows are all original research because they're based on "watching the work in question", or that articles on books are original research because they're sourced to "reading the work in question". Regardless of who watched or examined it, the information can be directly attributed to a work of fiction in the series. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 08:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homes it's one thing not to allow fansites as a source, and that I agree with, but you won't even allow the freakin creators as a source. Who better than the people who made the game can tell us what's what? You're saying some dude that published info about the games is more reliable than the people who make the games. But lo and behold....that's the personal observation of said publisher. Meaning, I could get a job with IGN, and re write the information in this article word for word, and I'd then be a more reliable source than Sega and Sonic Team, because I'd then be a published source independent of the games. You know what, I think the absurdity of that logic speaks for itself. Oh and your failure to read completely has been made evident again by this line:

"It takes 50 Rings to enable the transformation and one Ring is lost per second." Also sourced to personal observation and analysis, and it isn't even always true."

If you followed the footnote you would have noticed that it does mention the exceptions to that rule...O SNAP BURN! Also:

"bird isn't sourced to examining birds in flight"

In essence, yes it is, because the scientist and whoever published information had to observe the birds for study and research.

Now I don't mind you and Nemu forcibly whipping these articles into shape, because honestly, it needed to be done. But you dudes have some of the worst logic I've even seen, and yet you think other articles such as Knuckles the Echidna and Shadow the Hedgehog which are at least 10 times more fancrufty and filled with original research can be saved? That right there is a major violation of NPOV if I've ever seen it because it shows an apparent bias against super forms and the like.GrandMasterGalvatron 02:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the need to reply to the bulk of this, but...

"the scientist and whoever published information had to observe the birds for study and research."

Right. We are not scientists. We are encyclopedists. We summarize and cite the research of others. We don't perform our own experimentation and observation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's that? My hypocrite senses are tingling. "We allow the research of others", but you won't even allow the research of Sega, who knows more about the subject then anyone possibly could! How could any secondary source hold more weight than the creators of said fiction?GrandMasterGalvatron 10:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we are contributing to articles on works of fiction based on primary sources. In that case personal observation is the only way an editor can ensure the contributed content is verifiable. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 08:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deriving conclusions from personal observation is original research. That's exactly what original research is. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok guy...what are these conclusions you're blathering about. I'm getting the impression you haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about to make all these claims. Original research is used to advance a point of view amirite? I don't see any point of viiew being advanced other than what's present in the games. Also, the only way to get information about a game is personal observation, be it from it's players or game critics. Even the creators have their own observations about the thing they have made. You want someone to verify the article, but guess what they've gotta do: play the game. There's no way around it except for the makers. You need to stop beating around the bush and come out and say these "novel conclusions" that irk you so much.GrandMasterGalvatron 19:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the entire argument for the original deletion is "original synethesis," that argument should be fairly well moot by now. Hard citations have been added throughout, individual conclusions have been removed. What remains at this stage after a series of edits is pretty much solid fact rife with published sources. At this point, I'm not sure why we're still talking about this, unless a new reason for deleting the article is going to be proposed. --Bishop2 19:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, deriving conclusions is bad. Good thing the article doesn't do that. The majority of the article content is verifiable information obtained via personal observation. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The games are citable resources of information, same as printed material or anything else. Maybe we should add specific citations to exactly where the proof is pulled from, or even cite printed game guides if that makes you feel better, but the fact remains that it can easily be verified. --Bishop2 07:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article provides a good deal of information about Sonic the Hedgehog, certainly a notable series, in a single, decent page. If this page is deleted, readers of the articles where super transformations are mentioned will be confused. Wikipedia should be expanded, not diminished. Paul Haymon 09:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ILIKEIT and WP:INTERESTING don't overcome the original research, attribution, and in-universe problems of this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you that the article occasionally suffers from some in-universe writing, but most of the text specifically refers to "this game" or "that game", which can hardly be considered in-universe. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 21:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 02:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This kinda cherry-picks from various plot points and basic citable facts to create this article. Where does the term "Super transformation" even originate from? Is it used in the games themselves? Wickethewok 04:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes...yes it does. The article is obviously still being worked on.GrandMasterGalvatron 04:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has any publication ever used the term? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From personal experience, the Prima strategy guide from Sonic Adventure 2 Battle (the GameCube conversion) uses it. However, that's not nearly as valuable as the original game using it, obviously. I mean, what's more valuable - if some critic says something happens in a movie, like the notoriously inaccurate (yet well-read and well-written) reviews of Roger Ebert, or if it ACTUALLY HAPPENS? Obviously the latter is the resource to be cited. --Bishop2 05:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The best is both, to show that it's not only used in the work but in commentary on the work. For example, Darth Vader is called Lord Vader many times in the Star Wars films, but we have the article at Darth Vader by looking at the commentary on the film. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah..but then we have the issue that 9 times out of ten these strategy guides and gaming websites publish inaccurate data in comparison to the games themselves. I mean come on..."Gold Sonic"? Nothing short of sheer ignorance of the subject would make one think that Sonic turns into "Gold Sonic". Yet, the latter is apparently a better source than in game screenshots, and commentary by the creators calling it "Super Sonic". You know...this is about the same level as those two dudes who insist on the whole "Rouge is 17" thing, even though that has been clearly shown to be a typo XD. That's the problem with these "secondary sources". They're fine and all, but they often don't know what the hell they're talking about. Need I bring up "Dark Sonic"? (Shadow)GrandMasterGalvatron 05:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not understanding how your argument is justification for deletion. If the article cherry-picks facts then the issue is with WP:NPOV, and insofar as I can tell there is no obvious POV-pushing going on here. In fact, I don't even know what facts are supposedly omitted from this article, and unless someone can point out a few specific points that have been deliberately omitted I'm calling this a jingoistic non-argument. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 08:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Good lord. GameFAQs? Over there. --Calton | Talk 06:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why do we even need a separate article? Can't this all be scattered to their respective bios? Hbdragon88 23:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - It's a large part of most Sonic games that can no longer be confined to a single character. The fact is that it has now become a mechanism which is effectively distributed to almost every playable character that shows up in the Sonic fiction. Spreading this out to each individual bio would mean that readers would have to look at (and search) 8+ separate articles to get the same information that is presented here. It is more efficient and effective to present this information in a unified fashion in one article. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm still not seeing it any more than just a powerup. I counter-example with Mario. Super Mario has been a big part in each Mario game, but it just redirects to Mario, and the other game articles describe his powerup abilities. Also, if I understand correctly, they aren't that big - in my first Sonic game, Sonic Rush, I don't ever remember needing to transform. The level of description on some of them strikes me as being crufty and one that could be compressed. Hbdragon88 23:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No super forms in Sonic Rush? Apparently you never actually beat the game. You transform for the final boss fight after beating both story paths. We would explain that in the article, but then certain people would say it was game-guide content and want it deleted. --tjstrf talk 23:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You got me there. I was too frustrated at trying to beating Eggman (something along the lines of trying to climb up the frickin' robot within ten seconds, something not possible for me). Hbdragon88 00:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The difference is that Super Mario is just a simple, ordinary powerup in the Mario series, whereas the Super [Sonic/Knuckles/Tails/etc.] powerup is often times a significant plot element. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 01:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed. From an out of universe standpoint, super transformation has become a staple deus ex machina in the series. It's rare to not see some character go super in some way. In fact, it's only happened in two releases since Sonic R way back in 1997.GrandMasterGalvatron 01:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article has gone from cherrypicking the games themselves to cherrypicking strategy guides, to describe the game a way works with no possibility for any analysis of or insight on same, with any conclusions made or implied not present in the original works. Shifting from drawing original conclusions from the games to concluding that this is a subject unto itself based on works that mention this subject in passing; this isn't really improvement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're really going to need to explain your current problem with the article. All concerns have been addressed. No longer are there any original conclusions drawn - everything is purely factual info. Game guides are used solely to provide an outside, non-primary source for the appearances and abilities gained by the super forms, which is all that the article currently described. Anything that resembles gameplay tips have been removed because this isn't GameFAQs. We are now simply describing what a super transformation is and how the various forms function. Originally, you said that if the article was given hard non-primary citations and didn't have any original research, you wouldn't put it up for AfD. Well, that's now the case. This is now a pure, factual, fully cited article about a consistent phenomenon occurring within the Sonic the Hedgehog universe, and its existence is still based around keeping length down on other articles that are already running long - it would take some time to explain the full nature of super transformations and how they affect each character in each of the individual character articles, after all. So really, what specifically is the problem you currently have? --Bishop2 21:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry picking? Original conclusions? Cite some specific examples now, because I just looked at the article, and it sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.GrandMasterGalvatron 21:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's good where it is. Adding it to other articles would make it complicated. 172.189.4.116 21:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There has been ample arguement in this article's defense already, any further insistance on its' termination is nothing more than a deletionist-fueled witch-hunt. Orca1 9904 07:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Orca1_9904[reply]

Keep RememberMe? 08:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep + Comment The page does need a tidy up, but deletion is not the answer. --Zikar 20:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dhartung. - Aagtbdfoua 02:30, 2 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 keep (nomination withdrawn, no-one other than the nominator recommends deletion). Iamunknown 18:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC) (This is a non-administrator closed discussion.)[reply]

Stephen Hurley[edit]

The article does not assert notability of the subject per the guidelines of WP:BIO. Nv8200p talk 19:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article improved. Nomination withdrawn. -Nv8200p talk 16:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he's a player in a national (in this case Irish) football league. Malla nox 19:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is automatically asserted by having played at the highest level in his country. EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is so wrong. Are highest-level players in Nepal notable? Punkmorten 09:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - They probably are, if you're from Nepal. Surely we need to be careful of WP:CSB here. Having said that, the Eircom league is a mostly professional league of a reasonable standard. EliminatorJR ^Talk 13:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no automatic assertion of notability. Each article has to stand on its own merit. This article fails the primry criteria that there is no coverage of the subject by reliable independent secondary sources. There are no references in the article and a search turns up very little. -Nv8200p talk 11:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 22:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the players from his former club have articles. (BanRay 10:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Maybe they are notable in their own right and deserve an article. -Nv8200p talk 11:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If they do, Stephen Hurley deserves one as well, for being a regular at the same club. Most of those players haven't achieved much apart from that either and yet have an article.(BanRay 12:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    - Then the articles on these players should be nominated for deletion also. -Nv8200p talk 12:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment So to summarize, you think that hundreds (yes, there are hundreds of Irish league player bio pages) of articles should be deleted? When WP:BIO even allows for articles on US college sports players who haven't even played a single first team game? EliminatorJR ^Talk 13:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:BIO allows for any biographical article that has major media coverage or multiple minor media coverage. If this guy is notable, add some reliable independent web or print media references to the article. -Nv8200p talk 13:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I've added a few. Most of the (many) references to this player are of course match reports, though, and I didn't think quoting fifty of those would be useful. EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It's a good start. I withdraw my nomination. -Regards Nv8200p talk 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Phenomenon[edit]

Article contains no factual information. It is unverifiable and predictive Malla nox 19:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't claim notability, not to mention the violation of WP:CRYSTAL, probably could be speedied. EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Guinnog 06:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - grubber 18:16, 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 Speedy Delete. Duplicate of a copyvio-challenged article. kingboyk 22:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full list of phobias[edit]

I'm not sure if this is nonsense or not. Seems like listcruft either way. kingboyk 19:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeDon't see anything wrong with keeping this list, although to an extent that depends on the resolution of the dispute surrounding Complete list of PhobiasAddyboy 20:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bah. It's pretty much a copy of that! Thanks for letting me know. --kingboyk 22:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, unmaintainable, and I think someone got a little cute with the faux Latin on this list. "Bphoboa"? Also could be a copyvio. --UsaSatsui 21:30, 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.

My closure edit conflicted with this additional comment:

Speedy Delete as copy violation from here: http://static.scribd.com/docs/ho8kwplo9c1ih.pdf So tagged meshach 22:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gone Going (song)[edit]

This is a hoax article - the song was never released as a single. The chart positions, release dates, track listings, video synopsis etc. have been completely made up. Extraordinary Machine 19:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Conditional~~ Delete assuming what the nom says is true. --UsaSatsui 21:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm convinced. --UsaSatsui 23:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I agree with you, Extraordinary Machine, it's completely made up. Although I did hear it on the radio here in Australia, I never heard it being released as a single. The chart positions are quite obviously made up; I look at the UK, US and Australian charts every week. No such single have I seen on any of these charts. The video screenshot is faked; it could be any old screenshot. I have also never heard of Jack Johnson being in the non-existent video, and it never premiered on Video Hits, I watch that too. It's also poorly linked and poorly written. User:Ss112 03:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional~~ Delete per UsaSatsui. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Good enough for me. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. The article certainly looks like hoax. There was definitely no Australian release for this single, plus other stuff sounds fake. RaNdOm26 15:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The cover was also an obvious fake; you could see the border from where the BEP logo was added. The user has done similar things at other pages, including a unsourced and seemingly fake cover at 4 in the Morning. ShadowHalo 06:54, 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 redirect to The Princess Bride (film). Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iocaine[edit]

Does not meet Wikipedia criteria for notability. There are thousands of bands; article does not note significant accomplishments, such as recordings, chart positions, records sales, etc. Appears to be self-promotional. Ward3001 20:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO ADMIN: If decision is Delete, note that Iocaine previously redirected to The Princess Bride (film). Ward3001 20:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This band is odorless, tasteless, dissoulves easily without sources and should be extremely deleted. (I'm slowly building up an immunity to these articles so I can stomach them, however) --UsaSatsui 21:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Princess Bride (film). Catchpole 22:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, meets {{db-band}} criteria. GregorB 22:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to The Princess Bride (film). The band isn't notable, and most people searching for "iocane" will have heard the movie quote and be looking for the movie. PubliusFL 04:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Catchpole. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:33, 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, though if it is the largest mall in Labrador, put it in the article.--Wizardman 23:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Labrador Mall[edit]

Contested PROD Yanksox 20:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability claimed. Gillyweed 21:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Website claims it's the "largest mall in Labrador", which, if we are to have articles on malls generally (and we do, I think) would put this into the keepable category of malls - largest in an entire (half-)province, granted it's a small province. Herostratus 14:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Largest in Labrador means something significant to me. As the above user said, it may not be TOO much, but a superlative's a superlative. TenPoundHammer 17:48, 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 withdrawn by nominator. John254 22:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volusia County Road 4164[edit]

This article is entirely unreferenced, and concerns an apparently non-notable road. John254 20:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Inherently, all state highways and county roads are notable. The name is a bit off, though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:USRD/P. Also move to County Route 4164 (Volusia County, Florida). V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 03:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Florida is an exception. It should be County Road 4164 (Volusia County, Florida). -- NORTH ^talk 03:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep County routes are part of the project. -- J-A10 ^{T · C} 03:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to V60's suggested location - per V60 and Rschen7754 • master_son^{Lets talk} 03:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was this once a state road? I'm not sure that all county roads should be automatically notable. --NE2 04:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I'm not going to state an opinion just yet.) There has been nothing yet, AFAIK, that says county roads are inherently notable. As I understand it, the line was drawn at state highways. I see nothing on WP:USRD/P that shows notability of county roads. --Sable232 04:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Route 309A (Florida)? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 66 (Dutchess County, New York)? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - 309A was a state road; 66 is apparently a major historic road. I've written a few articles about secondary state highways in Virginia, which would be county routes in most states, but I'd vote to delete many of them, since residential streets in unincorporated areas are secondary state highways. 4164 looks more major that that, but it's not clear how much more major. --NE2 04:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - A line must be drawn somewhere. So, hypothetically, a street a block long with no structures on it is automatically notable because it happens to be a county road, one of thousands in a state? I do not find that to be a sustainable policy. If we keep trying to assert notability of everything that has ever been paved, I think the majority of WP will tire of this and nearly all road articles will be lost as a result. --Sable232 05:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 309A was closed as no consensus. 66 was closed keep, but there were certainly dissents, though in the minority.DGG 05:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No personal opinion on this article. Just to clarify the "precedent" to the extent which it exists. As NE2 said, 309A in Florida is a special case – there are several Florida state roads that were decommissioned and became county highways. (I don't believe this is one of those.) Apparently Dutchess CR 66 has some historical significance, but to be honest I think the main reason it was kept is because it faced the backlash of a couple of WP:POINT nominations by User:Edeans. A third county highway conveniently left off the precedents list is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutchess County Route 33, which was withdrawn after the article was merged and redirected to a town article. I honestly don't think there's any precedent for county highways. -- NORTH ^talk 06:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there may actually be enough to write about it. "Osteen-Maytown Road should be fully paved within 18 months, a county official said last week, ending more than 30 years of debate about the 21-mile dirt roadway connecting Osteen and Oak Hill." "Drive down Osteen-Maytown Road and you won't see a single housing subdivision or restaurant, not one gas station or grocery store. There's no Lowe's, no 7-Eleven and no McDonald's. For 13 miles, there's nothing but scrub and dirt and sky. There's not much left like it in Volusia County." --NE2 08:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and rename if more can be said about the road; otherwise merge with a page for all county roads in Volusia County (List of county roads in Volusia County, Florida or something similar). --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to disagree with the idea that all county roads are inherently notable. Maybe County State-Aid Highway 1 (Hennepin County, Minnesota) is notable because it's an old road that connected Fort Snelling to Shakopee, Minnesota, but County State-Aid Highway 2 (Hennepin County, Minnesota) is just an arterial street in Minneapolis. The question is: Where do we draw the line of notability? I'm having trouble believing that anything below a state's primary highway system is inherently notable. No vote, just food for thought. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:32, 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 withdrawn by nominator. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SAT Essay Prompts[edit]

Unencyclopedic and in violation of WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. The {{move to wikibooks}} tag has existed since June of 2006, and all current information has already been transwikied there, leaving this page a superfluous and inappropriate historical repository; all future information should be directly inserted to Wikibooks. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 20:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing and non-notableApril_I_R_Fooled 20:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And copyvio, to boot. Rhinoracer 21:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for copyvio. -- Selket ^Talk 23:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no copyright violation. If you read collegeboard.com's terms and conditions, the secure items are secure until released to the public. All the prompts listed were released.Chinaman88 01:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Niffweed17, below but feel the need to point out that "released" refers to the NDA signed by all SAT takers, not to the copyright of the questions themselves. But yes, it's a violation of WP:NOT, too. -- Selket ^Talk 07:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment this is an entirely different debate (which will probably be negotiated mostly in legalese) which has nothing to do with the criteria suggested here that the article is a violation of WP:NOT. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 03:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well i "improved" the article so it doesn't contain the list anymore. Chinaman88 15:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
nomination withdrawn per these changes, although the page should be moved to SAT Essay (which is currently a redirect to SAT Essay Prompts since the page as it is has nothing to do with the prompts themselves but is rather an overview of the essay section. it might also merit consideration to merge the information into SAT instead. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 18:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Closed?

Is this discussion closed? Chinaman88 22:27, 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 No result. Closed as AfD was initiated by a sock of the banned User:Hkelkar. Aksi_great (talk) 06:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindutva pseudoscience[edit]

I would like to nominate this article for deletion.The reasons are many and I itemize them below

POV fork. The article is not much more than a copy-paste job from numerous other articles (themselves very dubious and biased against Hindus) like Hindutva, Fascism in India,Indigenous Aryans,In Search of the Cradle of Civilization,Aryan Invasion theory and Indo-Aryan Migration made by User:Dbachmann with an agenda of silencing criticisms of old theories by evocations of Godwins Law.
The article was created immediately after Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_21 was filed,demonstrating an attempt to conflate and confuse readers by collecting numerous quotes and arguments and assembling them into an original research piece.
Filled with factual inaccuracies. For instance, the article(s) implicitly claim that Hindus universally endorse the Indigenous Aryans theory, which is demonstrably false, as Savarkar was a vocal proponent of the opposite Aryan Invasion Theory (see Savarkars book "Hindutva" Page108, for instance)
Selection bias. It states the opinions and allegations of controversial scholars (see this regarding Meera Nanda's perorations, as well as this article) as factual, and selectively quotes references to make extremely offensive remarks against Hindus in an attempt to foster hatred against them.In particular, claims of Aryan Race evocation are entirely false (as Aryan in this context is not perceive as a "race" but a class of nobility)
It is an attempt to evoke Godwins Law and make an attack page against Hindus and Hindutva (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Indigenous_Aryan_Theory) with the epithet of "Hindus are Nazis" based on cherry-picking quotes from the works of Golwalkar, despite the fact that the Hindutva movement disowned those works a long time ago as shown by the posts of an ex-wikipedian who was a wiipedia administrator (User:Babub).
Overall, it is a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:ATT, WP:NOR, WP:HOAX and numerous other policies
Also see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:DBachmann , Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann,Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-28_Indigenous_Aryan_Theory,Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Indigenous_Aryans,and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Indigenous_Aryan_Theory Birdsmight 21:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
References that debunk the allegations made in this article (and mis-stated as factual) are "Smith, David James, Hinduism and Modernity P189, Blackwell Publishing ISBN 0-631-20862-3" , Elst on Golwalkar , We withdrawn,preview to dissertation, and numerous others.
The article(s) attack certain publication groups (such as VOI and VOD without any references to explicitly support such allegations). The rationale for this can be found at WP:V and WP:BLP inasmuch as WP:BLP can be expanded to include existent organizations. This article is a violation of that policy and the involved groups should be contacted to file OTRS with wikipedia is this is continued.

Birdsmight 21:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - on the grounds above.Any useful content already exists in other articles (from where this was copy-pasted). Birdsmight 21:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what can I say :) even the nominator is a sock for edit-warfare. Still, this longer statement by our resident sock artist might be useful to guess at his identity. Of course this article was created under pressure and harassment from our Hindutva troll(s) and is far from finished. Scholarly references (not blogs) that dispel the "pseudoscience" allegations are most welcome. I don't quite see where this could be merged at present, so, speedy keep, bad faith nomination by sock. dab (𒁳) 21:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you need to attack users with baseless accusations to argue your case bolsters the grounds for deletion. I am not a sockpuppet if that's all you have to discredit me. In any case, since accusations against VOI constitute institutional BLP violation, that is an important issue that effects wikipedia's credibility, and the accused can be involved if need be. Birdsmight 21:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your first edit ever to Wikipedia was a revert two weeks ago, and now, with a few dozens edits to your name, you throw your weight around in afds? You are banned user Hkelkar (talk · contribs) and should be blocked on sight. dab (𒁳) 21:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My nomination is hardly "throwing my weight around". I read the Afd instruction page and followed it. This is merely a tactic to silence this matter as I detailed above. All your detractors are "Hindus", "Nazis", "Hindutva" or socks of somebody. I request you participate in this AfD without attacking people and turning wikipedia into a battleground. We can discuss other allegations as a separate matter. Birdsmight 22:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree, .. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 22:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I request that you detail your opinion on the fact that the article is a POV fork based on copy-pastes from Indigenous Aryans, Fascism in India , In Search of the Cradle of Civilization,Aryan Invasion theory and Indo-Aryan Migration. Birdsmight 22:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:See post by Dbachmann where he says "this article was created under pressure and harassment from our Hindutva troll(s) ". Is that a valid reason to create an article? It makes it impossible to assume good faith with this user. Birdsmight 22:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most of the eight claims in the nomination are irrelevant or even patently false (such as #3). Appears to be a bad faith nom. (Note: the article is rather sketchy in nature and could use some work.) GregorB 22:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claim #3 is not at all false. The article says that Savarkar put forth the IAT theory. THAT is a demostrably false claim as, I quote from Savarkar's book:"the Aryans who settled in India at the dawn of history already formed a nation, now embodied in the Hindus". So he supported the opposite of IAT, in resonance with so-called "mainstream" opinion of AIT. In addition, claim #5 is not made by me, but by a longtime (now left) wikipeia administrator (like Dbachmann). This administrator has supplie sources to assert his claim as well. If you feel that it is "irrelevant" or "patently false" then I can try to contact him so that he may argue his case better. Birdsmight 22:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The term nets three google hits, all of which return to wikipedia, or associated mirrors. This article is also a Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position, and therefore violates WP:OR. The term Hindutva pseudoscience can then be described as dabcruft. Hindutva is a socioreligiopolitical movement, not some epithet to describe various unrelated scientists not even considered in the realm of pseudoscience.Baka man 23:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. Baka man 23:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Claiming that the nominator of this request is a sock puppet and thus the article should be kept, is Ad hominem circumstantial logical fallacy, and it does by no mean imply that the article should be kept. Same is the case with calling the nomination: "bad faith nomination". Regarding the article being sketchy and having potential to get increased, it tells me that the opinion is not coming from people who know anything about this subject. There are always people who want to sell you something by relating it to science. It does not mean we go on creating "XYZ pseudoscience" article on wikipedia. There is hardly any advertisement for skin/hair care which is scientific, but we don't have an article for it. As mentioned above, the term "Hindutva pseudoscience" is a visible case of original research and should be speedy deleted after performing a google search. Wether people think some thing is right or wrong should be discussed in 'criticism' section of that article, as I have already explained to User:Dbachmann.--Scheibenzahl 01:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Material on fringecruft contaminating other articles can (and should) be moved here, although 'pseudoscholarship' might have been a better choice of title than 'pseudoscience'. rudra 03:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And may Lord Shiva grant wisdom to bachmann so that he can see the error of his ways. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anarya (talk • contribs). ; and here are my views

The term Hindutva was coined by Indian nationalist Veer Savarkar to mean “The “essence of being a Hindu”. He used the term in a positive sense, and to this day the term carries decidedly positive connotations for hundreds of millions of people sympathizing with Hindu hopes and aspirations.

The word is broadly analogous to “Jewish” or “Islamic”, which mean Jew-ness or Muslim-ness respectively. You just have to ask yourself if Wikipedia will allow articles like Jewish propaganda or Islamic propaganda in itself. If not, then this article will have to go.

The distinction between the words Hinduism and Hindutva is tenuous at best. It has been perpetuated by some known anti-Hindu persons and organization to be able to bad-mouth Hindu religion while still being able make a farcical claim at secularism. To the millions of readers from India, this page is just a glaring example of blatant defamation of their religion. This article violates the spirit of Wikipedia while hiding behind a façade of play on words. I don’t believe for a moment that this page was not created out of spite. I invite everybody to judge for themselves if the article was born of hate or not. Anarya 04:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Hindutva and Delete (no redirect). The nomination (and probably some of the Delete votes) might be seen as bad-faith, but the title "Hindutva pseudoscience" is certainly a neologism. "Hindutva pseudoscience" gets 0 Google results. As dab himself states, the article was created under "pressure and harassment from our Hindutva troll(s)". utcursch | talk 04:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is surprising that these pages/redirects are still lingering on in mutating forms even after almost three weeks since I first registered my complaint to admins. [[58]]. I was first told to take my complaint to the user’s RFC, then to some other places like arbcom pages, AFD discussion pages and similar chatting rooms. The end result is that we are still putting up with this bull**** plastered all over a supposed encyclopedia. Talk about bureaucratic inaction in the face of direct offence to a religion. Sisodia 04:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as an attack page, and certainly without any redirects. This criticism could be merged as appropriate into the actual article pages on the various subjects (actually, it is there on all of them already). Whatever one might think of some of the hypotheses discussed, it would still not be right to use WP to express those personal views--and certainly not in an article deliberately so oriented and so titled. This is the very model of a POV fork, of the most blatant kind. (Subtler POV forks use subtler titles). It illustrates perfectly the importance of NPOV. DGG 04:59, 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 09:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Basketball of Michigan[edit]

This article relates not to a professional sport but to a relatively minor high school sporting competition. It's notability and inportance are minor and does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Delete Gillyweed 21:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - The article documents to the award that is given to the best high school boy's basketball player in the state of Michigan, as voted on by media throughout the state. The fact that the award is not for a professional sport does not matter, as there are thousands of articles about college and high school sports and awards on Wikipedia. The article is also on a noteworthy subject as it is describing a 26-year old award that thousands of high school boy's basketball players strive for each winter. There are also similar articles for other states: Illinois Mr. Basketball, North Dakota Mr. Basketball, Iowa Mr. Basketball, Kentucky "Mr. Basketball". X96lee15 22:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per X96lee15. Just because it's not for the NBA or NFL doesn't mean it isn't notable. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per X96lee15. Maxamegalon2000 05:18, 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. --Wafulz 21:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Search Agency[edit]

Article does not present verifiable evidence of the company's notability A. B. ^(talk) 21:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Peter Delgrosso for information on an interconnected series of articles and editors that includes this article. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new editor, Drahmel, just cleaned up the article and cited an Advertising Age article, however I found no mention of The Search Agency at the linked page. If the Search Agency is just listed as an entry in the top 20 of what are mostly smaller companies, that won't establish notability. However, if, Ad Age, a major publication, wrote up a profile and it's more than a couple of sentences, that could tip the balance. I've asked Drahmel to add his/her 2 cents here if she/he wants to. --A. B. ^(talk) 12:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete The reference to Brown University because they went to school there is an indication of how little can really be said about their work. DGG 06:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, no verifiable assertions of notability. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 00:21, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Threeve[edit]

Neologism, IMO not even worth transwiki-ing - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, although I think the information could be merged into Celebrity Jeopardy! (Saturday Night Live). And this afd made me laugh. JakeB 22:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utter cruft, no article. No transwiki. Herostratus 14:37, 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 13:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Barber[edit]

As for notability, you be the judge. Also appears to be an autobiography. GregorB 10:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that Mr. Barber meets WP:BIO. Also, reliable, third-party sources are needed to assert notability. --sunstar net^talk 00:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- even speedy delete as advertising. DGG 06:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Self promotion. Lakers 00:42, 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. WjBscribe 09:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SAVVoT[edit]

Non notable neologism, created by author Pumeleon^T 22:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GregorB 22:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT -- Selket ^Talk 23:43, 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.--Wizardman 03:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scotch, balls[edit]

There are no links to this page and content does not seem meaningful or encyclopaedic GDon4t0 (talk to me...) 22:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - made up in a day junk (Bollocks!) — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 22:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Balls. Croxley 23:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, balls. Ab e g92contribs 15:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. RJASE1 ^Talk 19:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This term has an appropriate place in the lexicon relating to the preparation of cocktails. There does appear a necessity to describe preparation which is essentially a hybrid between "neat" and "on the rocks".66.108.0.129 19:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have heard this term used independently of its originators twice in the last two weeks. It was especially gratifying for me as I was in attendance on the evening of its genesis. Ironically, it took place at Gin Lane in Lower Manhattanand the depiction of events is spot on. As for its place in the popular lexicon, in the 6 months since this incident it has clearly demonstrated both the foothold(some bicoastal types were involved) and irreverence necessary to have some staying power. As for its place on Wikipedia, terms like "who's your daddy" are an important part of the site's forward thinking, popular flavor. My admittedly biased vote, is to keep it on.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrewmeany (talk • contribs).
- You admit, then, that this is a neologism, since you were present at its "genesis" 6 months ago? To what "foothold" are you referring? -- Scientizzle 21:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. -- Scientizzle 21:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With no verifiable sources, delete per WP:NEO. - Deor 20:22, 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 deleted as a copyright violation from uc.edu from its very first edit. The only text that has been changed in a year and a half is the first sentence stating the names of his wife and children. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Gely[edit]

Not-notable professor. Probably an autobio (I mean, who else would throw in info about the name of his kids (!) and of forthcoming (!!) publications?). Also, I'd like to preempt the arguments that his work has been cited and that he therefore meets WP:PROF: every academic (except the ones who are not active in research) publish a lot and get cited a lot. That's just the nature of their work. The fact is there is no evidence provided that this article can be built on solid sources as WP:ATT asks us to do. Pascal.Tesson 22:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Bduke 23:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't have an opinion on Gely, but I disagree with Tesson's reasoning: the "except the ones who are not active" clause is begging the question, and it also doesn't describe why being "the nature of their work" should in any way disqualify it from being notable. —David Eppstein 03:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment similarly with Supreme Court justices. writing decisions is just the nature of their work. Let us hear the last of this nonsensical argument. Further, a surprising number of unambiguously notable people give the names of their spouses and children. We usually let that stay in. Almost all academics I know include accepted papers as forthcoming in their cv's--and Gely includes the journal name, so we know they're accepted. --The most austere journal editorial policies permit this. We usually trim publications lists to the most cited, and we would here, , but it doesn't reflect adversely on their notability. Those academic who publish less than the average in terms of numbers and citations are not notable; those who publish decidedly more generally are considered notable. We do not require the Fields medal, or its equivalents. (But I haven't looked closely at the record here yet, so I'm not giving a !vote right now.) DGG 05:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmmmm... I don't think I made my point so clear so let me give it another shot. I am most certainly not saying that having been published disqualifies him from being notable. But because of their work academics do publish and do so quite a lot. They are also often cited, yes even the average professor. And so publications is a pretty bad measure to understand the notability of academics. Actually, to stick with the judges' comparison: every judge on any court writes decisions and these decisions are routinely cited by other judges. Yet this gives us no clue as to whether or not this particular judge is "notable". A supreme court judge is notable not because he writes decisions that are then cited by other legal experts. He's notable because, well, he's on the supreme court! Unless we have sources whose primary subject is Rafael Gely and the importance of his body of work, I see no way we can attribute the material included in the article to a solid source. As for the names of his children, I thought it was pretty clear I was not holding this against the notability of the man... I'm just saying that there are good reasons to believe that this is either an autobiography or a bio written by someone who does not have a critical distance to the subject. Pascal.Tesson 06:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUTO does not mean we never accept such articles- what it means is that other people can usually do this better than the subject, so when the subject does it we look at them closely to make sure they are sourced and well-balanced . They all end up rewritten, just as other articles do; many good bio articles have started this way. A personal website is accepted as an RS for personal details; the official cv on a university site is accepted for degrees and so on, though they can be and generally are checked. But obviously there must be something objective besides that, and citation indexes do nicely. Opinion is also needed, and in the academic world the form of review is the tenured appointment. The people who prove ATT are the peers who cite him, and the peers who peer-review him for grants and appointments. They are the experts, they decide. We just record. It would greatly facilitate our work here if if other fields of human endeavor had such accessible measures. DGG 02:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would disagree with you idea that only inactive academics publish a lot. It is all dependent upon your field of research. Some work that is highly notable will take a long time to develop and not many publications will occur during this time. Also due to patents and such, publication can be with held for a lengthly time until the idea is fully protected. - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 11:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a copyvio of his homepage at UC. DrKiernan 12:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Pascal.Tesson, you are correct that "because of their work academics do publish and do so quite a lot". However, this does not mean they are cited a lot. The vast majority of academic works are cited no more than half a dozen times. -- Black Falcon 00:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner Agle[edit]

NN autobiography of a 15yo. Note that I deleted the obviously unencyclopedic content; previous version is here. Contested prod and previously broken AfD nomination by Donignacio (talk · contribs). —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also notable that this page was already created and deleted at a previous point in time. --Donignacio 06:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly does not meet WP:NOTE. --Haemo 06:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - four hits for "Tanner Agle", in adition, the history indicates that this article has lots of personal details. The history needs to be wiped; may as well take the whole article with it to be safe. John Vandenberg 09:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is not yet an acceptable subject for wikipedia. Mr. Berry 23:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Someguy1221 16:40, 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. Strangerer (Talk) 23:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eve Laurence[edit]

Eve Laurence is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia, based on the pornographic actors' notablility criteria. w^L^{<speak·check>} 23:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:PORNBIO states that "modern American heterosexual performers are usually notable if they appear in more than 100 films". There are 88 listed on the page but that hasn't been updated for a while. A quick Google finds this page (warning NSFW) listing 149 DVDs from her. However the list of films is a copyvio from IMDB so I've deleted it, leaving only a stub. EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The same guideline says "so using any simple count of number of films that a performer starred in to determine notability is very controversial". Is there anything else that would note her notability? --w^L^{<speak·check>} 04:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IAFD lists 99 titles, DVDEmpire lists 149 titles. Notable. --Pixelface 02:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My vote is to keep the page. If it needs to be built up from the stub that can be done. There used to be more info on here but got deleted at various stages. --de1841 March 27
Keep. Pornocruft. Herostratus 13:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - same as above. CoolGuy 18:11, 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. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin waldron[edit]

Biography of person of local interest; without supporting citations to establish notability recommend that a very brief item (line item) be added to Everton F.C. indicating the existence of the post this person holds and the person currently holding it. Article found tagged with Speedy via criterion G11 (I do not agree with that criterion) and with a 'hold-on' template in place from the author. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator - since AfD creation, a supporting link has been added, this to a staff listing on the Everton F.C. website. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Person is well known all over the North West of England, but more so in academy football specifically in the UK as well as Europe. Also gaining more attention thanks to the emergence of players noted in article. A senior member of Everton FC academy. Equivalents at other football clubs have pages, most of whom are less known. S6694 23:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC) — S6694 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. "Well known" != "notable", necessarily. Well known by whom? I mean, please. "Head of Local Schoolboy Recruitment for Everton F.C." is the sole claim of notability. Well, everyone has some job; does this guy's job really put him into an ecyclopedia with Newton, Columbus, et. al.? (I know, we have much less notable bios than Newton and Columbus, but still, there's got to be a limit somewhere.) In fact, I think I'll vote Delete again, that's two votes. Herostratus 13:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That exclamation point/equals sign thing drives me nuts, what's with that? Just H 01:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It means "does not equal", same as "<>". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Everton just as a sidenote or Delete Just H 00:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Delete. The article does not prove the notability of the subject and I was unable to find proof of such in a cursory Google search. All mentions of the individual seem to be trivial references. A news search produces one result that also mentions the subject of this article only trivially. -- Black Falcon 00:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Every sports organization has scouts/recruiters etc. The organization's notability does not travel down unless the scout has been a subject of media coverage, and that does not appear to be the case here.--Kubigula (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Disney song edits[edit]

Indiscriminate list, original research. —tregoweth (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Selket ^Talk 23:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; violates WP:NOT --Mhking 00:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no sources cited, and is likely original research. WarpstarRider 00:40, 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. — CharlotteWebb 01:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln[edit]

Comment: Delete per WP:V, WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, and WP:REDFLAG.

Yes, this article quotes some sources such as the NYT, but careful observation will bear that they are secondary/tertiary sources, not primary sources. They are generally media coverage (and negative coverage at that), concerning a book.
The only primary source is a C.A. Tripp, who is not a historian and is strongly contested within the academic community (as the article itself points out.) Thusly, more length is spent within the article disputing the thesis than verifying it.
The sections that are not a direct reference to C.A. Tripp's book are unreferenced accounts of Lincoln's past, thus classifies as original research.
Finally, WP:REDFLAG requires that "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources." For this rather extraordinary claim, we have only ONE primary source, who isn't an historian.

Djma12 ^(talk) 23:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination for deletion needs deletion. This is the THIRD or perhaps FOURTH time it has been nominated. This is a waste of everyone's time--JimWae 23:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment edit conflict: This would be the third for this particular article
first - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln

second - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln (2nd nomination)

then there is also the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abraham Lincoln's Sexual Orientation

I would recommend re-initiating as or moving to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln (3rd nomination). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC) (revised 25 March by Ceyockey)[reply]

Mea cupla. I only saw that the first nomination existed. Djma12 ^(talk) 00:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can be tough to keep track for articles that have a large 'what links here' and which have traveled to AfD several times. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a debate about the validity of the article not the content of the subject of the article. The fact that this rediculus book has created such a controversy is a reason to include it, not delete it from Wikipedia. -- Selket ^Talk 23:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, WP:FRINGE suggests that this should be kept not deleted. Can someone snowball this please? --Selket ^Talk 07:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, whether or not the allegations are true is irrelevant, we can still cover the allegations in an NPOV manner as long as there are plenty of reliable sources, which there certainly are in this case. Krimpet (talk/review) 00:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nothing new advanced by the OP that hasn't been amply addressed in one of several previous AFDs. I see no valid reason to delete this article. Otto4711 00:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the same argument over and over. Understandably the article upsets some people but the fact that the subject is controversial is no reason to delete it. --ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 03:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Understandably? There's no shame in Lincoln possibly being gay. And how is it extraordinary is it to suggest that someone might not have been straight? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 05:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Content disputes can (and have been) discussed on the talk page. The amount of controversy and interest in the article gives overwhelming endorsement of its notability. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 05:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there is one principal source and the article frankly discusses its acceptance, this is honest striving for a fair POV.DGG
Keep per above, and also note the Log Cabin Republicans. Ab e g92contribs 15:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very notable. Artaxiad 21:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Can't find anything improper with the last AfD closing 2 months. Subject has been covered by 3rd party sources. Just because something is controversial doesn't mean an article about it should be deleted. --Oakshade 22:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Article still is plagued with problems, however with effort put forth from both POVs, it would be a bummer to see this article crumbled into a ball, set a blaze and tossed into the trash can. --Masterpedia 03:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, again. And keep next time too. If a nybody trots out a new argument that wasn't answered thoroughly in the previous AFDs, let me know on my talk page and I'll gladly consider it. As it is, currently, there's nothing more to say. — coel acan — 04:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the third time. The mere presence of this continuing controversy affirms the need for an article. Let the critics, instead of pursuing deletion, work contructively toward improving the article. CoppBob 19:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yet again. WP should consider a waiting period following a closed AFD before an article gets nominated again. There is an inherent bias toward deletion: if it's deleted, any recreation is speedily deletable (even though consensus could change); if kept (consensus could change) and it gets nominated over and over again until enough people aren't paying attention perhaps and don't participate in the debate and then it's deleted. Carlossuarez46 20:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I will assume that this AfD have been started in good faith. If Lincoln had been a living person, I cannot see the sources mentioned being sufficient for it to pass WP:BLP (for instance, just because Ann Coulter called Bill Clinton gay, doesn't mean we have an article entitled Sexuality of Bill Clinton). Just because Lincoln is dead does not suddenly give a purposed serious encyclopedia a carte blanche to speculate about his sexuality. Railwayman 15:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In reference to the Log Cabin Republicans and generally, the sexuality of Lincoln comes up in conversation. Having a page that curious people can go to figure out where the suggestion of homosexuality came from, and what (little) evidence there is, is completely consistent with the purpose of Wikipedia. About the nomination; Wikipedia is supposed to be a encyclopedia, which IS a tertiary source. We're supposed to use secondary sources when possible! Enuja 17:08, 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.--Wizardman 20:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opera south[edit]

This article is written in the style of an advertisement. John254 23:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; violates WP:SPAM --Mhking 00:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. The solution for unacceptable writing is rewriting, not deleting. Fg2 01:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Actually, per Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles, articles written as advertisements should be deleted, since the rate at which spammers can add spam articles to Wikipedia exceeds our ability to rewrite them. Indeed, there is such a great interest in deleting spam articles that there is actually a criterion for speedy deletion, CSD G11, just to deal with them. John254 01:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article on a notable organization, which has been active for years, and source it properly. We can deal with the many true and indisputable G11s better if we don't wast time arguing over the ones that are potentially encyclopedic. DGG 06:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Active for years? The article itself says that that the group was founded in 2006, and its Web site specifies November 2006. Deor 14:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless re-written. Though it may be a notable organization, it reads like a promotional brochure. Probably meets G11 speedy criterion, which applies if an article "need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic." — ERcheck (talk) 07:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Spend less time bickering and more editing 5 or 6 words to make this article better conform to your standards. You should not delete this article unless you intrnd on deleting others such as the Atlanta Symphony, etc. Plus, this was not copied and pasted. That is hearsay, petty, and ridiculous. All of these are my original words. Get a life.

Smitheys1 03:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is an advertisement. The author, Smitheys1, has created numerous versions of this. OperaSouth was speedied three times, Atlanta Opera (which was created simply to promote OperaSouth) has also been speedied. This is just a different spelling. The latter two have been recreated numerous times and should be deleted as well if this article is. Smitheys1 is a single purpose account who simply adds advertisements for this organization to Wikipedia. IrishGuy ^talk 02:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per IrishGuy above. Deor 14:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Delete per deleted recreation. BlackBear 15:15, 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 Merge to Characters of Oblivion. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umaril The Unfeathered[edit]

Merge into Characters of Oblivion. Arguments on the talk page have convinced me not to necessarily consider deleting the article, but I'm quite confident it does not deserve its own article; I've also suggested fixing up the article be removing non notable information, which I cannot do myself, due to great lack of knowledge of Knights of the Nine, but no one has done so. Like I said, I'd like to see this merged into the "Characters of Oblivion" article, but, if deleting it becomes the consensus, that is fine by me. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 23:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep or merge to Characters of Oblivion, The Elder Scrolls IV: Knights of the Nine or some similar page per klptyzm. I am familiar with KoTN, and I would acknowledge that there is significantly less material and backstory regarding Umaril and Pelinal Whitestrake. I think that sufficient information on Umaril could nonetheless be procured to klptyzm's satisfaction, but merging Umaril into some other relevant article makes sense given the relative lack of information. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This article is an article. I don't care who nominated it for deletion, because it is worthy of an article. This is pathetic! Just because it is short does not mean it should be merged into the characters of Oblivion. I will find some lore, and under the hangon tag, I will complete this article properly, even if I have to do this single handedly!

Help me or not, this article is about a main character, not simply a side-character! ♣ ÅñôñÿMôús _{Dîššíd3nt} 22:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 02:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- This character is not notable enough for its own article, man. To me, you're opinion is biased, mainly because this is an article you've created. The thing is that you won't be able to increase this article beyond stub status because of the scarce amount of information on him, and all other information will either be non notable itself or just plain BS. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 02:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

we shall see. I am biased. Thats obvious. But perhaps with good reason. I'll make this article good. Watch me, if you dont wish to help. I'll check to official elder scrolls site, or somewhere else trustworthy. ♣ ÅñôñÿMôús _{Dîššíd3nt} 06:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Characters typically found in only one game usually don't have enough info to warrant a separate article. Wickethewok 04:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge, AfD IS NOT THE PLACE TO DISCUSS THIS, the talk page is! Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm, or whoever you vaguely directed that statement at, am not discussing anything. Due to such a lack of information, this article does not need to exist on its own. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 17:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I don't think a character from a single expansion to a single game is notable enough to deserve their own character page or this level of detail. Should be merged into the Oblivion Characters article and summarised. Tnomad 10:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the non-Umaril-specific information, such as the storyline of KOTN into the The Elder Scrolls IV: Knights of the Nine, and Merge all the Umaril-specific info into Characters of Oblivion. That possible? VoidTalker 19:11, 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 Speedy Delete (DB-SPAM). w^L^{<speak·check>} 01:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Q[edit]

There is no assertion of notability for this article, and it appears to read like an advertisement. No sources or references are cited for this. sunstar net^talk 23:52, 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.