Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 27

< March 26	March 28 >

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 speedy delete GOD DAMN IT as blatant gameguidery. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Simpsons Hit and Run missions[edit]

WP:NOT Wikipedia articles are not "walkthrough" guides for video games. Also, badly written; "If you do smash really bad, the waste will fall off and explode, so BE CAREFUL GOD DAMN IT!". Very encyclopedic. Croxley 00:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too specialized for my taste. Ab e g92contribs 00:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. Otto4711 01:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto, this is a gameguide (which is not allowed). TJ Spyke 02:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT and Otto. -Haemo 02:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT - this isn't an encyclopedia article. — Wenli 02:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO, "video game guide". -- Black Falcon 02:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Otto4711, not a gameguide. --Canley 05:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia doesn't have walkthroughs and it wouldn't be very notable either. --The preceding comment was signed by Us e r:Sp3000 (talk•contribs) 06:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GOD DAMN IT. A lot of work has went into this article, but oh well. Everyone should have read WP:NOT before doing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cream147 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. If there is a game guide wiki with a suitable license we can transwiki it instead. Mgm|^(talk) 11:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT and Otto4711. Scienter 12:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and hit it with a WP:SNOWball. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 14:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not meant to be used as a game guide.Telly addict 16:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOT. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NO#IINFO, this reads like a game guide. - Anas ^talk? 18:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 22:26, 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 (have I got news for you) delete. --Core desat 01:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guest Publications on Have I Got News for You[edit]

WP:N: a list devoted to an aspect of a single, short round on a news quiz show. Amusing titles, but just game show minutiae and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Croxley 00:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - more suited to a fan website. - Richard Cavell 00:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge anything usable into Have I Got News for You.--John Lake 06:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far, far, far too trivial. And that headline comes from this week's guest publication, Cruft and Trivia Monthly. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Richard Cavell StuartDouglas 09:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fancruft. And it's survived for almost a year! BTLizard 10:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slap* remember fancruft is not a reason for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Guest publications in that show have no particular significance. If someone wants to, we can add the fact they appeared in the show the publications that have articles. Mgm|^(talk) 11:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mgm. Scienter 13:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but all hail to the geeky genius who compiled this page. If you'll excuse me I'm off to read my copy of Screw Machine World. Peeper 14:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nearly every single link is red, Wikipedia is not a place of irrelevant information.Telly addict 16:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete Not encyclopaedic enough, I fear, but as a fan of the show I do appreciate the list :) Pseudomonas 00:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have news for the author: This is an indiscriminate list, even if it is about a great show. Realkyhick 02:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi's racism[edit]

Original research, POV title Alex Bakharev 00:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not original research. There exists legitimate criticism of Gandhi's racism. Please feel free to research this issue. Teabing-Leigh 05:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly merge. Ab e g92contribs 00:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR and WP:NPOV problems. George Leung 00:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research. - Richard Cavell 00:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to a POV title, the article currently consists only of a collection of quotes (WP:NOT#DIRECTORY). -- Black Falcon 02:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete origional research--Sefringle 03:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is completetly sourced and not a point of view per se... It seeks to bring in Gandhi's role in South Africa. I will improve it by the end of today ... give me time.

delete per nominator--Shyamsunder 18:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per George Leung.--John Lake 06:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have made several changes and improvements, please remove the "deletion" message from the said article. Teabing-Leigh 06:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still just a series of quotes, and a hopeless failure of WP:NPOV to boot. JuJube 07:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without question this fails NPOV, and it has already been mentioned in the article on Ghandi. AniMate 08:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid it is not a point of view. You should not delete it if you even have an iota of integrity. 202.163.67.241 09:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Sumarize, bring some of the verifiable material into an article that can provide context and counterpoints. If, ultimately, it's necessary to create a separate article about Gandhi's views on race, then spin it off into a more appropriately titled article such as "Gandhi's views on race." Be sure the context includes when and under what circumstances the statements were made, whether Gandhi's views changed through his life, and digest whatever published analysis and interpretation may exist, rather than providing bare context-free quotes selected to support a view of Gandhi as a racist. This can be improved.zadignose 09:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC) P.S., the comment on "integrity" above is inappropriate. It's fair to assume we all have integrity, but there is a disagreement on whether this article meets Wikipedia policy and guidelines.zadignose 09:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statements are not context free. Gandhi's views - if they changed later- must only be known to him because he did not publicly distance himself from his views. Every date has been given along with a proper citation from The Collected Works of Gandhi. The only reason this is becoming an issue is because Gandhi is the world's holy cow... so much for objectivity and balance.

That said I am open to this article being redirected to "Gandhi's views on Race". Teabing-Leigh 09:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also... on second thought .... the more I read such pages where certain ethnic and national groups gang up to cover up facts of history, I begin to question whether Wikipedia is all I thought it was... instead of being a bastion of all points of view coming together to create objective truth... it is more like George Orwell's "1984" with its newspeak and editing and rewriting and ofcourse DELETING ... no wonder racists and casteists become egalitarian mahatmas only 60 years after their death... Teabing-Leigh 09:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - POV pushing, and violates WP:NOR in that Content should not be synthesized to advance a position which is exactly what is going on here. A much smarter move would have been to talk to people on Ghandhis article to find the best way to integrate a balanced and neutral version of is views on race. It is also worth noting that essentially the same article has been created by Teabing here, also of note is that this is not the first time this user has posted articles identical to this, which were, naturally, deleted, which is why I suggest salting. And with regards to the above 2 posts, may I remind you that WP:NOT a soapbox. The Kinslayer 09:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where has this author (i.e. myself) done this elsewhere. Gandhi's views on race was only put up because of a suggestion made above.

Well, I'd provide examples, but they have all been deleted. I should know, I tagged them with speedy deletes. The Kinslayer 13:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you remember the titles, I think you can pull them up via the deletion log. ◄Zahakiel ► 14:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is just an essay, and not a very well-written one either. This could be Merged into the main Gandhi article if someone would rewrite it. StuartDouglas 09:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An essay that quotes very credible source: Gandhi's own Collected Works. I would reckon it is much more credible than many articles on here. 202.163.67.241 13:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well we can agree to disagree on the quality of the essay, but the point is that Wikipedia is not a place for essays at all. Nothing personal and the same would apply if the essay was on your opinion on the sporting ability of David Beckham - it's WP:OR so not for Wikipedia. StuartDouglas 18:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete undue weight. Theoretically we should probably smerge and preserve the history, but this really is not one I would be happy leaving around as edit history. The claim of racism is minor, and to a certain extent founded on work by a very few individuals who have some kind of agenda. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is the claim of racism minor when it is directly from Gandhi's own collected works? 202.163.67.241 13:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was going to argue for a re-write and title change but even with the sources this is, in its current form, a clear cut violation of both WP:NPOV and WP:SYN. The changes needed to fix the article's issues would result in a total rewrite and since the title needs to be changed anyway and there being no material here worth moving in whole, deletion is the obvious answer. NeoFreak 12:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the allegedly racist views of a global icon is not "worth" preserving or discussing? I am afraid it is NOT a violation of WP:NPOV .... the article merely highlights Gandhi's allegedly racist views and quotes Gandhi's own works WITHOUT giving one's own opinion. Why is it that this is being deleted and not a thousand other articles which are more blatantly one sided and agenda driven? 202.163.67.241 13:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are pushing POV through exclusion of certain contextual facts. For example, 'Kaffir' was not the offensive term it is now in Ghandis time, which changes the context in which you claim he used the word. If your article was properly researched and sourced, this would have been readily apparant. The Kinslayer 14:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is just not true. First of all the word Kaffir is NOT the issue here, his view that black people were savages and subhuman that is the issue. If you feel that "Kaffir" was not an offensive term then please provide evidence. However the issue here is NOT about the term kaffir which in any case in the modern terminology means non-Muslim and nothing else and is not applicable to the usage of the word Kaffir then. Are you saying that believing black people were subhuman was not offensive then? You may argue that and then in that case produce evidence for it. Teabing-Leigh 14:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to argue anything. Look at the consensus. I don't have to waste any more of my time talking to you. Oh and here's my evidence: http://www.eritreaplanet.com/literature/wl01/KaffirFolklore.htm http://www.fromoldbooks.org/Wood-NuttallEncyclopaedia/k/kaffirs.html http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/JUN_KHA/KAFFIRS_Arabic_Kafir_an_unbelie.html and Kaffir (historical usage in southern Africa) The Kinslayer 14:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kinslayer: What PART of the word KAFFIR not being the issue did you not understand. The issue is Gandhi's alleged estimate of blackpeople as subhuman. As for consensus... there was a time when world over there was a consensus on Earth being flat... so what is your point? You think you can change the facts with consensus? In any event, I have made the clarification regarding the term "Kaffir" which is a non-issue anyway. Teabing-Leigh 14:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep going, your mildly entertaining me. The Kinslayer 14:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kinslayer,

Now I suppose personal attacks would be better than giving a proper argument as to why you think the article is balanced... still I have entertained your suggestion and incorporated it (despite the fact that your source didn't open).. simply because that is not the issue here. Teabing-Leigh 14:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't aware telling someone they are entertaining was viewed as a personal attack these days! I'll try and keep my personal lexicon up to date from now on. Thanks for pointing that out, it's how I learn. The Kinslayer 14:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPOV issues (big) and Alex Bakharev's nom. The rhetoric being thrown out by Teabing-Leigh is amusing, but not persuasive. Scienter 14:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, you may just have 'admitted' to being one of us conspirators! The Kinslayer 14:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not interested in a pissing match with a little kid. I'll let the personal attacks go. Teabing-Leigh 15:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking to you. However, I am now, so feel free to reply. Times dragging here in my office and I could use a smirk. The Kinslayer 15:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article now shows sources ... and I am willing to redirect it to Gandhi's views on race with any suggestions that maybe given. Teabing-Leigh 14:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due largely to this being an essay and failing WP:SYN. The author has done a good job of writing an essay on the topic but as we all know Wikipedia is not a place for essays, it's a tertiary source of information. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is merely a soundbyte. The article does not quote my personal view and has now been properly referenced. I am however willing to redirect it to another location. Teabing-Leigh 15:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Whether or not it is your personal view does not change the fact that the article is a synthesis of sources and constitutes original research. Have you read the guidelines at WP:SYN and WP:OR? Basically what this article has done is string together a bunch of Gandhi's quotes in an attempt to prove a point. The one reference of the Guardian is the closest thing that comes to actually attributing this article, but a single example of one group claiming Gandhi was a racist does not adequately source the article as a whole. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you haven't seen the new changes I have made. Teabing-Leigh 16:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I just looked it over before I made the previous comment. The comment still stands. You have 1 reliable secondary source of someone calling Gandhi a racist and then go into a discussion of things he said that were racist. Break that down into points and you get "This group said Gandhi was racist, look at all the things he said that were racist, ergo, here is Gandhi's racism for you to see". We cannot make that kind of leap of logic on Wikipedia articles. It is STILL original research. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would that be true since I have listed atleast four such sources?

Delete as OR as per above. Also, even in its rewritten form it also violates WP:WEASEL top to bottom ("Many allege...", "others are convinced...", "Historians have debated...", "Critics allege...". (Bracing myself for a barrage of flames.) - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- some of the most relevant quotes are already at the Wikiquote Gandhi page, and with a more neutral title. I was going to suggest moving them there, but I see they already are. NPOV is in part and importantly about setting forth facts (quotes) and allowing the reader to decide what they mean, not deciding for them. Schissel | Sound the Note! 17:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't matter how much it is re-written, this is a WP:NPOV essay consisting of a large amount of Original Research, with, as User:Iridescenti says above, a liberal (!) sprinkling of WP:WEASEL, and sourcing from a couple of non-WP:NPOV books. EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge The article is sourced very well. I don't see how this article is a case of it's authors POV as it cites multiple sources (anyone who is pro deletion should specifically state why all of those sources are not reliable) or how the article contains Original Research as it is sourced.--E tac 18:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Of the three "External links", two are to conspiracy-theory sites (Truth Seeker and Trinicenter), and the third is to an article from the (notoriously inaccurate) Guardian, which does not allege that he was racist but simply that he made some racist comments early in his life. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the sources/quotes are real, defining them at racism is original research since no reliable sources do this.--Dacium 21:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Gandhi's views on race are surely notable; the Guardian is a highly respected newspaper; the book cited is published by Prometheus Books which seems to be a respected publisher (doesn't mean the book is "right" but it's not a vanity publisher); I'm not sure if a speech in the House of Representatives is considered inherently notable but could be considered so. The fact that this criticism of Gandhi exists is notable and should be included in the article on Gandhi. The existing Gandhi article has a strong POV the other way:) Hobson 21:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Salavagable contents into Critisism subsection of his articleRaveenS 22:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Though interesting, I dont see a page on Hitler's racism, Duke's racism, etc.Baka man 00:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just a thought, but I think an article on "Hitler's racism" would be extremely redundant. I'm not familiar with Duke... --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 04:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with heavy rewrite. Too much OR and POV as it stands now. Realkyhick 02:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment As per many of your suggestions, I have made an effort to rewrite some parts of it lessening the "POV" to the best of my ability. Teabing-Leigh 14:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Title is POV and content is OR, based on editor's collection of primary source quotations. There might be a small portion in the top part of the article salvagable for a merge. More neutral phrasing won't change the fact that this is an essay, and it is currently a one-sided treatment. Djcastel 16:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Rama's arrow 21:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails both WP:NPOV and WP:OR.--Bryson 03:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have added an entire section on Gandhi's later "evolution" with sources. Now there is really no excuse left since the tone has been changed... but lets see what kind of sense of fairness you guys have.

Delete NPOV and OR override eveything else. Gizza^Chat ^© 11:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure what makes people think its in breach of NPOV, I have been unable thus far to locate any discussion anywhere to support this. Large number of references in article make OR claims redundant and unusual imho. Cloveoil 15:47, 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. --Core desat 01:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CWF-Pro[edit]

Not notable Efed and backyard promotion. Also, the article is very poorly written. PepsiPlunge 00:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's an efed, 'nuff said. It also fails WP:N. TJ Spyke 02:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real indication of notability and it reads like spam. Leebo ^T/C 03:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not indicate notability whatsoever. ZBrannigan 07:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. It's hard to read most of it, but what can be read is WP:SPAM.--John Lake 23:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Throw this spam over the top rope. Realkyhick 03:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. simply put "It's an E-Fed", not an article on E-feds as a phenomenon or anything like that but an actual e-fed and as such does not belong on wikipedia MPJ-DK 10:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SPAM. The creator has the same ID as the name of the "E-fed" and has no apparent contributions save the creation of this. This article may need to be E-piledriven though an E-table. Suriel1981 02:43, 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. --Core desat 01:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pom (program)[edit]

delete nonnotable piece of software that shows phases of the Moon Mukadderat 00:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Articles should be written without regard for notability, but Wikipedia ain't smart enough to allow this. :) YechielMan 04:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is absent. Delete. BlackBear 12:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No possibility this could ever be notable. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per YechieMan, with a high five to him for comedic effort. Realkyhick 03:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...especially bearing in mind that he uttered truth, only in a jesting way. Mukadderat 03:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howard F. Barrett[edit]

Subject is non-notable per WP:BIO. Mwelch 00:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article offers no indication that the subject is even the slightest bit notable per WP:BIO. Aside from the birth and death dates of the subject's wife, the article is entirely sourced from the subject's obituary in the local newspaper. I might have tried to speedy A7, but the article's author has a long history of contributing biographies of non-notable individuals, many of which have been deleted as such, and he generally contests speedies and prods of such work, forcing them to come to AFD anyway. So I figured I'd save time and start here. Mwelch 00:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, it reads like a memorial with no indication of why they are notable.--Paloma Walker 01:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If "he was instrumental in developing and enhancing several breeds of cattle." can be verified from a source other than his own family, I'd be happy to keep the article. Mgm|^(talk) 11:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have searched for such a source and found none. Googling him indicates (aside from the obituary) only that he was a cattle breeder. Mwelch 21:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete verbatim copyvio from Lubbock Online. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete copyvio indeed. - Anas ^talk? 18:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as Mwelch mentions above, the creator has recently created dozens of articles, all of which appear from the tone to be cut-and-pasted from local newspapers, and most of which are egregious failures of WP:BIO, eg the owner of a local lumber merchant. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that egregious is a bit of a strong term, and BIO is just a guideline, not firm policy. I don't think that this copyvio is likely to get us into trouble if we work to fix it soon. Has anyone contacted the writer to let him know about the WP guidelines and to help develop the article. As MacGyver mentions above, there might be some notability here. --Kevin Murray 19:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the writer, Billy Hathorn, has been contacted about notability issues, both on his talk page and in the deletion debates of the many articles he's had deleted. (Although he hasn't here, he frequently participates in those debates to defend his subject's notability, so he's definitely been advised of WP:BIO numerous times.) He often doesn't reply to such advice, though when he does, he's civil and respectful. In the end though, he just doesn't seem much concerned about WP:BIO notability standards. (But then, the same can be said of many editors who self-identify as "inclusionists", so perhaps that's not such a big deal, even though the writer has not claimed that specific self-identification.) I'd speculate that he is content to continue creating biographical articles as he sees fit, and to just leave it up to the community to delete those that we see fit.

This is not the only article that the writer has created as pretty much a cut and paste from someone's newspaper obituary. I will say that I don't know if anyone's specifically mentioned the copyright violation angle of that to him, though. I definitely recall it being mentioned, once again, in the deletion debates of his articles, but that would be a good thing to bring up directly to him also.

Other problems with his work include frequent original research and dubious "references" to argue notability. For original research, he will include significant information and even quotations into his articles that he then sources in the "References" section to "e-mail exchange with Billy Hathorn" or "conversation between [Subject's name]'s wife and Billy Hathorn" or some such. I've deleted some of the worst examples of this in articles like Roy C. Strickland and Malouf Abraham, Jr., though there are others, and since he doesn't use in-line citations, I'm sure I didn't even get all of the OR even in those two articles — just the most obvious of it. To his credit, he hasn't fought me on it by trying to add the info back. For arguing notability, he will often add references that are not, in fact, references. If he reads in a subject's obituary, that the subject was, say, a member of ACM and IEEE and PETA, then he will list as his "references", a web link to the subject's obituary and web links to the ACM, IEEE and PETA web sites, and then argue that the subject was notable because his article has four different references listed to him.

So given the writer's history here, I'd be willing to wager that there isn't any "development" of the article that can really be done with actual WP:ATT-acceptable sources. No problem if others wish to spend more time pursuing the subject's notability, though. Mwelch 21:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't this fit WP:CSD#A7? Not notable plus the copyvio. --Seattle Skier (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Cpoyvio is enough, plus there's lack of notability and the author's dubious track record. Realkyhick 03:14, 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. --Core desat 01:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Imagination-EP[edit]

Contested speedy on this song page. It makes sense, but to be fair I'll let AFD decide if it really needs a deletion.BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 00:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, it's actually refenced on the Pure Imagination page. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 01:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't use Wikipedia as a reference for other Wikipedia articles, and Wikipedia is no indicator of notability (or even existence). Fram 05:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. If anything, then it's best to just redirect then. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 00:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Fram 05:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as we don't even have an article on the artist responsible for the remake. AniMate 08:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's several items by this name on Amazon but none by anyone called Jori. The name could refer to several Finnish people but the last.fm lacks any mention of the EP in his pages and the article lacks the context to tell us who it is about. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN cover version by an apparently NN artist. EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable in any respect. Realkyhick 03:15, 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 all. Daniel Bryant 05:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoyland Common Falcons players[edit]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo 06:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Players from the semi-pro club Hoyland Common Falcons. Non-notable. Chanheigeorge 00:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. According to the team's website, the team is a youth soccer team (in other words, not fully professional) and thus all these young men fail to meet WP:BIO. Given this, the team article is also a valid target for an AfD. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Same reason as Chanheigeorge, Non-notable. Tangerines 02:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The team article is also the subject of an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoyland Common Falcons. Daemonic Kangaroo 06:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, no notability asserted. Punkmorten 05:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination. Daemonic Kangaroo 06:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all no notability asserted and, to be honest, none possible ChrisTheDude 07:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all no notability asserted (could have been speedied, to be honest). Qwghlm 07:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all for reasons stated above BanRay 07:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per NeoChaosX. BTLizard 10:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all non-notable. BlackBear 12:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all not-quite-pro sports people. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the UK footballing notability rules - is it Snowing yet? EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all seemingly no pretence to suggest they have played at even a reasonably high level. Extremely unlikely that they are even semi-pro at their level, more likely they pay their £5 subs each week to get a game. - fchd 19:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Red card for all. (In other words, delete.) Realkyhick 03:16, 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. Redirecting to Software bloat. --Core desat 01:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crapplet[edit]

delete this nonnotable crapplet Mukadderat 01:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Applet and transwiki this to wiktionary. - Richard Cavell 01:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect would make sense only if the term was in real use. I clicked thru first 10 google search pages of (a really nonnotable count of 9,000 for a supposedly internet word), and 98% are dicdefs or humor pages, rather than actual usage, even not speaking about absence of reliable sources. Mukadderat 02:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The same argument could apply to interlocutress (which I started on wiktionary). - Richard Cavell 04:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is a difference between how words in the pairs interlocutor/interlocutress and applet/crapplet are related to each other. (Oops! interlocutress is a redlink. What's you point? before I start discussing whether crapartment, crapplication, crapostle, crapsticle, etc. must or not redirect somewhere) Mukadderat 08:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hehe:

public crapplication

public crreport

crapplication = createobject("crystalruntime.application")

crreport = createobject("crystalruntime.report")

Actual example :-) Mukadderat 08:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism, Urban dictionary is also made up of mostly humorous pages and shouldn't be used as a source in most cases. Darth griz⁹⁸ 03:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete protologism. Guy (Help!) 11:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Urban Dictionary is notoriously unreliable as source and even if NetLingo is reliable, we're left with a dictionary definition that will never expand. Not encyclopedic.- Mgm|^(talk) 12:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Software bloat, as was done with Craplet. Closing admmin: this is not a keep vote! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fun it will be for you and to arrogant Microsoft to know that "Craplet" is a French last name. Mukadderat 17:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed is it, but AfD this is about 'Crapplet'. 86.143.127.209 17:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could maybe see a redirect to Software bloat, but I'm being generous. Realkyhick 03:18, 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 no consensus. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Poe[edit]

This is an article on the creator of several marginal or obscure webcomics; there seem to be no sources of any kind except for Poe's websites and blogs; there's no indication that a biography of him could meet either WP:WEB or WP:BIO; and in general the article is a bad & permanent stub. I would also like to note (for the mergists out there) that a proposed merge of Poe with some of his comics like Exploitation Now or Errant Story was rejected. --Gwern (contribs) 01:07 27 March 2007 (GMT)

Delete the bio, because he's not notable for anything other than the webcomics. I would also support deleting the webcomic articles, but that has not been formally proposed. YechielMan 04:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Your argument lends more weight towards keeping the article; the article is worth keeping because he is the creator of notable webcomics. Incidentally, deleting the webcomics has been proposed and has failed on each attempt. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 07:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Babylon Jones was deleted by someone, Talk:Errant Story lists no AfD and the history doesn't show any AfD, and the Exploitation Now AfD was "no consensus", certainly not "keep" - as you should well know. --Gwern (contribs) 16:57 27 March 2007 (GMT)

Reply - Huh, I could have sworn Errant Story was nominated for AfD. Meh, this is what I get for posting late at night. Anyway, outside of that what I said was still true: the AfD against Exploitation Now failed. I never said the consensus was "keep", I just said it failed. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 18:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Creator of not one but two notable webcomics, which means he meets the notability requirements of WP:BIO. For a specific example, Exploitation Now won two Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (here and here), meaning that Michael Poe's work, "has won significant critical attention." -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 07:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't believe the WCCA confers notability; it itself is apparently listed as notable on the basis of one paragraph (out of ~17 in that article) in a NY Times article. --Gwern (contribs) 16:57 27 March 2007 (GMT)

Comment - Some people believe the earth is flat, too. Doesn't mean anything. The fact of the matter is that the awards are notable enough to have their own article on Wikipedia, and more to the point are the only webcomic-based awards that have an article on Wikipedia, period. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 18:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As we've said about twenty-seven times before and will have to keep saying every time afterward, one paragraph and the entire rest of the article, which then specifically examines WCCA winners and their merits. That wasn't the only source, either. --Kizor 22:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per yukichigai. I am familiar with Poe's work and I believe the article's subject meets the requirements of WP:BIO with the awards that yukichigai has listed above. Scienter 12:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would also support a Merge of this article into the Errant Story and Exploitation Now articles as a sort of compromise. Scienter 12:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would also like to note that the article utterly lacks any sort of Reliable Sources, and is unverifiable except for blog posts by Poe. --Gwern (contribs) 16:57 27 March 2007 (GMT)

Comment - Read WP:BIO; information about a living person from that person can be regarded as generally reliable with some exceptions. In the absence of any evidence refuting his claims we can use Poe's statements about himself in good conscience. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 18:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading WP:BIO, no, we can't. A person's blog posts are not enough for an article: the article utterly fails the primary criterion, "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." There are no secondary sources for him, only his comics (at best). --Gwern (contribs) 23:18 27 March 2007 (GMT)

We've been over that point already: notability is established by the two notable, award-winning webcomics he has authored. (Which, incidentally, is per WP:BIO) The text you quoted is not the only way a person can be notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. let's just pin this down succinctly in one post. 1) Your objection to reliable sources: Poe is a reliable source about himself, per WP:BIO. It is ideal to have secondary sources as well, but it is not necessary. (Even then, he has been interviewed a few times, so additional sources exist somewhere to make the article better) 2) Notability: his notability is established by his two webcomics, both of which are notable, and in particular one of which has won two Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards. Your rational for nomination as well as the odd WP:RS straw man you threw out there have now been disproven. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there exist independent sources from reliable sources, then add them to the article. Put up or shut up - lack of sources is a valid reason to delete an article. As for WP:BIO, I don't know why you think WCCA is is enough anyway: he's received the same barely notable award 3 times. This speaks more to the insularity of WCCA coverage and the webcomic authors who vote in it than to any impact on webcomics or notability. And he doesn't satisfy the primary criterion nor does he satisfy any of the "creative professionals" section (although perhaps calling him a creative professional is a bit generous, as he can't even make a living off Errant Story). --Gwern (contribs) 02:18 28 March 2007 (GMT)

Request for Speedy Close - I'm pretty sure the above rant sheds light on some issues with this AfD nomination; the nominator has clearly expressed a personal distaste (bordering on contempt) for both Mr. Poe and his works, and the WCCA to boot. I'm now calling this a bad-faith nomination. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 02:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I see here is difference of opinion, not bad-faith. A speedy close would not settle the matter sufficiently. Epameinondas 11:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's contempt to point out that Poe can't make a living off his stuff (according to his blog, in which he mentioned back when he quit his job to work on Errant Story that he hoped his savings would take him to the point where ES could support him, and a more recent blog post in which he mentions that ES income is not proving to be sufficient - yes, I've been reading his stuff for a long time now.)? I don't believe it is. And any distaste I've displayed is for the article, which isn't very good at all, and for the contention that he is notable, as I thought I made clear. --Gwern (contribs) 00:33 29 March 2007 (GMT)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- -- Ben 14:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge I am a huge fan of Poe's work. I own Exploitation Now in book form. It is my favourite webcomic ever. However... I would not say that he meets the Wikipedia notability requirements yet. "Web Cartoonists Choice Awards" are meaningless in determining notability. - Francis Tyers · 15:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - The notability of the Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards has been disputed via an AfD; the consensus was that the awards were notable and had presence within even the mainstream press. This elevates a WCCA nomination or win to the level required by WP:BIO when relating to awards granted to an author's work or works, specifically "has won significant critical attention". -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er... no. How on earth are you leaping to the conclusion that just because the WCCA was found to be somewhat notable, that comics winning any WCCA ever are automatically notable, and that even further, any author of those comics is notable as well? Notability is not some crazy transitive property where anything even remotely connected with some barely notable thing is itself notable. --Gwern (contribs) 02:18 28 March 2007 (GMT)

Not that it'll do any good arguing with you, but what the hell: "somewhat notable" is an understatement. Read the AfD; it is clearly established the WCCA is the most notable webcomics award out there. I can't think of any other webcomics awards featured in both the New York Times and Attack of the Show; can you? In this instance a WCCA win becomes somewhat "transitive", as you put it: winning multiple awards asserts notability of the comic, which in turn asserts notability to the author via WP:BIO's "significant critical attention" wording. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 02:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Francis. bogdan 17:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak article. Needs cleanup, not deletion. Mr. Poe's webcomics have received a notable award. -- Ben 17:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't Care We aren't deleting his webcomics here. There isn't that much info about Mr. Poe out there... I'm good either way. -- Ben 17:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Author of noted works. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 19:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google turns up an interview here. Not a whole lot else in the way of good sources (although my search was by no means exhaustive). Nifboy 02:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being interviewed by a non-notable blog does not make one notable. bogdan 07:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources to assert notability. Realkyhick 03:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no sources, no suggestion of importance. --Dragonfiend 04:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Edison 05:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lack of a clear consensus regarding the ability of the WCCA to confer notability or not, is making these AfDs regarding webcomics rather tricky (not to mention unpleasant at times). If we look at AfDs that took place after the [[WCCA]s passed their second AfD there are three examples. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Avalon_%28webcomic%29 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/No_Rest_for_the_Wicked_%28webcomic%29 were kept primarily as a result of the WCCA awards they'd won. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Starslip_Crisis_%282nd_nomination%29 was delete and redirected (in both AfDs, not only in the one with extensive prodelete sockpuppetry) although this was done the same day as the keep result for the WCCAs. Perhaps a slight tendency that the WCCA's do confer notability, but not exactly conclusive. If there are other (post WCCA's own AfD) AfDs that I've missed where they were used in arguments please let me know. Epameinondas 11:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per yukichigai. Poe is clearly a significant figure in webcomics. GarryKosmos 06:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think everyone reading this discussion would agree the article needs work, regardless of where one stands on the keep/delete debate. If the more heated participants could tone it down a little, others may be a little more willing to contribute without fear of a "vigorous" exchange coming there way. WP:Civility. Scienter 12:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absence of sources suggesting any notability. Non-notable biography. —Ocatecir ^Talk 01:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete virtual notability is not notability. The only people who would be interested in this article would be people who already know about him. Has no sphere of influence outside of cruft. Jerry 21:33, 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. --Core desat 01:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Munyan[edit]

Subject is not notable per WP:BIO. Originally listed for PROD, but the article's author challenged. Mwelch 01:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Claims to notability would seem to be limited to being a long-time successful high school football coach and to being elected to the sports hall of fame of Louisiana College, the small college from which he graduated. Doesn't meet WP:BIO guidelines. Mwelch 01:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom non notable.--Paloma Walker 01:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm an inclusionist. - Richard Cavell 01:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - School coaches are not notable Alex Bakharev 02:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per given arguments. Icemuon 13:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. High school coach. Herostratus 17:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete High school coach, not notable. NawlinWiki 17:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. A Train^{take the} 21:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough per WP:BIO. Just a local coach. --Seattle Skier (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, though the Louisiana H.S. HOF makes it close. The author has a habit of creating articles about lots of "local legends." Realkyhick 03:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Just to be clear: he didn't make a HOF that represents the whole state of Louisiana. He attended a 1,000-student college named "Louisiana College". And he made that school's sports HOF. My high school was bigger than that, so I hope we're not saying everybody in their sports HOF (sadly, not including me) is near notable! ;-) Mwelch 03:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability rules: Athletes: 1)Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming and tennis 2)Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports. 3)Competitors in college sports in the United States. It says nothing about the size of the college. So a college hall of fame does suffice. Billy Hathorn 23:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd respectfully disagree. The notability guidelines you quote are intended to be (as the name indicates) guidelines to help one determine who is likely to have "a good deal of verifiable information available about them and a good deal of public interest in them". As a general guideline, yes, there is a good deal of public interest and information about American college sports athletes. In the specific instance of athletes from Louisiana College in the 1950's, however, with all due respect to what I'm sure is a fine institution, no, I don't think there's much public interest or info about their athletes from that time. I could be wrong, though. If I am, feel free to cite the independent secondary sources which confirm this great interest. Currently, the article has none. Mwelch 23:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Billy, you have raised an interesting technical point. I don't think the intent was to literally include all possible colleges, and we'll have to find a more exact way to say so. The item is parallel to "fully professional league" and to "highest level"; the obvious meaning is major college sports--I think it would mean NCAA Division I, and Louisiana College is in division III. For High school coaches, I don't know what would be sufficient--maybe president of the state association? But I agree with MWelch-- any possible notability would come from that, not the college.

But in any case , the only RS you have is the College Hall of Fame record-- The others are a letter to you from his widow and his son, and a general reference to roots.com, from which it is possible to confirm that he is in their database--but what information they may have, I don't know for you didn't say. It would be justified with such dubious sourcing to ask you to document every fact in the article, for if it is kept, everything unsourced should be removed. And also everything unimportant. Not all parts of his life will be equally noteworthy.

Delete . DGG 03:13, 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 delete. --Core desat 01:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop goth[edit]

Unfortunately this article seems to be a pretty unsalvageable amalgam of original research and the author's POV on what is and isn't "goth", with no evidence that any of the named bands have ever been defined as or aspired to be "goth". It's borderline insulting to musicians and young people who don't meet the undefined "goth criteria" as judged by "most elder goths", and is full of vague statements and weasel words like "Some would say...", "it is widely believed" and "may have". This sort of musical genre definition is often rife with NPOV problems on Wikipedia, more so with goth music and culture. See also the AfD for List of wannabe-goth bands which is in a similar vein (pun intended). Canley 01:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the reasons above and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wannabe-goth bands. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsalvagable OR, but LOL at the image of a council of "elder goths" handing down official proclamations on whether or not teenagers are doing enough to be "real goths" ChrisTheDude 07:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, not to mention that it's confused and contradictory. EliminatorJR ^Talk 08:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's too confused to be used as a good article. DTD
Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- and the reason it should be kept is.....? ChrisTheDude 08:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references whatsoever; smells like OR. A Train^{take the} 21:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references, appears to be totally OR. --Haemo 00:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too much OR, too much POV. Realkyhick 03:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Lol, delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.166.222.102 (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G1; hoax. A Train^{take the} 21:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Azizushka[edit]

A google search only provides for this page, and therefore it is very likely that it is made up Jeff3000 01:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if not sourced but I smell hoax killing sparrows 06:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. AniMate 09:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not really surprised if a Google search in English doesn't find any sources that, if existing, are most likely in Russian, but this has all the hallmarks of a hoax made made up in school one day. Not even the image is sourced.- Mgm|^(talk) 12:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsalvageably incoherent even if not a hoax ("Sour cream purifies one's Musset, lack of eating this latter gives a pedrozrir") - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:40, 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. --Core desat 01:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Scumaci[edit]

No sources except self-published websites (myspace, etc.) All albums are self-published, no claim or sign of any media coverage beyond a college radio show Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete transparent vanity, entirely the work of single purpose accounts. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Vanity and Guy. Scienter 12:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:COI, WP:N.--John Lake 23:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is WP:VSCA, except by a musician instead of a company. --Seattle Skier (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-promotion, with no references and no likelihood of getting any. DoorsAjar 02:27, 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. --Core desat 01:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Quidam's itinerary[edit]

WP:NOT: Just a list of tour dates and cities that Cirque du Soleil have appeared, and will appear in. Croxley 00:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. Ab e g92contribs 01:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Travel itineraries of shows and concerts are not encyclopedia material. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Pretty straightforward decision here. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simple violation of WP:NOT. --Haemo 00:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the fact that I will simply add it back to the main Quidam article, which is already crowded; I think it's relevant encyclopedic info where/when the show has been.--Funhistory 01:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No, you won't simply add it back to the main Quidam article. You misunderstand the AFD process, a deletion outcome is not a suggestion just to move deleted material somewhere else. Hopefully the closing admin can clarify this point. The Quidam article certainly is crowded, I notice it contains a lot of unencyclopedic information too, such as makes and models of speakers used, and an entire section devoted to the tour programs, as well as much promotional text for the show. Whether these articles are from people involved with the show, or just fanatical about it, these kind of details don't belong on Wikipedia. Croxley 20:31, 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. --Core desat 01:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of contemporary performers using blackface[edit]

This is mostly a list of sketches featuring minstrels in British TV comedy shows, or actors who have worn convincing make-up to play black characters (in a respectful way). If this list was what the title implied, and detailed contemporary minstrel performers or those who use blackface, then it might cover a notable topic, but even then it would make more sense as a section of blackface. These problems have previously been mentioned on Talk:List of contemporary performers using blackface. Croxley 01:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has problems typical for many lists - problems which I don't see a way to correct. YechielMan 04:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You're my wife now... Guy (Help!) 11:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with blackface article. Not notable on its own. DoorsAjar 02:31, 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. Daniel Bryant 05:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoyland Common Falcons[edit]

Article about a junior (youth) football club. If I recall correctly, English football clubs are notable if they have competed in the top ten professional levels of the English football system, so this organization fails WP:ORG in that respect. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo 06:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination Daemonic Kangaroo 06:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete judging from their website they field teams only up to U16 level, like hundreds of other youth clubs up and down the country. Such organisations do not meet WP notability requirements ChrisTheDude 06:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I didn't scroll down far enough, they also have U18s and a "seniors" side, but as pointed out above, they don't play in (or anywhere near) a league whose clubs are eligible to enter the FA Cup, and therefore the club fails the WP:CORP test ChrisTheDude 07:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as they fail WP:CORP by a long way. Not even listed at the FCHD, which is a good authoritative source in this case. Qwghlm 07:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - amateur club BanRay 07:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - way too far down the football hierarchy to qualify for WP. BTLizard 10:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG and nom. Scienter 12:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by a large margin, as per virtuallty everyone above. They claim to have a Senior team in the "Doncaster League" but if so, I can't find it. - fchd 19:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete little more than a list with no references: WP:NOT#DIR. Disagree with the prescriptive guideline that top ten are notable, however. But this fails on a case-by-case basis. Dhaluza 22:26, 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. Feel free to add a link to the fansite in the main Kirby article. --Core desat 01:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby's Rainbow Resort[edit]

Well-designed, enjoyable, and the only good source for Kirby information. However, I do not see anything to assert the notability of it, even among fan sites. A Link to the Past (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On this note, could it be made into a redirect to the project, and to a section on quality sources for the subject? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This could be moved into project space, but cross-namespace redirects are frowned on. As it is, it's unacceptable as an article and can't stay. delete, move out of mainspace also acceptable Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is indeed the largest Kirby fansite, it should get prominent listing in the Kirby article if it hasn't got that already. I don't see why forums that are easily accessible from the website should be listed separately either. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but no objection to an external link in the Kirby article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - but deserves a mention in the main Kirby article. Masaruemoto 19:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'll agree with the mention in the Kirby article. - DisasterKirby 16:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but definitely deserves to be in the main Kirby article. Cipher ^{(Talk to the hand)} 18:42, 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. Hu12 03:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rude Mechanical Orchestra[edit]

Non-notable per WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC. I did a search for sources, but all I could find were self-referential or self-published. ~~Many of the self-published sources seem to refer to the Wikipedia article itself as a source of notability.~~ RJASE1 ^Talk 02:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the cited sources are more than passing mentions of the band. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I looked at the various sources, and the first source [1] seems to be certainly more than a passing mention. It appears that an interview was done with them on that one. The others, yes - passing references. Can anyone else find another serious source? SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can the nominator please give an example of that last claim? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First I want to clarify that I am not referring to the sources used by the article's author and primary editors, but to other mentions of the group when I search for additional sources for the article online. Some examples would be here (at the bottom) and in this and this from tourfilter.com. At second look it's not as bad as, for some reason, it seemed to me in my original search, so I'm striking out that comment above. RJASE1 ^Talk 13:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ALL of the references seem self-referencial; especially the first one. It is a rewording of a press release, and an example of lazy journalism. The blogs and personal websites should be deleted from the article per MoS:L, leaving us with very few sources at all, and all of which are related to the subject of the article. Being in wikipedia would certainly benefit this group, but it would not benefit wikipedia. Jerry 21:40, 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. --Core desat 01:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.J. Hickson[edit]

Not notable high-school basketball player, also copyright violation from [2], a basketball recruiting site. Cacycle 02:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. There's no need to discuss this any further. YechielMan 04:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per WP:BIO, insufficient notability. — ERcheck (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete high-school kid who plays sports. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Scienter 01:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per ERCheck. Daniel5127 | Talk 03:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as violations of WP:CSD#A7, no assertion of notability. Delete without prejudice; should the group in the future meet our criteria in WP:MUSIC and can back it up with reliable sources, they're more than welcome to come back. -- Merope 02:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voirxudvel and Lilium (musician)[edit]

multiple afd: non notable musicians; prod removed. I will also nominate one of her bandmates. Brianyoumans 02:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Lilium (musician) to this AFD. Prods have been removed there as well. Neither article has any sign of notability, but the authors are assiduous in removing speedy tags as soon as they are added. Brianyoumans 02:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking notability as either WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Second sentence of the lead paragraphs: "Voirxudvel is not famous" and "LiA is not famous" say it all really. Also note move towards userfying the pages to look like encyclopedia content...can we AfD user pages as spam or WP-is-not-your-personal-website? DMacks 03:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DMacks: inappropriate (e.g. spammy) use of user pages should be addressed via miscellany for deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 03:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominated. Thanks. DMacks 03:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uncooperative editor removed speedy from the article he/she created multiple times, and has removed the Afd notice from that page as well. Replacing it now. Dekimasu よ! 14:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I feel that this meets the criteria of db-band, and that speedy was never appropriately or substantively challenged. I am not suggesting a delete based on the removals themselves. Dekimasu よ! 16:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting notability requirements, note that the user uploaded two images of Mana for use on these pages and on the user page - I have orphaned and deleted them as fair use violations. --Core desat 16:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Non notable per WP:MUSIC. Both look like they fit WP:CSD#A7(band). --Seattle Skier (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - none assert notability. In fact, they specifically deny it. --Haemo 00:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 01:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YDI[edit]

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 02:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Their claim to notability is the release of two albums with a non-notable record company. The article lacks sources to establish any other notability, and has an informal tone. Leebo ^T/C 03:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable per WP:MUSIC. --Seattle Skier (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notrability.--Bryson 03:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. YDI are a notable band in the history of USA hardcore punk & black punk music. They had two black members, significant in a scene dominated by white musicians. The drummer later joined the band Pure Hell, who are argued to be the first all black USA punk band. An article about the band can be found here http://www.killfromtheheart.com/bands.php?id=918 -Note I have no interest in wiki, but I do have an interest in the history of punk music, and as there is so little info about some of these bands, I'm appalled that any information would be considered for deletion, especially a band as notable as YDI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.162.214 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was Delete ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Kwan[edit]

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 02:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. YechielMan 04:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. — ERcheck (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. -- cab 23:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is signed to a major label in Hong Kong (正東唱片); non-trivially covered in plenty of newspapers even just in the last couple of weeks (gnews search: [3]). cab 23:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cab. He's been signed to a major label and has appeared in major newspapers. Clearly notable. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." No. 671 google hits, including a Harvard Medical School student with the same name. --FateClub 19:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment try searching in Chinese. cab 00:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The absence of those quoted criteria are not cause to delete. Instead, their presence is stated cause not to delete. If we err, err on the side of caution. In any case, if there are two moderately noteworthy persons with that name, I see more cause for the article, to clarify the distinction. And trust me on this, English-language Google is not the arbiter of notable worth. With that attitude, we might as well shut down all of Wiki & just let people Google. Ventifax 08:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the references are in a foreign language of some sort; this suggests that the subject is not notable in the English=speaking world, and therefore not appropriate to the English-language wikipedia. Notable pop culture subjects in foreign language cultures do not have a place in en-wiki, unless they also establish notability in English language countries. Google hits ARE a good indicator of notability, especially for living people, and events which have occurred in the last 5 years. Jerry 21:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment enwiki is an encyclopedia in English, not an encyclopedia of the Anglosphere. The article meets WP:ATT and, having multiple non-trivial instances of independent coverage, meets WP:N. Plenty of notable things don't get written about in English media, or Russian media, or Chinese media; that doesn't mean the articles on them should be deleted from enwiki, ruwiki, or zhwiki. cab 00:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see what Jerry is saying, but I'm leery of telling wikipedia's readers that they can only read about a Chinese subject in Chinese. Certainly non-English wikis have sections on English-speaking literary figures; a quick search turns up pages on John Wyclif (who's known solely for translating the Bible into English, but is a great enough historical figure), John Towner Williams (who's admittedly musical & interlinguistic in appeal), & the black metal band Cradle of Filth (!!!) in both Slovak & Slovene (2 low-population languages picked arbitrarily); as well as extensive Slovak pages on all the literary Brontë family. Now this guy's no John Williams, let alone John Wyclif, but he is apparently a minor celebrity in Hong Kong, a major city/quasi-state of cultural interest far beyond China (& for that matter, more or less in the Anglosphere). If it turns into vanity or nonsense, we can prune it down to a nice inoffensive stub; but I don't think it needs to be excluded for being non-Anglo, per se. Ventifax 04:05, 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. WjBscribe 00:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

News 10 Today[edit]

Probably could have prod'ed this... In any case, Wikipedia is not the TV guide and this is just a local TV news show, like a gazillion others. Pascal.Tesson 02:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far too focused. An individual local news program is not notable. It also goes into unencyclopedic details. Leebo ^T/C 03:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It should be enough that the station has its own article. Djcastel 16:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. We could not possibly get enough server space to have an article about every half hour of televised broadcast on every channel in every market. This one does not stand-out. Jerry 21:55, 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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic films[edit]

An indiscriminate mix of "Official films of the Olympic Games" (which are notable) along with just about any film that features the Olympics or mentions the word "olympic", such as The Year of the Sex Olympics, The M*A*S*H Olympics, Hanna-Barbera's Animalympics, Pink Panther in the Olym-pinks, Buck Rogers in the 25th Century Olympiad. Also features the usual Simpsons/Futurama references, even though those aren't films. I did attempt to start to improve it, because I think there's a good list somewhere in all the clutter, but the article's creator doesn't appear to want any changes made. Without any improvements, it's just too indiscriminate. Croxley 03:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an indiscriminate list and directory with no clear criteria for inclusion. The list encompasses live-action films, animated films, live-action TV episodes and animated series, dealing with actual Olympics, fictional Olympics, things called "Olympics" which are not Olympics and anything that has "-lympics" in its name regardless of whether there is any actual relationship between the Olympics and the list item. Otto4711 03:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but IMHO only the last section ("references" to the Olympics in films like Airport '79) is out-and-out ridiculous. The rest of the page could conceivably be put into category namespace, as Category:Olympic films (per Category:Olympic video games), although a clear separation between documentaries and fictional or fictionalized storylines would be nice. --Quuxplusone 08:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clean-up It seems like you're having a content dispute with the author's creator, but like The article about the Marines, this subject is still able to be covered, so deletion is not the solution. Go to Dispute resolution instead. Talk to the user a bit more, try to persuade them. Using an AfD like this though? It's a bad idea. It's likely to be offensive, and should not have been done without a more serious effort to reach consensus. FrozenPurpleCube 15:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I originally considered nominating this list last week, before I even made an edit to the article. Just because an editor reverted one small edit is not a reason for nominating, I think my other AFDs have demonstrated I understand perfectly what AFDs are for. If someone else had nominated this article, I would still vote for deletion. I believe it's little more than an Olympics in popular culture with a misleading title. Croxley 21:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not normally keep tabs on people, I honestly don't know whether or not you've nominated anything before at all. I can't recall your name ever coming to my attention. So I am considering this issue solely on your nomination here. The article is about a reasonably encyclopedic subject, both in the case of the individual films of the games, and an overall summary. Now certainly including every single little television episode or movie that features the Olympics in some way is probably not appropriate, and I'm undecided yet as to films like Cool Runnings and the like, but whatever the decision is, that's a content issue, not one as to the subject. Oh, and BTW, AfD is not a vote. You are taking a position, I have a position, others have their positions, but this isn't a vote. FrozenPurpleCube 02:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, this is not a "vote", but I was using the term to refer to my "recommendation". Admin sometimes use the word when closing AFDs as well. But you're quite right to point it out in case anyone else might think this is a ballot. Croxley 06:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using the word vote is sloppy, whether it's a user or an admin, sometimes that is excusable, but if nobody ever says "Hey, remember, this isn't a vote!" then people may be mislead. If you see any admins regularly using vote to describe their closings, I suggest advising them to avoid that language. FrozenPurpleCube 14:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Suggestion to nominator: be bold and remove the items that are not actually about the Olympics. Tarinth 18:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not the worst 'film list' I've seen, but close. Possibly categorise the important ones as Quuxplusone suggested. Masaruemoto 19:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that several of the official films are currently redlinked. What can be done about that? FrozenPurpleCube 02:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Otto4711, maybe merge a list of the official Olympic films into a small section of the Olympic Games article. Plasticbottle 06:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I made some proposal for clean up in the talk page. Inclusion and exclusion from the list should be based on reliable and uniform criteria. Fmon 15:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and remind author what collaboration means. Establish criteria for the page and clean it up. If the author continues to obstruct improvement of the article, file an RFC. AfD is not the answer to editor behavior problems, and this article can be salvaged. Jerry 22:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminant list. Why are the biographies of Tai Babilonia, Jim Thorpe and Jesse Owens listed in "Fictional Films"? How many of these are made-for-television or staight-to-video/DVD? Without a clear focus, this article quickly devolves into a mess. Caknuck 16:43, 4 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; no merge. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural references to E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial[edit]

I suppose the deletion of this "...in popular culture" article will raise a few eyebrows as this is among the most popular films of its time. However, let's look at this article and ponder: does it actually have any value? Is it anything else than an incomplete, unreferenced list of trivial information which in no way participates in an encyclopedic understanding of its subject. Pascal.Tesson 03:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom and as an indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture any reference to the film or the creature or a line from the film or a scene that reminds an editor of the film. Otto4711 03:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This entire article could be summed up with a line or two, a paragraph at the outside ("The character of E.T., along with some of the characters' lines from the movie, make numerous minor appearances in fictional works"), and a incredibly limited selection of "references" that are more important than ~10 second appearances or use of 4-or-less word lines from the movie (the use of ET as part of a road safety campaign may be one of these that make the cut) could possible be merged back into the movie. In my personal opinion, the fact that things from the movie appear elsewhere is not necessary for an in-depth "spot the cliché" competition to be held here... anything more than acknowledging that such appearances exist would be sufficient (although I am open to the idea of expansion if some externaly verified, published, scholarly material on the subject can be found). -- saberwyn 06:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The road safety campaign alone is worth merging material into the main article. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge notable stuff like the road safety campaign back into the main article, but the bulk of this indiscriminate list should be trashed altogether. Krimpet (talk/review) 13:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As is always the case with such things, the problem with the merge is that significant contributors of the main article will most certainly be very unhappy about anyone dumping this back into an otherwise quality article. Pascal.Tesson 14:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am uncertain of how the buckle-up campaign is especially notable or inclusionworthy - it's a bit of humorous trivia, but bits of humorous trivia are generally what spawn these X in pop culture articles. Anyway, as usually goes my opinion on these articles, they are little more than a trivia section under the guise of an article and should be deleted. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm all for axing trivial cultural references articles, and I created this article. WikiNew 19:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but merge the significant ones such as the BT advertising campaign and Saturday Night Live into the main article as these feature E.T. "himself". Croxley 21:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete everything that isn't referenced - so the whole thing - and merge the rest. --Haemo 00:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete material, merge it. Jakerforever 01:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 12:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever but do not merge anything back. These articles are not created to generate more drama on AfD but to decrease the burden put on the backs of serious maintainers of the main articles. If the references get back into the main text dedication of these people will drop very soon. Pavel Vozenilek 09:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails my three strike rule: starts with "list", is an X in pop culture article, and is unreferenced. Jerry 22:08, 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mercer Quality of Living Survey[edit]

Only one source, possible copyright violation, very few links, uncategorized Kevlar67 03:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from everything Kevlar said, there are only 100 nonwiki ghits - not notable. YechielMan 04:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — copyrighted list. — ERcheck (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of notability, but rather that this article copies the list, which is copyrighted. If the article were about the list, it would be a different matter. — ERcheck (talk) 11:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the findings of the survey are copyrighted. (Remember, there's plenty of notable subjects that have no web presence at all so Google is not a reliable indicator for things not internet-related. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - among other things, you get more than 1 million google hits if you take the quotation marks out (and that's simply because few other websites refer to it using the specific phrase "Mercer Quality of Living Survey"). I remember when this survey came out, it got a decent amount of news coverage. ugen64 05:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I googled "quality of living" + survey + mercer. About 20,100 hits. They clearly have very good press, with or without us. It feels a bit like self-promotion to me. Ventifax 08:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pragmatic Keep The fershlugginer thing will just bounce back anyway, & we'll just go through this again. Ventifax
Delete replaces the original market value of the original source, so it is copyvio. No context other than list. Jerry 22:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see this as a promotion for Mercer, but simply the most notable and most often cited tanking of cities. This is the list that everyone refers to when they do municipal comparisons. Also I don't see how a list can be copyrighted. Can anyone explain what is exactly copyrighted and what parts can be used. Would a change of format, or a comparison of different ranking studies be better? I agree that the article needs more than just a list, so other lists might be a must to start a discussion and a full fledged article. Maybe this should be merged into a more general article on quality of life in various cities. I don't really like the article as it stands now, but I would hate to see such valuable and interesting data disappear.

☭ Zippanova 04:36, 3 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. Author blanked article multiple times both under username and IP, and is considered a speedy deletion request. Speedy closed Hu12 00:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skapsis[edit]

Article fails to establish the notability of this Ancient Greek concept and appears primarily to be a mechanism for promoting a Portuguese blog of the same name. A. B. ^(talk) 03:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search on the word "Skapsis" turns up a hodge-podge of just 71 Google hits scattered across several languages and nothing I see that we could use as a reference. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The primary issue is not whether the article is promotional. That can be solved separately by just deleting the link and the reference to the blog. Instead I nominated this article for deletion because it does not appear to meet the requirements to be in an English language encyclopedia. The article states that all the possible sources are in foreign languages (overlooking the fact that this blog is not in English either). Skapsis articles don't appear on either the Portuguese or Greek Wikipedias. There's just one physical reference cited in the article and that's a book in Italian. If there are thousands of academics in English speaking countries studying and writing about ancient Greece, why haven't they written about the term? If they haven't seen fit to discuss it, then is this term notable? "Skapsis" is not in the online ancient Greek lexicon that I consulted. Most of the great ancient Greek texts are available on-line translated in English and if this really was a common concept in ancient Greece, then the article's creator should be able to cite the locations in these online texts where the idea is discussed -- both for us and for the readers. (See the talk page for more detail on this.) --A. B. ^(talk) 13:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Although the article appears to be spam-like, I believe it is salvageable. MKoltnow 03:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this article was salvageable, now would be the time to salvage it. And that would involve providing multiple, reliable sources that meet the non-negotiable requirements of WP:V and WP:NOR. Else it should be deleted. -- Satori Son 03:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cleanup, and de-spam-ify. There appears to be a salvageable article in here. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 04:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Weak delete per my comment below. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 19:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.Z-man, what are your thoughts on where to find sources for this article (and who's going to look for them?) As I noted above, I looked and found nothing. I just don't think there's anything out there so I'm worried we'll be stuck with an undeleted but unsourced and unnotable article -- have you got any ideas? Thanks, --A. B. ^(talk) 04:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... you may be right. There are a few hundred google hits, but very few are in English or any other language I can read. If there are sources, I can't find them. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 19:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it seems to be a real term but, here's the clincher, not a notable one. The article is a mess and WP:COI to boot. --Dhartung | Talk 08:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems pretty clear to me that the article was created purely to promote a blog. The connection between the Greek farming term and education appears to be pure original research. At best, this appears to be a candidate for transclusion into Wiktionary. More likely, it just needs to be deleted. I'd be very happy if someone could prove me wrong by citing references to support the assertions made in the article; I would also be very surprised. --ElKevbo 10:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try and be not so limited. Read what I have advised you to and you will see this is not a promoting article. That is all that I strugle against.

Have you seen the blog? You should, so you can be sure that none of the contraindications apply. I've read the links, and kepted them for me, so I can investigate them further, but I haven't found any real problem in the article. I agree that it may seem as an advertizing, but is not, and if there where to be more in the net about this word it would be there. I have searched. And I imagine that you have searched to without any luck. You think that the only occurrence of this word in the net, which is in no way any of the unadvised entries, sould be taken of?Sarasoar 01:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

But I can tell you more. I have just done this article because a lot of people complaint that they had no way to know what skapsis is in the maner that I did in the article. The blog is a philosophical and poeticaly artistic way of aproching the same subject. I would neve explain the meaning of skapsis there. You may consider this blog the exact happening os skapsis, is the propoer action I have described in the article taking place. Is the best example for the article, and the article is an instrument for those that what to know more about the word. To see an advertizing action is to see ambliopicaly, is compleatly equivocal. There is no motive. Tel me a reason for advertizing? If you woul know the content os the blog you would see tha this is the most outrageuos thing to say.Sarasoar 02:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Gilles Deleuze? His book What is Phylosophy?, with his cowriter Félix Guattari. The last post of the blog, in which the article is mentioned, posts the end of the introduction that is a severe critic on marketing and universal capitalism, or professional comercial formation. This is our doom. Skapsis is all against the ideias that the article have been acused. And the article came out because in the making of the blog there was nothing about the subject. But you know this allready. Please read the introduction to this book, you will see the nonsense of the acusation. And it's very bad that someone may mix philosophy with marketing, but this is possible because marketing have tryed to be criator of concepts. So now all creation of concepts must confused with marketing or advertizing...?

I new that some blog readers might find the article to be an over flow of information that would diminish the poetical dimension of Skapsis, so I have done this last post exaclty to give the tools to understand waht realy is the reason behind the occurrence of the article. My doing of the artical is the first step of the concept age, the encyclopedia. So you probably won't find any artical to be most apropriate to be in an encyclopedia than this one about skapsis. Skapsis is almost the same as the action of encyclopeding, and the mention of the blog is essential to give a dimention to it, it's to bad you can't read Portuguese.

All this was very sucsseful: The article is the first age of the concept: the encyclopedia, the blog is the second age of the concept: the pedagogy, and the atacks the article has recived show the presence of the fear for something that is very bad, which is the third age (and fake) of the conept: marketing. This last way of the concept is all that I want to see away from me or from the blog, the most as possible. That is why I have erased immidiatly the acusation from the artical itself. :If I would be doing what as been injustly said it would be the same as destroying the pupose of the blog, which is much more important than the article. The seconde age of concept, pedagogy, is the most importante of them all.

Please read the introduction to book that is referenced above. Only then you will see the nonsense of acusing this article to be advertizing.Sarasoar 02:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes occurres that a fear for something to come arround brings the fealing for that. Only you, that are policiating the Wikipedia, would see advertizing or in any way a promoting action facking to be an article. But this is much more than an article, this is the product of the encyclopedia it self looking into the pedagogy being born. Encyclopedia has a bit dificulty in understanding pedagogy, so it tries to explain what is inexplainable. Al exlanation creates the ilusion of understanding, but the only understanding possible comes with pedagogy, the living of the concept. If you read about you don't know, you just think you do; you only know in your one experience and only if you are well advised, which is the function of pedagogy, to guide through the processe of empirical knowledge.

If something was not fully explained please ask for more. If this was a bore the fault is yours, you must go into philosophy so to understand the ofense of this acusation. It would even be a reason for processing the acusator. It not only is nonsense but more gravely is difamation."89.155.26.189 11:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ElKevbo, if you realy what to see references that prove all the article says just go and confirm it with the Franco Montinari Greek Vocabolary, the only reference I know to provide this information. I have said this before, but you seam to ignore what I say. The contection bettween agriculture and education is contemporary to Ancient Greece. I realy don't understando wy you act like this if you dindn´t even made an efort to understand what I say. There is no source for skapsis in the internet, the blog is the only source. Can you understand this? And can you understand that this article would never work as a promotion for the blog? Ask a portuguese reader to tell you all about it, and read the introduction to Waht is Philosophy? of Gilles Deleuze, which is the post that redirects here. I you are capable of understanding philosophy you will see that your worries are pointing to the wrong direction. This is becaming extreemly ofensive!89.155.26.189 11:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for you to get out of the virtual world and veryfy a more that reliable sorce as the vocabolary I've mentioned? And that would involve providing multiple, reliable sources that meet the non-negotiable requirements of WP:V and WP:NOR. This Vocabolary is more that enough. I can't understant wy you steel complain? If every time that a subject is not verifyable in the net would be deleted thaere wuold be no Wikipedia for starting. All has a first time, and for Skapsis the first time in a sistematic and resposnsable manner is the blog.89.155.26.189 11:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read WP:ATT. Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable, verifiable sources and blogs are generally not considered such sources (including yours - and mine, for that fact). We also don't allow original research or mere dictionary definitions. If you can provide reliable sources confirming the assertions you have made, please add them. Otherwise, my opinion remains the same. --ElKevbo 11:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, sources don't have to be available online. Sources from other media such as print are perfectly acceptable. But please be aware that merely defining this work using a dictionary or similar source would not allay my concerns and establish the notability of this subject. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --ElKevbo 11:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be perfectly happy with a dictionary, but... Delete. As it stands, neither dictionary.com, nor my library have heard of the word and if you remove technocrati and blogspot links from the Google search no English language results remain when searching for this word online. (The blog link can be deleted if it is really spamming should it provide notable after all). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MacGyverMagic (talk • contribs) 12:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

ELKevbo, if you knew the dictionary I am puting forward you would se it's not about mere dictionary definitions, as is contanis the most advanced reserch about the subject in Italian academy. This is a ver authoritative source.Sarasoar 13:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And..., MacGyverMagic, you didn't read all I have said. There is not occurrence of this word in most ancient greek dictionaries, how can you expect to find it in the web????Sarasoar 13:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not the place for research on a Greek term for which "There is not occurrence of this word in most ancient greek dictionaries." Please read Wikipedia:Attribution. And don't take this so personally. You have simply chosen an improper forum to publish your somewhat intriguing research. I'm sure there are other websites and institutions that would be interested, but unfortunately it is not appropriate for a mainstream encyclopedia. -- Satori Son 13:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming to realize tha wiki is nor about seriouse knowledge but about democratic knowledge, and if you remember your schooling days, if you had any, you know that ther is no sence for democracy in real knowledge. Or you know about it or you don't, and if you know you must show from where, which is what I did in the first place. Vulgar dictionaries may not copmly to the requirments, but this kind of vocabolary dose. I'v used it in major academic works, and it is beeing used all over the academic woeld. Inform your self.Sarasoar 13:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any way, this continuos nonsense is descrediting wiki and because of that I to move the article for deletion, and if possible, all delition of any of my editing in this place. It is ridiculouse tha way you work. Noy seriouse and not academic. You are just bad encyclopedians. And, by the way, there is nothing good about being encyclopedian.Sarasoar 13:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Move for speedy close as creator has requested deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 23:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at the moment it's a 3 line (content free) article with no assertion of notability and no references, and what appears to be an indiscriminate list of random links - unless it's tidied up not even a candidate for Wiktionary. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"And, by the way, there is nothing good about being encyclopedian." That's us told. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although clearly created for self-promotional purposes, I thought there might be something to salvage here. But upon closer look, there doesn't appear to be any significant use of the term beyond the author's. I fail to see any evidence of notability. Deli nk 17:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research unless the subject can be documented with some verifiable references. Tarinth 18:40, 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. --Core desat 01:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Cosby[edit]

Neologism, not notable, even seems to fail WP:V. ghits: [4] & [5] & [6] NMChico24 03:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "The drink is meant to resemble Rudy's menarche". After realising what that means, I now feel ill. Croxley
Delete as gross and hopefully not sourcable. killing sparrows 06:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Yuck. StuartDouglas 09:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but WP:MIX might want it. If Rudy's menarche resembles "a mixture of white rum, orange juice, ginger ale, pomegranate juice, and a splash of lime", I think Rudy might want to take herself down to the clinic, as well. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I really don't see why this article should be deleted. I know at least a dozen people that know what a Rudy Cosby is. I don't know who started it, but I think it makes for a funny story and a good evening. I have been to a bar in Winston-Salem, NC (6th and Vine Wine Bar) that had a Rudy Cosby as a drink special. Maybe it's an obscure / regional thing, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. I thought the whole point of wikipedia was to expand the communities base of knowledge. P.S. - It's actually delicious. ramsta3 18:30, 27 March 2007 (EST)
- — ramsta3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. JuJube 23:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that this article should remain posted. Although the drink may make some feel "ill" or say "yuck", it is no different from drinks with other names that are somewhat disturbing: blow job shots, sex on the beach, sloe comfortable screw, hairy virgin, moosemilk, one balled dictator, hairy navel, etc. It is a good drink and deserves a place with all the other cocktails of its kind. Keep the post.Zimmkc2 22:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — Zimmkc2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. JuJube 23:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JuJube 23:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, quickly. Disgusting stuff added by single-purpose accounts, clearly violates WP:Vandalism, it's a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." --Seattle Skier (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Scienter 01:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No assertion of notability, seems to defy verifiablity, and even the name appears to be incorrect. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't understand the squeamishness on display here and the drink sounds very nice but there is nothing to suggest this is a legitimate cocktail. Suriel1981 23:58, 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. --Core desat 01:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nights plague[edit]

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notbility per WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 03:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another band bites the dust. YechielMan 04:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed that it's not notable. Non Myspace Google hits are almost non-existent. - grubber 01:57, 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. --Core desat 01:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessicas Ghost[edit]

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability pe WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 04:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another nn band. YechielMan 04:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another band. StuartDouglas 09:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice this band's rising fast enough that someone will legitimately recreate it soon, but they're not there yet. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:40, 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. --Core desat 01:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sariaya Beaches[edit]

Prod tag removed by article creator, who might be the only person who really cares about the subject. (Sorry if that's too harsh.) YechielMan 04:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Part of walled-garden or otherwise as table of contents of pages for the individual resort pages created by User:Acom, all of which are pure spam (I tagged them as such). DMacks 04:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As DMacks stated, just an excuse to link to adverts. Top marks for prose though; "The gray sand is powdery soft and the water is pristinely clean, the sea like emeralds and the sunsets and sunrise like heaven." Somehow, I doubt it. Croxley 04:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — does not need own article. List is already a part of the stub article Sariaya, Quezon. — ERcheck (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a list of resorts that are not notable, at least based on the articles that were speedy deleted. Maybe if it was a list of beaches, but no reason to keep with current content. Vegaswikian 05:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and to the topic creator, it's not too harsh. Cream147 _{Shout at me for doing wrong} 07:08, 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. --Core desat 01:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Tricker[edit]

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for deletion per WP:BIO Nv8200p talk 04:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — insufficient notability. — ERcheck (talk) 05:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not at all notable. StuartDouglas 10:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing special. A talented 15 year old, but that's all. Emeraude 12:46, 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take Me Out to the Ballgame (SATC episode)[edit]

Original prod reason: Not every episode of every show needs an article on Wikipedia. This is one such example; this episode didn't do anything notable for television, for the series, or for the characters in the series.

{{prod}} removed by User:Neier with the comment "remove prod from a single article within a larger series of articles".

Articles can be individually prodded or deleted; that the article is related to other articles is irrelevant. Mikeblas 04:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Episode articles for very notable series are encyclopedic. Neier is right in a way; it seems pointless to AfD a single episode article when there are another 49 for this series. EliminatorJR ^Talk 08:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment. Neier is absurdly assuming we can edit all the articles at the same time. We can't; it's not a requirement to submit AfDs in a batch (in fact, they group AfDs are rarely successful for anyone involved). There will always exist other articles that should be deleted, so an argument to keep a single article based on the existence of other articles is ill-founded. -- Mikeblas 13:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I've absurdly assumed is that the deletion of one article from a series is not non-controversial, and should be discussed first. Clearly, from the comments below, it is not a non-controversial deletion. As for the ability to nominate multiple articles at once, that is also not without precedent; but, it is also irrelevant to whether the deletion of this article is merited or not. Neier 23:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have trouble believing that all episodes of any TV program are inherenly notable - I can see that the "Who Shot JR?" episode of Dallas, or the final episode of M*A*S*H* etc. would be, but not run-of -the-mill episodes. However, I accept that I am against the consensus in this. For this one, however, it needs at least a rename from "SATC episode" (I had to look it up) to "Sex and the City episode". And, opening up another can of worms, is "Sex and the City" really THAT notable?- fchd 11:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep lots of precedent exists for episodes of notable TV series, and Sex and the City is extremely notable, influential, and high-rated. Deprodding was correct, as deletion would have resulted in a "hole" in an otherwise-complete series of articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This AfD is about this episode, not the series -- I'm not sure why you're making remarks about the series. Assuming that the precedent is correct is fallacy. This article establishes no level of influence for this episode within any circle of influence -- even limited to the characters on the show. What would that "hole" leave? There's really zero information here, and apparently very little to say about this mundane episode. While high-ratings are nice for the producers and advertisers, popularity does not confer notability. -- Mikeblas 13:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, this is a highly notable TV series, and this may be a major episode in the series, but most of the information is covered at List of Sex and the City episodes#Season 2: June 1999 - October 1999 - all except for the quote. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 15:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think having individual episode pages for every episode of a notable series is appropriate, and is a case where keeping the fact that Wikipedia is not paper in mind is vital. The simplest way to have reasonable coverage of a show's plot is to have an article for each episode -- an attempt to consolidate all episodes for a series into a single article is likely to result in a large, unwieldy article that makes it difficult to find desired information. Having a single article also opens the door for all sorts of arguments about what is sufficiently important to include in the article, and only having articles for "important" episodes will lead similarly to constant arguments as to what constitutes an important episode. Separate articles for every episode ensure that there's a specific place for any information about the plot of the show, allow someone typing in an episode title to go directly to the information they're looking for, and provide a way to navigate through the history of a show. Yes, this may result in the occasional permanently stub-sized article about an unexciting episode, but not having every article would leave a disconcerting gap for anyone trying to read through the story of a show, and undoubtedly result in repeated re-creation of the missing article. We're certainly always going to have at least a redirect for any episode, so why not, since space is not a concern, improve the usability and informativeness of Wikipedia by having a short article to host basic episode-specific and navigation information (previous/next episodes, guest stars/writer/director) instead of a redirect that provides nothing? Pinball22 16:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. How did you arrive at the conclusion that an article per episode is the simplest approach? It sounds to me that it's far more tedious and complicated than having a single article that explains everything you need in one spot, and allows convenient editing without sequence boxes, info boxes, and replicated headers, intros, and references. Meanwhile, let's stipulate you're correct. The problem still remains that this episode hasn't demonstrated any influence on the show's story line. Or are you prepared to explain (specifically and with references!) how Samantha's size queenism influences the outcome of the season finale? -- Mikeblas 02:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Yes, having all the information in one page would be simpler in the sense that it would eliminate all the duplication of the boxes/headers/intros of having a page per episode. The reason that I came to the conclusion that separate pages was overall a simpler solution, though, is that I think the overhead of separate pages is worth it to avoid both the unwieldy size of a combined page and the inevitable edit wars that would occur over such a page. Separate articles leave plenty of room for each episode to have a reasonable amount of coverage without making it hard to find the information you're looking for or inspiring arguments about which episode is worthy of a longer description in a long, crowded page. I can see that for some lesser-known/shorter series, where there's not that much information, a single page (or pages by season) could work. For an extremely popular series like this, though, there will invariably be many episodes that people think are worthy of their own pages, and having only some episodes leads to the problems I mentioned before: subjective arguments about which episodes are sufficiently important for pages and a confusing style for readers, who would have to switch back and forth between hunting through a long page and reading individual pages to get all the information about a show. I'm not actually attempting to provide any rationale for this particular episode being special in any way, and that's part of my point, which is that even if some episodes are less than thrilling, it's to the benefit of both readers and editors to have pages for all episodes. Pinball22 18:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Strongly disagree - each subject of an article should be notable. If one or more episodes of any series don't meet the criteria, it/they should not have their own article. - fchd 18:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Notability is not cumulative. A bunch of individually not-notable articles don't pile up into a set of notable articles. -- Mikeblas 02:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, you can make a case that the guidelines disagree with that point of view. For example, see the criteria for athletes at Wikipedia:Notability (people). If a notable team has nothing but (otherwise) non-notable players, the players would still be notable according to the guideline. Nobody would suggest to fill up a team's page with the biographical details of each player; so, I would likewise argue for a consistent approach with TV series and their players (episodes). This is also consistent with the (currently controversial) idea of having articles for all albums by notable recording artists, as in WP:MUSIC. - Neier 02:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was the first episode in a season nominated for an Emmy award, which seems notable. Pinball22's comment also makes sense. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 16:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Strangerer and Pinball22. Ab e g92contribs 16:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep SATC had a much bigger audience than Star Trek, and imagine the uproar if we started deleting "Trek" episodes. And Pinball22, that's the best I've ever seen the "keep every episode" argument put. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The reason the Trekkies would get mad about their articles being deleted is that they've actually done the work to show why the episodes are meaningful. The ST:OS episodes I spot-checked were all articles with good analysis and references. The article that I've nominated has only three sentences, one of which is a quote from the show. For something so notable, it's quite amazing that nobody, over the last 8 years (nearly) has found the time to write up a paragraph or two about it. -- Mikeblas 02:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge the content to the appropriate article about SATC. There is no question of SATC's notability; however, this particular episode does not demonstrate any notability on its own. I would change my mind about this if it could be shown that this particular episode created memes or references that became cultural icons, but I don't see any veriable sources in the article to illustrate this. Tarinth 18:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pinball22, who wrote much of what I would have written in the edit summary when I de-PROD'd the article originally, had the summary space not been so short. Neier 23:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sound action stations. Consensus is to improve, not delete (WP:EPISODE). Article establishes notability to me, not to mention it was Emmy nominated. Matthew 22:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Matthew mentions, we have a consensus to improve, not delete, articles like this. I'll fix it up a bit to show you what I mean. - Peregrine Fisher 22:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Strangerer, an TV episode's highest honor is an Emmy or win nomination. --FateClub 19:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Farm them all out, if possible--but... While I appreciate the extensive fanwiki pages, I do think that they should, if possible, be moved onto sites & servers elsewhere, where they can find other funding & support, rather than bleed Wikipedia. That said, that may not be strictly possible. People will go to wikipedia.org first, & I doubt there will ever be a SATCpedia dedicated site. But I see no mention on the page that this episode won an Emmy, so I don't think that level of individual notoriety is asserted.

Comment However, at this point, we're keeping it for reasons of organization; I expect it, in effect, takes less bandwidth if on its own page than if this information were all merged into a main SATC article or article on the season, since one doesn't have to load this stub to read about another episode in the same season. Ventifax 09:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Err.. have you ever read WP:NOT#PAPER. They're not kept for "organization", they are kept because they are encyclopaedic. Wikipedia is building an encyclopaedia of human knowledge, that includes "pop culture". Matthew 09:19, 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 per consensus and lack of a shrubbery. --Core desat 01:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Gender Marketable Trade Skills[edit]

I don't even know what this article is supposed to be about. It looks like a how-to guide for dating, which Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Linkless since August 2006. Prod removed on 21 February 2007. Recommend deletion. Hbdragon88 04:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. Monty Python reference was the giveaway. Quite funny though, send it to WP:BJAODN. Croxley 04:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The prod was removed without comment. Article hasn't addressed the notability concern. -- ReyBrujo 05:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree this is a hoax, people have way too much free time. --killing sparrows 06:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is almost certainly meant as a wind-up. BTLizard 10:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per killing sparrows (African or European?). This is a hoax. --Charlene 11:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article with ..... a herring! Ok, in all seriousness, this article reads like some kind of how-to guide or something, and is in no way encyclopedic. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as totally unreferenced and unverifiable original research. Tarinth 18:45, 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 delete. WjBscribe 01:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khlav kalash[edit]

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a how to guide Alex Bakharev 04:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe keep. I'm not a big trivia fan, but a Google search shows that this got mentioned on The Simpsons. Other than that, I don't think we need the recipe. YechielMan 04:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Wikipedia is not a recipe book. — ERcheck (talk) 05:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically — WP:NOT an instruction manual ... including "recipes". — ERcheck (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probably originated on the Simpsons, crab juice or Mountain Dew??? --killing sparrows 06:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably just a Simpsons joke, but even if not, WP is not a recipe book. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, but delete as it's not even a real food. ... discospinster _talk 14:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep* why is wikipedia not a cookbook ? there seems to be this tendency on deltion to make wiki into a std paper encylcopedia - is not part of wikipedia to go beyond, perhpas way beyond, the boundrys of the std paper item,while keeping verifiability and npov > Cinnamon colbert 14:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:NOT. In the section titled "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", the subsection about instruction manuals specifies "Wikipedia articles should not include instructions... this includes... recipes.". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The place for recipes in the wiki is http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbook
Comment - there is precedent for articles about foods, including some information on how to prepare them. See pancake or pizza for examples. However, you'll note that the information in those articles is more than recipes--it tells the history and significance of those foods. If this article can be improved to contain that type of information before it the AfD is complete, then I think it could be kept; alas, an unreferenced recipe isn't quite enough to keep it in its current state. Tarinth 18:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson. I can't verify that this actually exists outside the Simpsons universe. Indeed, the last line of the article is an allusion to the NY episode. Zagalejo 22:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Well, it's either a hoax or a recipe, and shouldn't be here in either case. --Haemo 01:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and transwiki to http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbook.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FateClub (talk • contribs)
Delete as fateclub stated, perhaps belongs in wikicookbook. Jerry 22:18, 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Macpherson[edit]

Not notable to warrant own page. Individual is part of a group that has its own Wikipedia entry. See: Tiki Bar TV. Subject discussed and endorsed a biographical stub on Wikipedia during a recent podcast on TWiT. Cioxx 04:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom unless the article is greatly improved from its current status by the end of this AfD StuartDouglas 10:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete has some IMDB credits, so more notable than your average internet video "celebrity". But I don't see anything that an article can be really based upon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (note, creator of article) - IMDB entries can be bought, not a good notability test. TWIT by itself is a major media outlet nowadays and per WP:TWIT a keep should be in order. The article will expand as the podcast is released and the TWIT army views / improves it. -- Tawker 19:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You cannot vote "Keep" on your own articles. Conflict of interest aside, you seem to be confusing the TWiT podcast with the article on someone who has merely appeared on TWiT. Furthermore, the podcast was released on Sunday and it is disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise. TikiBar TV has its own page already. I am reverting the page back to WP:AFD, per earlier nomination. Please take your time to go over the Rationale for Notability on WP:NOT. Cioxx 11:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, you can vote "keep" on your own articles, and people often do. There's certainly no need to be rude about it. I disagree with Tawker on this matter, but he has every right to vote and add to the discussion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The conflict of interest would be if I closed this AfD.... which I rarely close AfD's anyways so it's hardly to be a concern -- Tawker 01:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What relevance does the inspiration for article creation (re: TWiT episode) have if not created by the subject? Joshua Miller
Keep notable in the IPTV niche. --FateClub 19:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's what, one sentence? And how many have we spent arguing about it? Ventifax 09:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability guidelines: (Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.) He is co-creator of one of the first popular video podcasts, and communicates his expertise as an early innovator with other podcasters in the industry. Serves as a resource to the field of podcasting as evidenced by the TikiBar forum (FAQs forum includes information on hardware, software, and techniques to create their show and by extension for other parties to create video podcasts). The fact that Macpherson is the subject of news articles and is a guest on shows such as TWiT shows notability above and beyond his one podcast show. mancuso 19:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tawker. Jerry 22:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FateClub and mancuso, notable within a notable genre. --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:03, 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. --Core desat 01:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Wykes[edit]

Multiple AFD: This appears to be a hoax, or largely one, at least. "Lee Wykes" and "music" gets few ghits, only a few possibly related; his book, supposedly reviewed in a major literary journal, does not appear on Amazon.co.uk. (And neither does the other one.) I will also include the article on Wykes' book. Brianyoumans 04:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added My Life in the D (book) to this AFD. Brianyoumans 04:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In my (admittedly short) search I could not find any information on him, looks like a hoax. Icemuon 10:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its a con. his book cant be found on the internet an if it did exist it wuld be on amazon, which it aint. someones just messin with the wiki and wastin our time--Zedco 10:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not verifiable. Ab e g92contribs 16:57, 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.

HE IS A REAL AUTHOR!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.203.88 (talk) 00:14, 30 October 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 keep. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 18:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Gamble (netcaster)[edit]

Not notable to warrant own page. Individual is part of a group that has its own Wikipedia entry. See: Tiki Bar TV. Subject discussed and endorsed a biographical stub on Wikipedia during a recent podcast on TWiT. See: earlier afd on Jeff Macpherson Cioxx 04:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable unless he has other strings to his bow. StuartDouglas 10:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please... Deleting these, you might as well apply the same notation to Leo Laport, or even other actors or persons who are part of other entities. In the same Argument I would vote Leo Laport as Deletable because he is part of the TWiT network, and Call for Help, and a number of other items that probably have articles here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.5.200.77 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 28 Mar 2007 (UTC)

If you think other pages don;t meet Wiki creiteria, then you shoud nominate them for deletion - I'm afraid that it's no argument in defence of this article though StuartDouglas 08:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.TheRingess (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/conditional keep If he can be confirmed as a producer on George of the Jungle, then he may be no longer just a subsection of Tiki Bar TV. Ventifax 09:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability guidelines: (Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.) He is co-creator of one of the first popular video podcasts, and communicates his expertise as an early innovator with other podcasters in the industry. Serves as a resource to the field of podcasting as evidenced by the TikiBar forum (FAQs forum includes information on hardware, software, and techniques to create their show and by extension for other parties to create video podcasts). The fact that Gamble is a guest on shows such as TWiT shows notability above and beyond his one podcast show. Also, is becoming noteworthy for his weblog on cocktail creations (although currently that'd be a fairly weak argument if it was the lone reason for notability).mancuso 19:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per ventifax. Jerry 22:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per mancuso. Notable within a notable genre. --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per IMDB -- Tawker 19:31, 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. WjBscribe 01:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of goofs from Camp Lazlo[edit]

An utterly non-notable and pointless list. Denni ^talk 04:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, complete nonsense, probably good faith nonsense but nonsense nonetheless. Krimpet (talk/review) 05:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - couldn't this get merged into Camp Lazlo somehow? ZBrannigan 07:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't imagine the need for a list of bloopers from some silly cartoon show. JuJube 07:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree it's pointless. Also, the AfD tag had been removed. Restored it. BTLizard 10:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge pertinent information (albeit minimal) into episode articles, then delete. SkierRMH 10:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article should be on the list. --Haemo 00:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of this should be merged either, just deleted. Plasticbottle 05:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as soon as possible. This is garbage. Jerry 22:27, 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. WjBscribe 01:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The First Cathedral[edit]

Promotional; unclear notability; unreferenced — ERcheck (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC) •[reply]

Keep The article needs to be rewritten, but the church is claimed to be the largest Protestant church in New England, with more than 11,000 members. We have tended to allow articles on "mega-churches" to stay. I found at least one article in the Hartford Courant on the pastor and his church. Brianyoumans 05:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, controversy over holding public high school graduations in the building[7], called "one of the largest African-American churches in New England"[8], etc. --Dhartung | Talk 07:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - passing comments in the press, in articles that are primarily about another subject, don't really qualify as references. Are there any references that deal specifically with the subject itself? Tarinth 18:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With no references whatsoever, it might be a complete hoax. Also, if it is a cathedral, who is the bishop? Edison 05:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - there's an archbishop's picture (in purple clerical collar) on the article. That said, if the precedent is to allow mega-churches to stay, then we should *Keep. Philippe 04:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even though this is blatant self-promotion produced by the subject. The lack of a bishop appears to be explained by it being a baptist church, a denomination that usually have none. If they like to call it a Cathedral, because it is bigger than a normal church, I suppose they may. Peterkingiron 20:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, but it meets natability criteria. This article needs ALOT of work. The trivia section needs to be flamethrowered, the vision and mission statements can not be made POV, so wave the flamethrower that way, too. I volunteer to cleanup this article, if it survives. (I like fire). Jerry 22:32, 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 merge into David Morgan-Mar.--Wizardman 01:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity on 30 Credits a Day[edit]

Non notable webcomics project. No sources among the 24 distinct Google hits establish any notability[9]. No independent reliable sources. May become big in the future, but shouldn't have an article until then. Fram 05:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't find any reliable sources to justify article inclusion, fails WP:WEB. MURGH ^disc. 12:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a very interesting concept, but nothing here passes WP:WEB or WP:V. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- -- Ben 14:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into David Morgan-Mar --Stlemur 11:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Its process of creation is novel enough to be noteworthy. Ventifax 09:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Stlemur. Article indicates that this Webcomic has yet to even be published/posted, as it's still in its formative phases. If that isn't an indicator of non-notability... Caknuck 17:00, 4 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 21:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Circles (comic book)[edit]

Another furry comic. There is no assertion of notability, and it is totally unsourced and seems to be nearly totally OR, and this comic only has had 6 issues, not making it particularly long-running. Delete per WP:ATT and WP:N K@ngi e ^meep! 05:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has been on my radar for some time. In addition to the article format, it does in fact appear to be a non-notable comic only published by a genre vanity press. I'm not throughly familiar with the genre though so if some realiable sources emerge from other editors that can verify notability I could be swayed. Since it is printed material and I'm always more inclined to give printed media a little more slack. NeoFreak 12:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've heard of it but that is no reason to keep it, and it makes no assertion of WP:N. Some reliable secondary sources on the subject could change my vote as well, printed material tends to get a little leeway per NeoFreak but it needs to satisfy criteria. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete given the effort that's gone into it, but nothing to indicate notability. And why do we have so many furry articles, anyway? - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably due to the large internet presence. It's pretty undeniable that, being an online encyclopedia, Wikipedia is going to have a markedly high number of articles on subjects more intimately tied to the internet. Arkyan  ^(talk) 17:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The disproportionate number of Furry, Otherkin, Therian and other like types editing on wikipedia would blow your mind. I think alot of it has to do with the percieved need to "defend" their subculture from the bashing that follows them around the internet. In the end it's just a huge mess but what are you going to do? NeoFreak 17:00, 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 No consensus, defaulting to keep. Shimeru 23:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rowrbrazzle[edit]

Unsourced article. Google turned up multitudes of blogs and sites mentioning "Rowrbrazzle", but nothing that resembles a reliable source, and hence an encyclopedic article cannot be constructed. Delete, per WP:ATT and WP:N K@ngi e ^meep! 07:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pending sources. Right now the article fails the fundemental attribution policy and seems to be a amateur comic published by an amateur vanity press (the APA). Still, it makes three claims of notability: It's vast list of contributors, it's impact on the genre and its uninterrupted 24 year run (a long run for any comic). If reliable sources can be found to support these claims then I would say it be kept on the grounds that it is a notable comic within the furry community even if not the mainstream. NeoFreak 13:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep. Rowrbrazzle was a seminal APA in [ETA: what] would become a dominant genre of independently published comics in the 1980's. It's highly notable, & too historically significant [ETA: for us to be able] to keep the article from resurfacing on this site. Ventifax 07:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How can we go about finding sources in order to verify this claimed notability? Remember, it's not about what's true, it's about what you can verify through attribution. NeoFreak 13:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, what verification do you need? Does it have to be online? Do you need a scan of the actual thing? Testimonials from contributors? I don't have any actual issues of it myself, but I can dig up a reference in an old Albedo Anthropomorphics. Here are the WikiFur pages on Rowrbrazzle[10] & its predecessor Vootie[11]. Do you think that the furries are going to be less reliable about their seminal publications? It's not a catastrophe if this page is deleted; it's only pop culture stuff, & already served by a more focused wikia site. But this zine Rowrbrazzle really isn't, in pop culture history, just some obscure guy in his garage. Ventifax 22:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd suggest you start by reading the policy on reliable sources. If you have any other questions after that hit me up on my talk page. NeoFreak 23:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update I have added source links, & an admittedly very biased quote from one of the former editors explaining why he thinks Rowrbrazzle is culturally noteworthy. In general, I would rather improve incomplete articles than burn them off for being incomplete. Ventifax 02:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire. The only source is an external wiki with less stringent criteria for inclusion. Keeping would be a very bad precedent. Every moron who wants to get an article in wikipedia would jjust have to get it into other wiki's and cite them. Note: I am not referring to anyone involved with this article or AfD as a moron, just a hypothetical future reference.. Jerry 22:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be another case of deleting a notable comic because it was most important during years before the Internet reached its current form, making online sources hard to find. Ken Arromdee 18:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is an additional issue here - an amateur press association, by definition, only distributes copies to its members. Therefore, it would rarely have had any press from being sold or reviewed, despite the fact that it was often viewed as the very definition of furry fandom material, or that at one point it reportedly had a three-year waiting list for entry. This was not some mere "comic" - the volumes ran to many hundred pages, and I don't doubt that Best in Show has some reference to it. Of course, Best in Show was written by Fred Patten, who was until recent illness the chief editor of Rowrbrazzle; one of the reasons he had the authority to edit that book. GreenReaper 23:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what additional issue we're talking about, that is if were talking about this article's compliance with wikipedia policy. I'll I see is a vanity press and a bunch of unreliable sources and reviews on blogs. Oh, and the Furry wiki, of course. NeoFreak 23:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was replying to Ken's comment about online sources. Nobody in the furry fandom needed to review Rowrbrazzle, because it's not something that was commonly offered for sale, therefore there is a lack of published sources. In addition, everyone involved in the furry fandom knew what it was. Vanity presses don't tend to have waiting lists, nor do they run to 90+ issues of a single publication over the course of 20+ years. GreenReaper 00:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It just occurred to me: Despite being a wiki (& therefore a bit... unreliable in basic theory), WikiFur actually makes sense as a tertiary (maybe secondary) source in this case. The policy on using wikis is the same as the policy on using self-published sources, & for the same reasons. But if you look at the reasoning in Wikipedia: Reliable sources:

They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Only with independent verification by other sources not holding the same POV is it possible to determine the difference.

Rowrbrazzle is evidently still a going concern, & there's a significant overlap between its membership & the subculture of WikiFur. While I think that some of what WikiFur says about the significance of 'Brazzle has to be taken with a grain of salt, the wiki process at WikiFur is going to serve to bring the accuracy of their article up, because of the presumed high interest in this subject by their readership. In this case & for highly exceptional reasons, the wiki in question is going to self-police itself enough to create a usable article (which we can edit to be more NPOV here). Ergo, we have a source right there. It's not a normal source, it's a hugely exceptional source, it's an imperfect source, but it's a workable one. Ventifax 05:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS clearly says no to wikis. If you don't like that fact then take it up on that policy's talk page. This is not that place to campaign for policy change, this is an AfD. NeoFreak 06:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I firmly believe that rules exist for reasons, & that if you find an exception where the rule can be broken while holding to the underlying principle, than it is a reasonable exception. In this case reasonable expectation of verifiability is the principle, & "no wikis" is the rule. To be clear: I am not campaigning for policy change. I consider this a rational exception in an exceptional case. But it was a weak argument, I admit. Ventifax

Move to dismiss nom due to addition of secondary sources to page. Ventifax 06:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no. You can tell by actually reading the reliable sources policy that the "sources" in the article do not cut the mustard. I'd also recommend you check out the attribution policy. Let the AfD run its course already. NeoFreak 06:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh I really want to vote keep on this, because it's a long-running comic, among the longest-running of its kind, and certainly notable within its own genre niche. As much as I'd like to, though, the lack of anything resembling reliable sources is impossible to overcome, and a policy exception cannot be made just for this single article! What I don't get is that something could run that long and have that many notable people involved, but have absolutely zero attention from either the mainstream or comics press. There's never been an article or review of it in any newspaper or magazine, anywwhere? In almost 25 years of regular publishing? Hopefully sources can be found to resolve this, but if there's nothing out there to reliably base an article on, then deletion is likely the only way to go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would "the comics press" be permitted to give it attention? Periodical comics press is, ultimately, about comics for sale; it's a failure of their editorial policy to review apa's. But to extend that exclusion to our efforts when we lack the same interests is patently bizarre. I suppose if we can dig up a published book (a memoir?) on indie comics &/or the furry scene, that could be a source. But I feel like the lines drawn between good & bad source just aren't working here, by the nature of the subculture. Ventifax 19:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is kind of where I am going with my reference to Furry! (aka Best in Show). If anyone is qualified to say anything about the significance of a work to the development of furry fandom, it's probably Fred Patten. One could argue that he counts as a "well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise." The tricky part is that he was also the editor of Rowrbrazzle at the time, which is part and parcel of why he's considered qualified to write about furry. GreenReaper 20:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and slam a 'sources needed' there. --Lunus 21:51, 4 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 redirect to Jutsu (Naruto). WjBscribe 21:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rasen Shuriken[edit]

The article is about a single attack in the Naruto series. Everything that the reader could possibly need to know about the subject is covered in 3-5 other Naruto-related articles. This article in itself is nowhere near Wikipedia's quality standards, in regards to formatting and naming conventions. The article's title isn't even spelled correctly. You Can't See Me! 07:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced too. Bal33t-K@ngi e ^meep! 07:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to wherever this technique is. I can't be bothered to keep up with all the Naruto articles lately. JuJube 07:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect We already got the list of ninjutsu. George Leung 08:13, 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, this is at Wikiquote already. --Core desat 01:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shashi Tharoor Quotes[edit]

Delete Wikipedia is not a wikiquote. Lonejew14 08:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wikiquote per WP:NOT. NeoFreak 13:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Premkudva. NeoFreak 16:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has already been posted at wikiquote.--PremKudva^Talk 03:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Madhava 1947 (talk) 10:08, 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 keep. Creating this AfD was the nom's first edit and no policy-based reasons for deletion have been offered. WjBscribe 01:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter H. Gilmore[edit]

Not notable Moffollo 08:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Clearly notable as a religious leader, and this is a well sourced article. Hard to believe that anyone would think he was NN. StuartDouglas 10:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some whack-job who leads a tiny cult is "clearly notable"? If I can get 10,000 people to subscribe to insane & evil beliefs do I get a Wikipedia article? --Moffollo 11:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offence, but calling him a 'whack-job' and the well-known Church of Satan 'a tiny cult' filled with 'evil beliefs' doesn't make you sound entirely impartial and suggests this nomation has not been made in good faith. The CoS isn't my cup of tea, either, but it definitely is notable. StuartDouglas 12:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. High Priest of the Church of Satan. Definitely notable. Ab e g92contribs 11:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as he meets the biographical criteria for inclusion: A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Often intervieded and given extensive media attention he is an important leader in what has been established as a notable oranization, Anton LaVey's Church of Satan. The sources section needs to be rewritten though. I might do so myself if I find the time. NeoFreak 13:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Though the article is missing citations and should be cleaned up. -- Craigtalbert 15:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - easily meets WP:BIO, although the section at the bottom which lists interviews should be reworked as references tp the article to bring it up to WP's standards for referenced content. Tarinth 18:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep certainly meets every relevant critaria.Gurvon 22:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Nomination by IP tells everything I need to know. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nominator's contribs. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- I personally think that Jim Jones, L. Ron Hubbard, and Alistair Crowley were all whack jobs, but that doesn't mean they aren't notable. Also, unlike the first two, the CoS is not a cult and does not function like one. Furthermore, the CoS does not give out its actual membership numbers so there's no saying that its a tiny cult. And finally, yes, if you could get 10,000 people to join your group, you'd be worth noting.

Comment - You think Scientology is a cult, but not the Church of Satan? At least Scientology makes attempts to hide it's cult status. --Moffollo 10:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What has the CoS done to be considered a cult? It seems like you don't really understand the concept Anton Lavey was promoting. Satanists, by his definition, are complete and total individualists and their foremost conviction is that a person should look at every situation from all angles and never allow themselves to be taken advantage of. This is in stark contrast to Scientology, which requires participants to put their faith in a higher power and surrender free will. And for God's sake, if you're going to mark an article for deletion, explain a bit about WHY you think this topic is Not Notable. Your opinion does not make it a fact.

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

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

The result was Userfy and delete. Material now at User:Diwakar123/Sharad Raghav Rane.Cúchullain ^t/c

Sharad Raghav Rane[edit]

There are no Google hits for "sharad raghav rane" or "sha ra rane" or "dr sharad rane", except for this new Wikipedia article and a failed Articles For Creation submission. Contrast this with Bhalchandra Nemade, who gets about 400 Ghits besides the 400 from Wikipedia mirrors. Quuxplusone 08:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (nominator's vote). I don't seriously think this is a hoax, but I find your lack of sources... disturbing. --Quuxplusone 08:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not created for any marketing or promotional campaign.The main source of this article is the information which was alreday there at Wikipedia about Leva Patil. If you look at Khandesh, Jalgaon, Marathi Literature and Marathi writers pages you will see Dr.Sharad Rane's name.

Please do not delete the article. Give me some time. I do not have the source right now with me. I will get and submit it to you. Diwakar123 05:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have enclosed put a scan from the book cover which is published recently. The news paper cutting which has appeared in the Marathi newspaper is also enclosed. Diwakar123 05:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to put the scanned images? I would appreciate if somebody explains me. Diwakar123 05:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ISBN Nos for two books written by Dr.Sharad Rane are as follows:
- Kandil (Novel) ISBN81-86152-36-9
- Kosalakaranchi Satra Varshe ISBN81-86152-41-5 Diwakar123 09:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cutting of the news paper article about the book is uploaded. Diwakar123 06:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Diwakar123's only edits have been to Sharad Raghav Rane and Khandesh. --Quuxplusone 08:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless referenced to WP:RS Alex Bakharev 09:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless proper refs can be put by the end of this AfD--Zedco 10:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy pending sources. Ab e g92contribs 11:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, & run it by some of our Marathi speakers. I've mentioned it on Talk:Marathi language & Talk:Marathi literature to get the attention of some of those who don't frequent this namespace. (Nominators who cutesily echo Darth Vader are not to be taken seriously.) Ventifax 07:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The author provided by e-mail scans of covers of three Devanagari books, one article in a newspaper (in Devanagari) about the guy and two ISBNs of his books. The author claims that the publishers of the books are well known in India and not vanities. Since I do not Devanagari and pretty ignorant about India's publishers I cannot independently verify the provided info. I would rather see the information added to the articles and verified by some Devanagari-speaking wikipedian, but I am withdrawing my Delete voice. If everything is true then the article should be kept Alex Bakharev 10:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Image:Sharad.jpg says "The book Dagadu Malish and Itar goshti (Dagadu Malish and other stoires), by Faizpur's famous literary figure Dr. Sha. Ra. Rane, was released at Dhanaji Nana Mahavidyalaya (College)". The rest of the text talks about the function (many students and professors were present, professors/principal expressed their views on the book etc.) I've some knowledge of Marathi literature, and I've not heard of Sharad Raghav Rane before. I tried googling in Devanagari with शरद राणे and श रा राणे, but that doesn't return any relevant results. I can't say much about the importance of "Sane Guruji Puraskar", as there are umpteen number of awards named after Sane Guruji in Maharashtra. "Sneha Puraskar" from "Marathi Sahitya Sabha" is not a major award in my knowledge. He seems to be locally-know figure, certainly not as well-known as Bhalchandra Nemade. I doubt that the subject passes WP:BIO. utcursch | talk 15:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shri.Bhalachandra Nemade has written a article on the book "Kandil" published by Dr.Sharad Rane. If you want to enclose scan copy of that I can do that. This article is publised as the back side of the cover Novel "Kandil". This article is written by Shri.Bhalchandra Nemade and describes Shri.Nemade's view on this book as well as on Dr.Rane's literature. I think the government of Maharashtra honored his book Panchmukhi Pandu as the best children's book of the year 1986–87. This is not a small puraskar. I would be happy if somebody checks with Dr.Bhalchandra Nemade himself about Dr.Sharad Rane. He will be certainly very happy to give his report on Dr.Rane's wrok in Marathi literature. Diwakar123 11:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am enclosing the last page of the Novel Kandil wherein Dr.Bhalchandra Nemade has expressed his views on the Novel. The front page and inside page scan copies are also enclosed.
- Image:Dr.Nemade_article.jpg
- Image:insidefront.jpg Diwakar123 05:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For those who don't understand Marathi: Image:Insidefront.jpg is about a book Kandeel authored by Sharad Raghav Rane, published in October 2006 (ISBN 81-86152-36-9). In Image:Dr.Nemade article.jpg, Bhalchandra Nemade addresses Sharad Raghav Rane, saying "You've authored many stories for children, essays, reviews, research papers, one-act plays, poems and character writings...". The rest of the text is about Nemade reviewing the book. utcursch | talk 13:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- utcursch | talk 14:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now what is the next step? How should I proceed further?

Diwakar123 13:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Anwar 13:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Masterpedia 01:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. There's not really much more to say than that. The numbers are about equal and so, in my view, is the strength of argument. Some of the Keep arguments are weak, but some are reasonably strong.That the page was moved by a banned user is interesting but not very germane. Herostratus 15:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious democracy[edit]

There seems to have been a malformed and aborted AfD on this previously Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious democracy, and an old mediation cabal case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-01-11 Islamic democracy.

This article is essentially an essay - one could start with the phrase "religious democracy" and go off in any number of directions as an essayist. In this case three of the four sources for the first two sections seem to indicate the author is trying to discuss or generalize some sort of Iranian context of religioius democracy (although this is not mentioned in the text). The existing Islamic democracy article has an "Iran" section which would seem the natural home if this is the case. One could point out a number of opinions, unsourced assertions, mangled writing, etc. - the article seems to have originated as a redirect to Khatami-ism, then to Religious democracy (disambiguation), with the existing text being the remnant of a larger insertion by User:Farhoudk. The AfD and mediation would seem to suggest this is some sort of POV fork, but frankly the whole history is so convoluted it is hard to tell.

The "American" section seems to have been bolted on later, begins with an odd and certainly untrue assertion ("term 'American Religious Democracy' first used by Bruce Ledewitz"; Google search showing many other uses here) and proceeds to copyvio the blurb for the book ([12], published 2007). David Oberst 08:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per my nom. Restore (at least for now) Religious democracy (disambiguation), which this article has orphaned, to Religious democracy. Even if some sort of general article on the various uses of the term "religious democracy" is someday deemed necessary and created, it won't be this. - David Oberst 08:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-01-12_Religious_Democracy and then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Patchouli Farhoudk 10:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you support retaining the article, you need to issue a KEEP vote. The non-affirmative statement — Do not delete — is remark that leaves much to be desired, especially during AfD discussions. Aarktica 13:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - See WP:BITE. Your attitude towards this user leaves much to be desired. Good grief! As if the world is about to end because he used a different way of "voting". BTW in case you didn't know, AfD is not a vote. So give it a rest from now on and keep your unpleasantries to yourself. Khorshid 00:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you, Mister Pedantic. You might want to check into WP:CIV before acting all high and mighty. --Aarktica 15:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article has good references and has been wikified well. It's not neologism. This issue has enough notability. [13]--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Worse articles than this have lived to see another day. I'd slap on a "cleanup" tag and move on. YechielMan 18:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There are a couple of problems with this. The first is whether there is some sort of existing core usage of the phrase "religious democracy" that an article can be built around, as opposed to a number of varying usages of what is going to be a likely phrase for those writing about the combination of "religion" and "democracy". As a parallel example, the phrase "economic democracy" is the title of a book by Social credit theorist C. H. Douglas, a fairly common term in 19th century leftist/Marxist writings, a market socialism theory of David Schweickart, a somewhat crankish usage by J. W. Smith, etc. None of these would fit together in anything other than the most general umbrella article or disambiguation page, certainly not one that began "Economic democracy is". I suspect "religious democracy" is something similar - the copyvio paste job and "first used by Bruce Ledewitz" howler certainly gives one no confidence that the article's proponent is reporting and existing a discrete concept and not some particular synthesis of their own.
The opening paragraphs appear to be a fairly direct (if linguistically challenged) reworking of the Soroush article (complete with a number of lifted phrases such "hue and colour", etc.), which is a (translated) newspaper interview - hardly a confidence-inspiring definitional foundation for an article which essentially becomes an overview article for Christian democracy, Islamic democracy, etc. "Cleanup" tags are all very well, but exactly where would one start with this? - David Oberst 21:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep though essentially an essay, seems fairly well-written. I have weasel-worded one of the statements in the article to neutralize its POV. 38.100.34.2 20:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment - the core text of the opening paragraphs can also be found at Abdolkarim_Soroush#Religious_democracy, where it is more properly scoped as "a topic in contemporary Iranian philosophy" (I assume "political philosophy" or "political science" as equivalents). I can't tell the exact chronology or direction of the cut and pasting, but in any case this emphasizes my point above regarding its suitability as the basis of a general article. - David Oberst 21:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete I do not see anything in the refs to indicate this is a standard terminology used generally; no doubt the concept exists, but why in this the correct phrase?DGG 22:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is another one of these "I want to comment on government so I'll invent a new term" articles. Democracy isn't a word like "nice" that can be applied to whatever you want it to mean, it is a very specific term deriving from the Greek demokratia (people-power). It literally means ordinary people sitting in government. The article is not about democracy (either in the strict or "nice governemtn" sense) and its relationship to religion, it is not about democracy in a religious state (which might both be worthy of inclusion) nor is it about a specific term in frequent use. It therefore is simply original research and should be deleted. Mike 23:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good references, legitimate subject. As a term may not be scattered all over New York Times and Fox News, but still exists and is used in academic circles. That is good enough for Wikipedia. Khorshid 00:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religious_democracy&diff=110802672&oldid=110784668 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-01-12_Religious_Democracy#Compromise_offers Farhoudk 03:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete POV sect. Not a real concept--Sefringle 05:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At first it was something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Farhoudk&redirect=no#Democracy_is_not_Secularism.21 but Patchouli changed it drastically and then merged it with Islamic democracy. But we finally agreed to keep the article religious democracy. It was really a big headache for me! I think the concept is generalization of what religious people do in a democratic manner. If all prophetes gather in a city, they will live in peace. Farhoudk 09:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the subject itself is not objectionable, since we have Christian democracy and Islamic democracy, the article as it stands has no factual content, but consists of a rambling essay on arbitrarily defined terms. No editor has made the case that this is a real construct used regularly by political commentators, historians, or some other relevant profession. Djcastel 16:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too vague, seems unnecessary & out-of-line with reality for the most part. The real stuff already has its place elsewhere, so this article is not needed. The Behnam 05:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Islamic Democracy - It's common terminology in acadamic discussions relating to democracy in the Muslim world. --Mardavich 07:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is covered elsewhere. This article seems to be talking about America, amazingly enough. The Behnam 08:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it covered? If so, this then this should be a redirect to that article. --Mardavich 08:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Democracy, if I am not mistaken. The Behnam 08:28, 30

March 2007 (UTC)

But what about Christian democracy, Basic Laws of Israel, etc. ? They are not Islamic for sure. The term religious generalizes the concept of religious democracy to all religions. The first paragraph may refer to lectures of some Iranian or Muslim scholars but it does not mean that the concept is Iranian or Islamic; it is religious. This is why I requested for expansion of the article to ask how democracy and every other religion can co-exist in a country and specially all together (See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religious_democracy&diff=110802672&oldid=110784668). Farhoudk 06:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per DGG --Rayis 09:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a real concept and fit for an essay not an encyclopedia. Madhava 1947 (talk) 10:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete this original research. Springnuts 11:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Religious_democracy for an old AfD of Religious democracy made by user:Patchouli. And also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religious_democracy .
This project page was nominated for deletion on October 16, 2006. The result of the discussion was Speedy close - this nomination is a complete mess.

Farhoudk 05:20, 3 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. --Core desat 01:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Allan Schaap[edit]

This subject is not-notable. A previous AfD on the article (then under the title Jack Schaap reached no consensus - but no-one was strongly arguing for notability. After WP:OTRS complaints from the subject, stating the article was unfair and requesting deletion, two OTRS ops deleted it as an A7. However, it has now been recreated, so I'm bringing it here for community permission to delete.

Let me be clear the primary reason for requesting deletion is the non(or marginal) notability of the subject - the contributing factor is the OTRS request. We have plenty of precedent for allowing that such a request is a factor to be considered in marginal cases.--Doc^g 09:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing I can see in the article to make him stand out beyond any other pastor/vicar/priest/whatever. Emeraude 12:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete The only item of notability is the confessions, and that is not sourced well enough for BLP,and is furthermore only tangentially related to him. For a man of religion to persuade a sinner to confess is--I would assume--not notable. Otherwise he is no more notable than all the other ministers with DDs from the same unaccredited school. Attending an unaccredited religious college is not exactly notable. The subjects request should be honored --but I think the article is worthy of deletion even without that.22:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)DGG
Delete per nom. Someone who has a poorly researched book does not make one notable. Delete and protect. Arbustoo 01:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, though I do not think that it should be protected. The guy seems to be fairly notable, since he was pictured in The Church Report [14] as pastor of this church. While I do not think that this current article is it, I think that a well-sourced article probably could be written about him. I also see no reason to honor the personal request if the sourcing is good. There are others listed here who are not thrilled about it. Fundamental Dan 20:19, 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 speedy delete. Natalie 23:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbasaur Mansion Characters[edit]

This page should be deleted because it was created by a voa and is unheard of everywhere. It is likely that this page is simply badly disguised vandalism. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 08:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some kind of hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. You've got to be kidding me. It's probably made up, and there's no assertion of notability. YechielMan 18:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete vandalism. JuJube 22:29, 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 Speedy delete/userfy. Satisfies speedy deletion criterion A7. Speedily userfied. — ERcheck (talk) 11:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher eric smith[edit]

Please use your user page to write about yourself. Not notable for an article per WP:BIO Helmsb 19:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to editor's user page. Jyst looks liek a genuine error by a new user. StuartDouglas 10:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the current page from the main wiki. strange one this. sure its a genuine error? give benefit of doubt an mov to his user page.--Zedco 10:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or Speedy Delete - No reason to spend 5 days on it. No sources provided. Google search for "Christopher Eric Smith" Florida returns 2 results, and neither appear to be about this person. --Onorem 10:59, 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 13:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DPR K-League 2[edit]

Delete: no proof of exsistance DCUnitedFan2011 21:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No information on web and original editor now admits to making part of the article up (see Talk:DPR_Korea_League)StuartDouglas 10:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment he says he made up some teams in the DPR Korea League, not this league.... ChrisTheDude 10:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but given the lack of any webhits for most of these Div 2 teams or in fact the league in its entirety (not to mention the unlikelihood of any North Korean team being called Inter Anything) it seems pretty pertinent :) StuartDouglas 12:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wouldn't be that surprised to see a NK team called "Internationale" after the Communist Party anthem. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Right enough - I was thinking of various charity football teams called things like Inter Cardiff and forgot what the term actually stood for :) StuartDouglas 18:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - InterCardiff a "charity team"? They qualified twice for the UEFA Cup! - fchd 20:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not verifiable. Julius Sahara 16:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Considering lack of information about even the top division, let alone second and the fact that author admitted making up most of the DPR Korea League article, this is definitaly a made up article as well. BanRay 17:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- Kiersta 02:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 05:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Netural Not much info. supported, can't verify when vandalism, because North Korea is the most mystery place in the world. Matthew_hk t c 05:43, 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 keep. Daniel Bryant 05:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DPR Korea League[edit]

Delete: I have found no links whatsoever about this league. I doubt it even exsists. DCUnitedFan2011 20:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it exists. see it in rsssf http://www.rsssf.com/tablesn/nkorchamp.html

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above but rework as original editor now admits to making some of the teams up (see Talk:DPR_Korea_League) StuartDouglas 10:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, remove list of participating teams (hoax), keep list of champions (verifiable), add a stub notice. Qwghlm 12:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but improve if possible BanRay 17:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following articles must be deleted though: Kimch'aek F.C., Sinp'o Cargo, Kaesong Power, Sariwon United BanRay 17:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already Prod'ed them all.... ChrisTheDude 07:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep league definitely exists & is the top-flight league in the country. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepFor the reasons above but needs a lot of work doing on it. Tangerines 21:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a real and notable league. --Carioca 22:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- Kiersta 02:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 05:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep North Korea does not exist in the web, but dose not mean in the real world. Matthew_hk t c 05:38, 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 per WP:CSD G1/A1, now a redirect ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Dust Gasoline[edit]

This page is clearly nothing but vandalism and should be deleted immediately. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 08:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Nothing but nonsense. Ab e g92contribs 11:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy this garbage. Quadzilla99 14:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the article may be salvageable. It is an episode of Robot Chicken (see List of Robot Chicken episodes). This isn't vandalism (probably), but an article that lacks context. -SpuriousQ (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Having said that, the "list of skits" might have been completely made up, as it didn't have anything to do with the description at List of Robot Chicken episodes. (I have never seen this ep or this show). I removed all the original content and stub'd the article. -SpuriousQ (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see you've cleaned it up, SpuriousQ. Thanks for the effort. Now it's a question of whether this particular episode is notable enough for inclusion, and I am leaning towards "no". --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right. I tend to think that episodes of notable shows are notable, but I also tend to think it hardly matters if this little stub stays or goes. Normally I would prefer that someone knowledgeable to start off such an article, but now that it's here, I say Keep and hope it will eventually grow in the organic wiki-way. If anyone's interested in expanding it, the List of Robot Chicken episodes has a link to an official site supposedly with episode summaries and probably credits, but that site pissed me off too much with impossible navigation that I could no longer continue. -SpuriousQ (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Redirect - Established name of a Robot Chicken episode. I'm not sure if this ep is notable enough to have its own page though, but I'll leave that to the experts. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:54, 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 01:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Life in stereo[edit]

Not notable Helmsb 15:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Seraphim Whipp 11:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, no sources. Plasticbottle 05:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another band that fits the speedy criteria WP:CSD#A7(band), there is no claim/source of any notability. --Seattle Skier (talk) 06:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 blatant advertising. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milwaukee Ridge[edit]

Blatant advertising. In addition, it contains no facts that are both notable and encyclopedic. It is an orphan article. Jaksmata 16:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as blatant spam - I've tagged it as same. StuartDouglas 12:46, 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. Herostratus 15:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post-capitalism[edit]

Keep. There are some academic essays, books and conferences on this subject. The article is just a stub that needs to be expanded and sourced. -Loremaster 23:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a real term of sociology (e.g. this link) and some 23k google hits.--Ioannes Pragensis 13:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see any sign that "post-capitalism" names a determinate concept - rather, the article seems to be about anything that might exist in the future that isn't capitalism. If this is speculation, it seems to fall foul of WP:NOT, if it is about actually existing movements that present an alternative to capitalism, we already have anti-capitalism. Either way, I fail to see what this article could contain apart from an arbitrary list of things that aren't capitalism and might exist after it. Ioannes Pragensis points to a definition from sociology.org.uk, which is support for the academic use of the term - but note that sociology.org.uk isn't using the word in the way the article currently does; rather, it is used as a synonym for postfordism and/or the post-industrial society. If that's the standard academic use of the term, we could redirect. VoluntarySlave 18:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the article can meet the standards of WP:NEO by adding some references that discuss the usage of this term (simply using the term in an article wouldn't be adequate... Again, see WP:NEO). Tarinth 18:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 255 GS hits, with sufficient examples that it is being used as a standard term. We do not require an article specifically about the word in its own right. We write articles on subjects, and use the standard designation. Only the subject has to be notable. The title o the article just has to be the word actually used for it. DGG 22:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've got a book somewhere titled "post-capitalist ...."something or other. I'ts probably keeping the bed from rocking on the floor - which is exactly where I should be right now.Mike 23:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect if there's a better term. We're actually not in a capitalistic anymore society as the purists might say; that was more of a 19th century -pre-WWII concept. Jakerforever 01:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notes: I've added an External links section which contains links to some solid references. --Loremaster 03:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improveThis is a good entry but it should be improved.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 05:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Needs expansion with sources. Madhava 1947 (talk) 10:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Sefringle 01:37, 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. --Core desat 01:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Forvins[edit]

Delete: searching on a MSN Web search, I found only 2 results all being on Wikipedia. I admire the creativity, but this must be a hoax. DCUnitedFan2011 21:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i may upset som fans here but hes not notable enough to be on wiki, yet--Zedco 10:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like a hoax StuartDouglas 12:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most probably a fake Julius Sahara 16:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks completely fake and made up. No sources provided. --Seattle Skier (talk) 07:00, 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 withdrawn. See Wikipedia:Chemistry_Collaboration_of_the_Month#Category:Wikipedia_articles_with_topics_of_unclear_importance_from_June_2006 for details. >Radiant< 15:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terbium(III) oxide[edit]

The sole text of the article is "Terbium(III) oxide (Tb2O3) is an inorganic chemical compound", and a template giving such things as density and melting point. It has had an "explain importance" tag since last June. Since we generally delete articles like 574839457 (number), I'm not at all convinced that we should have articles on every single chemical compound either considering there's technically an infinite amount of them; Wikipedia is not infinite. >Radiant< 09:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, This compound is used in light emitters, as in e.g. Tb:YAG (see yttrium aluminium garnet. Furthermore it is used in magneto-optical recording films. As an oxide of a metal, it is a probable starting point for chemical synthesis of terbium compounds (which often start either from the oxide or from the chloride). As such, notable enough, but unfortunately the document does not state that yet. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've also found some articles in the scientific literature about terbium oxide nanoparticles and nanotubes, which seem to be of current interest, as well as some mention here and there about uses for various materials and catalysts. There are also several suppliers selling it, which also suggests that it may be useful for something, unlike the number 574839457. :-) The subject is notable enough IMO, it's just that the article is not there yet. But deleting is not a solution. --Itub 14:42, 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. Cúchullain ^t/c 03:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall[edit]

Kept by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall. The topic of "breaking the fourth wall" is encyclopaedic, and discussed at fourth wall. Undoubtedly that topic is well served by including some examples. But... Is this list, which is made up of notable examples of drmatic irony intermingled with things that some editor thinks are significant examples of breaking the fourth wall, but in many cases lack a source to support the latter let alone the former, the way to achive that? At the last AfD A Man In Black suggested merging the truly notable examples (maybe those that are cited in standard texts as notable examples) into fourth wall; this would get rid of the unreferenced and in some cases blatantly promotional and/or original research, which would be fine, and that is an editorial decision. However, this is a biggish decision (the list has been around for a while) so I bring it here for more input. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture every instance of a character's breaking the fourth wall or every instance that in the unsourced POV/OR opinion of a random editor appears to be breaking the fourth wall with no regard to the importance or unimportance of the breakage. Trivia magnet. Oppose merging any of the content into fourth wall as it will invite editors to post their own pet examples, leading to another mass of trivia which will throw that article completely out of balance. There are already a few examples in the article and no need for more. Otto4711 12:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding support for the deletion of the additional articles listed below. It's early enough in the nomination that I feel it's OK that the similar articles were bundled in. Otto4711 17:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Okay, I can see the point of some of the keep !votes in the prior AfD, in saying that having some examples of the fourth wall being broken is appropriate to the subject. However I feel that adequate examples are given over the course of that article, and creating an indiscriminate list of every time it happens is going way overboard. No need to keep, and no need to merge it back in to the parent article and just clutter it up. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia has recently started some kind of adversion to popular culture lists. I agree with the deletion of List of signature phrases and List of sets of unrelated songs with identical titles as their contents were, in fact, completely trivial and of no actual use. But this list serves a more useful purpose because of the many different ways the fourth wall can be broken. JIP | Talk 16:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that so many pop culture articles have been deleted lately is that by and large the pop culture articles are terrible. Otto4711 17:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case then they should be reinstated because quality of an article or lack thereof is not a criteria for deletion. It is a criteria for improvement. 23skidoo 18:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to take it to WP:DRV. Otto4711 18:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* The deletion or lack thereof of other articles really has no bearing on this particular AfD. Tarinth 19:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What the length of these lists shows is that this is an common technique. Indeed, in animated cartoons it is used routinely; for instance, in the sublist List of animated series that break the fourth wall, the entry for Animaniacs says "Numerous characters break the fourth wall," which is true, because it happens in basically every show. So I am adding all the sublists to this nomination:
- - List of animated series that break the fourth wall
  - List of theatre that breaks the fourth wall
  - List of films that break the fourth wall - this list is so long that it has an alphabetic index!
  - List of video games that break the fourth wall

A few examples, particularly historically important cases, should remain in the article. But these days it seems that most comedies use this technique, so the fact of using it has become conspicuously non-notable. - Mangoe 16:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't know that it's proper to add articles to this AfD while it is underway, but would support deletion of the four listed as well. Arkyan  ^(talk) 17:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep on the basis that the article went through a peer review and it was not deleted then, and I consider the subject matter to be encyclopedic. 23skidoo 18:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If by "peer review" you mean the AFD from a year and a half ago, consensus can change and over-reliance on previous outcomes may indicate a lack of critical thinking. Otto4711 19:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the list is well annotated and organized, which is required for WP:LIST. The content illustrates examples of an encyclopedic articles. Tarinth 18:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The previous nomination for deletion was made in November 2005. The article has been edited some 1470 times since then, which works out to over three changes a day. This article is a fancruft magnet, and indeed in the last RfD one of the participants indicated that as part of its intent. It's all original research anyway, as evidenced by the total lack of any citations stating that what goes on in any of these works does in fact break the fourth wall. It's just a lot of editors, on their own authority, saying that what goes on in such and such a show/film/game/whatever fits the definition. Mangoe 19:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand what you mean. It should be obvious that a character in fiction admitting he/she is in fiction constitutes breaking the fourth wall. Therefore, it is the same as citing that the act breaks the fourth wall. It does not cite the act actually happened, but for that, we would need to be able to cite every act in fiction, which would require us to reference the actual works, which are under copyright, and often very carefully guarded. JIP | Talk 20:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the article fourth wall itself lacks any citations, so a reasonable person (or a wikipedia attribution stickler) could object that it cannot be used as a basis for "obvious" identification of examples. I personally think the application of the term to video games is questionable, since by their nature they require interaction with the "audience". One might also ask whether interaction with the audience as if they were part of the fiction qualifies. The point is not that we can't say what happens in the film/etc., but that we can't be sure that a theater professional/critic would so identify it. And if it is so obvious, then it's hard to see why we should need what is turning into an exhaustive list. Mangoe 21:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - In video games, there is a distinction between the game play and the game's plot. Of course in Pac-Man there is no plot to speak of, so therefore no fourth wall. But the situation is different in more complex games. The best examples are adventure games. What you are doing is moving a mouse cursor around and making an on-screen sprite travel to where you clicked. What you are pretending to do is saving a princess from an evil dragon, going undercover to foil a terrorist organisation's plot, or captaining a starship in an interstellar war. A notice popping up saying "Please insert disk 2" is not breaking the fourth wall. The beautiful princess asking "Weren't you the one who saved me in the last game? You looked much more pixellated then." is. In contrast to the good old days, when a 20-year-old could write a well-selling platformer in his bedroom in a week, nowadays when games have enough scriptwriting and real-life acting to be small movies, the element of the plot is even more important. JIP | Talk 17:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Maybe, maybe not, but in any case your argument here is original research, and about all does, juxtaposed with my doubts, is provide sufficient evidence that identification of video game interaction as fourth-wall-breakage isn't obvious. So now we need a citable reference which addresses the issue, rather than just piling examples into the list. Mangoe 19:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks like a useful list. I agree it seems like original research tho, so it should be tagged as unreferenced and perhaps pruned back to those for which citations can be found. --J2thawiki 19:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looks like a useful list, but isn't, as it's unsourced despite previous deletion nomination, potentially boundless (depending on whose definition you use) and the encyclopaedic purpose would be better served by a very sort list of those examples deemed notable by scholarly sources. This is just a list of things which some editor, who may or may not have a good understanding of the base concept, wants to add to a list. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another list, for some reason not connected directly to these:
- - List of television programs that break the fourth wall

All the same observations apply to it. Mangoe 19:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, case of "not paper", but please require independent sourcing for each and every entry in the list. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:NOT#PAPER is not a get out of jail free card for articles. If an article otherwise fails policy or guidelines, NOT#PAPER does not save it. Otto4711 01:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that WP:NOT#Indiscriminate is not a get into jail card for articles. There is nothing indiscriminate about this list if properly sourced, as I suggested. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In practice, most of WP:NOT is reason to keep or delete articles. But in the case of lists, indiscriminate is more of a reason to clean up, IMO; only inherently indiscriminate, unmaintainable, or trivial lists (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of virgins) make it a reason for deletion, and whether or not this article is inherently such is an open matter. --Stratadrake 12:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the original research is violated, check TV.com and similar sites with quotes sections and stuff. Matty-chan 02:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but cleanup and prune the list. I've already suggested guidelines on the Talk pages for determining what should be listed (agreeing that the fourth wall is a very common device and that alone is not discriminating enough for a good list article). Citing is always an issue, but not always a criterion for deletion (certainly not every article containing {{unreferenced}} or the like should be AFD'ed). I'm for pruning out all trivial examples from the list to leave just a manageable sum of good entries demonstrating specific instances of breaking the fourth wall, and if we can merely restrict the list to that (citing where possible) and monitor the itemcreep, then we should be able to merge the sublists back to the main list, and that is enough. --Stratadrake 02:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it will be possible to cite most of these as to whether the stated action occurs. I think it will be a lot harder to cite experts pointing each specific example as a case of breaking the fourth wall, and that's the kind of citation that is necessary. Mangoe 12:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Citing a secondary source is preferred, of course, but citing the primary source is an option so long as what is referenced or quoted is a clear and solid example and does not require further explanation or analysis (i.e. original research) to support it. --Stratadrake 23:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list itself is encyclopaedic; as for there being too many non-notable entries... well, I'd say that if a book, (web)comic, movie or whatever is notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article, then they're also notable enough to be included in this list (assuming that they actually do break the fourth wall, of course). -- Schneelocke 14:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather like saying that because car models are notable, it would be reasonable to have "List of automobiles with MacPherson struts". The thing is that MacPherson struts are exceedlingly common, to the point of ubiquity. The same thing seems to be true of breaking the fourth wall, at least if you believe these lists. Mangoe 14:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial entries are a major issue with this sort of list. I've already pruned out a large number of examples like "something hits the 'screen' and bounces off during a video game". --Stratadrake 23:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For once, I have to agree with A Man in Black. Merge the most notable incidents and either delete or put the others on the programs' main pages. WAVY 10 15:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is a good idea, or similar pages, like with the Team Rocket (anime)#Team Rocket and the Fourth Wall. Matty-chan 17:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, I don't see a rationale for why this should be deleted. The nominator seems to have an issue with quality of the article. Second, Otto471 argues indiscriminate list. Sorry, but this article has a solid basis for inclusion as breaking the fourth wall. Hardly indiscriminate in my book. Cburnett 00:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arkyan's point is extremely sound: Fourth wall includes sufficient examples to explain the concept, and the development of breaking it, for readers. This article is indiscriminate. Most of the examples, unlike the ones in Fourth wall, seem to have been picked entirely at random, and are unreferenced. So far as I can see, this list does not seem to fulfill any of the purposes of lists, and as Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) says, "lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value". This list has no encyclopedic value. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:33, 4 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. Bucketsofg 16:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piruz Dilenchi[edit]

Nominated for process - this was previously listed for speedy deletion under db-bio. I have untagged it for speedy as this is clearly inappropriate in this case, since the article clearly asserts notability as both a singer, writer and politician. The article was also tagged as unreferenced, which seems a little unfair as there were quite a number of references - just not correctly added. I've tidied up the "references" section (slightly) as the same time to make it clearer.

There does seem to be confusion over the spelling of his name, with four different spellings used in the article alone - I recognise that this is due to transliteration from a non-Roman alphabet, but if the !vote results in keep a number of redirects will need to be set up. I've not yet done this as it will just mean more work for the closing admin if there's a Delete result.

The AfD discussion for this article's "sister" article is also currently underway, for the record.

Although I'm nominating this for process, my personal !vote as the article currently stands is weak keep although if kept it will need to be tidied up. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person is notable enough for an article. Grandmaster 09:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep If this guy isn't notable, whilst obscure college basketball players apparently are, then that says something rather unflattering about Wikipedia. StuartDouglas 12:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still I don' see any authenticate third party source for his notability. --Pejman47 16:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think part of the problem in Googling him is that his name's spelt four or five different ways, as per Stuart Douglas above I think it does look silly if we delete political party/terrorist group (delete to taste) leaders whilst keeping 1930s cricketers. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please only talk just about this article or WP policies, and do not excuse his un-notability with weak reasoning (all the name of people which is originally in Arabic, can be translated to English in several versions) and you didn't even mentioned the "different versions" of his name. I am going to feel that you have a very strong POV and are going to push it on this kind of articles.--Pejman47 19:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But why is he not notable? If google is the criterion, see this: [15] Alternative spellings also get plenty of hits. To me it looks like some people try to suppress the info about this person and his organization. I understand that there can be different views on this person, but it is not a reason to delete the article. On the contrary, we should reflect all positions in a neutral manner. Grandmaster 19:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pejman47, I assume that "you have a very strong POV" was aimed at me since it immediately followed my comment. I have no POV whatsoever on this, I couldn't point to Azerbaijan on a map and have no idea why you would think I do. Assume good faith... - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep leader of South Azerbaijan National Liberation Movement from 1994 to 1999. is notable, AfD is not a place for political arguments (at least i think it's not supposed to be) and this can be avoided by keeping to the principle that all political movements that can be shown to actually exist and have a name are notable. DGG 22:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 14:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Ali doostzadeh has deleted all references from this article - I've (temporarily) reverted them until this AfD discussion is complete as otherwise this will erupt into an edit war. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and someone's deleted them again... I have wasted way too much time on this page that could be spent writing about important subjects like Welsh goth singers and emergency service call centres to waste any more time on this, but the unvandalised version of the page is here. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His name is mentioned in a report by the United Nations Refugee Agency UNHCR [16] and also in a paper published by The Jamestown Foundation [17].Heja Helweda 05:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough.--Mardavich 06:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep . I think this information is very important. Because Piruz Dilanchi is a famous person in Iran and Azerbaijan. I research about him.

You can see these links. All are about Piruz Dilanchi:

President of Azerbaijan Heydar Aliyev and leader of SANLM Pirouz Dilanchi (http://www.azerbaijanonline.biz/prezident-azerbaijan.jpg)

http://www.unhcr.org/home/RSDCOI/3df4be444.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/middle_east/594537.stm

http://www.rferl.org/newsline/2004/09/290904.asp

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/1999/2-110199.html

http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=1&issue_id=4&article_id=71

http://www.iwpr.net/?p=crs&s=f&o=161996&apc_state=henicrs9fbf0e8ca3f19db2320364d6ccfd21e4

http://www.hri.org/cgi-bin/brief?/news/balkans/omri/1996/96-09-10.omri.html

http://www.eurasianet.org/resource/azerbaijan/links/1103hr.html

http://www.hri.org/news/balkans/rferl/1999/99-01-08.rferl.html

http://www.hri.org/cgi-bin/brief?/news/balkans/rferl/1999/99-01-08.rferl.html

http://mediapress.media-az.com/arxiv/2000/Aug_eng/3.html

http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/0262194775index1.pdf

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/election/azerbaijan/report1011.shtml

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8334603069973996958

http://azer.secure-shops9.com/product.asp?itemid=136&catid=31

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/comsite5/bin/pdinventory.pl?pdlanding=1&referid=2930&purchase_type=ITM&item_id=0286-11376605

http://www.iranian.com/Times/2000/Jana/Roodbar/rights.html

http://www.iranian.com/Times/2000/Jana/Roodbar/news.html

http://www.middleeastinfo.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=5066

http://www.yusif.org/azerbaijan.html

http://www.privatesozluk.com/show.asp?m=piruz+dilenchi

http://cssaame.com/issues/20/Samii.pdf

Keep. (And do some redirects for the variant spellings.) It took me a bit to find him in that mess of sites, because his name is Romanised as Dilanchi, Dilenchi, Dilançi, & Dilenchy. I think I saw a 'Pirouz' for his first name once as well. However, at one of those sites, http://www.iranian.com/Times/2000/Jana/Roodbar/news.html , I found a Reuters report that referred to him as "Piruz Dilenchy, head of the National Liberation Movement of Southern Azerbaijan." That's easily notable enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ventifax (talk • contribs) 08:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC). Opps. yes, that's me. Ventifax 22:04, 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. Cúchullain ^t/c 04:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi's views on race[edit]

Delete - POV pushiing article. Fails WP:NOR: Content should not be synthesized to advance a position. The latest in a long (deleted) line of such articles from the creator. The Kinslayer 10:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another inaccurate statement in a long list of inaccurate statements by Kinslayer who has an agenda in forwarding this deletion. So far the other article under the other name has NOT been deleted. So his claim that this is the latest in a long (deleted) line is just a deliberate attempt at maligning my reputation when in essence Kinslayer is just upset that this article is inconvenient to his sensibilities. Teabing-Leigh 14:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd provide examples, but they have all been deleted as was stated. I should know, I tagged them with speedy deletes. Just 2 to go now, and your fighting like billy-o. Wonder why your so desperate to have these articles here, while making no effort to actually read up on what would make them acceptable. But do keep talking, I find you amusing, like a monkey on a chain shuffling before an organ grinder. The Kinslayer 14:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. There were no such articles. Infact I know you once claimed something about some historical figure's speech being copyrighted or something. Even that article is alive and well... Teabing-Leigh 15:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this would appear to be an attempt to head off the deletion of Gandhi's racism (see above). BTLizard 10:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete if at all popssible per BTLizard StuartDouglas 13:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that this is remarkable. A sourced article based on fact is being "Deleted" because some people of a certain point of view don't like it. Poor Kinslayer is trying to imagine a conspiracy. 202.163.67.241 13:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL, Mr. Teabing-Leigh. The Kinslayer 13:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Kinslayer whats that- some sort of Orwellian newspeak from 1984? The whole masquerade seems increasingly like a scene out of 1984 and "Ingsoc". 202.163.67.241 13:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I see is a certain kind of "contributor" has ganged up on this article, even though the article DOES NOT push a POV ... simply highlights an allegation- sourced and historically verified- against a figure in human history who is no doubt an icon. Icons need to be investigated. If people think this is NOT sufficiently balanced, what is stopping them from contributing and changing it or its different version i.e. Gandhi's views on race. I agree that the name Gandhi's racism is not balanced and am open to name changes but there is absolutely no need to delete an article which quotes very valid sources like COLLECTED WORKS OF MAHATMA GANDHI. On other articles, we've seen one sided newspaper editorials being quoted as "sources". My fervent appeal to you is do the right thing. Don't delete it and prove that this Wikipedia thing is some sort of Orwellian experiment akin to 1984. Let the facts come out. (Since Kinslayer notified this post as "disruptive", maybe someone would like to explain what is disruptive about it? )Teabing-Leigh 14:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of the language is mildly POV tainted, but that's easily fixed. The biggest problem is that it is original research. It cites text of Ghandi and makes arguements based on this primary source. That's OR, even if it accurately reflects the primary source. I also think that it is in some ways well done, interesting and deserving of encyclopedic treatment. It includes some "Further Reading" articles and sources. Can these be used as sources? Can the contributors remove the carefully referenced primary sources and tie the argument to the scholarly or journalistic secondary sources? Make the Collected Works "Further Reading." If so this article has merit. Kinslayer please watch that "Monkey on chain" and simular insults, especially if you intend to raise WP:CIVIL.Edivorce 15:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the sense of fairness sir. I will look to make changes accordingly. Teabing-Leigh 15:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as Gandhi's racism. This does indeed appear to be an attempt to head off the deletion of the content in the above referenced article. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is merely to the change the title from "Gandhi's Racism" to "Gandhi's views on race" which is more balanced. I haven't redirected the original article because it might step on some toes... Teabing-Leigh 16:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per suggestions, I have REDIRECTED Gandhi's racism to Gandhi's views on race. Teabing-Leigh 16:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - problem is that redirecting it doesn't fix the content issue, it just puts it under a different name. It still suffers the same problems. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reasons as Gandhi's racism, still original research and full of weasel words. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the problem here is that it's basically a synthesis of Gandhi quotes, and that's being generous. To me it still looks like a random assortment of stuff Gandhi said. JuJube 22:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Blank - Current article is rubbish and almost entirely WP:OR. I'd say nuke it completely, but there are sources and publications which have written on this very topic; the most obvious is Bullshit!, which covered the topic briefly in between discussing Ghandi's apparent enema fetish. (Seriously) If someone were to look for them there might actually be a useful article that could be written here, or at least a subsection of the Ghandi article. Regardless, I see very little useful information that could be salvaged here, other than the sources used. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 00:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAmazing isn't it that Guardian newspaper, a best selling book by a historian, an American Congressmen, a Gandhi admiring pacifist and 98 volumes of "Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi" have been termed "bullshit". I find it a little strange that people here must not only "nuke" what they don't agree with even if it is sourced but also abuse others unnecessarily. Maybe someone ought to nuke such people instead... but I believe in free speech. 202.163.67.241 05:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partial merge. The fact of the matter (as has been documented well on one side in this article) is that Ghandi spoke/wrote inconsistently with regard to his views of black African people. At times, his references were complimentary and as brethren in a struggle, and at other times, as this article documents, his references were decidedly not so. Currently, the Ghandi article itself barely touches this. It mentions that some have seen his use of "kaffir" as a sign of racism, but then explains that it's possible he used the word in its non-racist connotation. But there is more to the issue (both in arguing for racism and in arguing aginst it) than with which connatation he used the word "kaffir". Certainly this article has unacceptable problems with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:AWW. But given the sourcing, if the entirety of the issue were given a fuller treatment than currently found in the Ghandi article, it seems as though this article here has some of the basic raw material that would go in one side of that treatment. Of course, the other side and its correpsonding quotes from Ghandi would need to be present, also. The Ghandi article is already fairly long, so in fact, that might even be an argument to keep this as a separate article under its current title, though with substantial revision to make it balanced, of course.Mwelch 02:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MWelch, I agree with most of what you say. However, I wish to point out that the term Kaffir was not even the issue. It was a generic term for black people. It is Gandhi's view that Kaffirs were off inferior genetic stock that is at issue here. 202.163.67.241 05:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is my point: that main article about Ghandi barely mentions this issue, and to the extent it does mention it, it does treat it as though the word "kaffir" is the only issue. That is why I feel the coverage of this issue in that article is inadequate — because there is much more to this issue than worrying about just the use of that word. So I'd hope there would be some way to use what's in this article to treat the issue more substantively, rather than having to just throw the whole thing out. I agree that the this article as it stands is badly flawed, and I'd agree that throwing it out would be better than letting remain as is. But I'd like to think there could be a third alternative better than either of those options. Mwelch 07:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mwelch, as per your excellent suggestions, I have made substantial changes to this article. Please review and advise.... Teabing-Leigh 14:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First of all, thank you for being receptive to the criticism about the article. Under the principle of WP:AGF, it certainly seems to me that you are reading what others have to say and making an honest attempt at improvement. Even though the creation of the article under this title has been criticized in the above discussion as an attempt to "head off" the other deletion, it's at least worthy of note that you appear to have made that move in direct response to the specific suggestion offered in the other debate that you do exactly that. So please know that your efforts to bring things into line are appreciated.

With regard to the article as it stands however, the single greatest problem is a woeful lack of balance. Right now it's basically a collection of quotations that support the idea that Ghandi was racist. Even with the excellent sources, simply stringing together a list of such quotes violates WP:NPOV in that it's still pushing a particular point of view. If you review sections such as "Undue weight", "Fairness of tone" and "Balancing differing views" in WP:NPOV, you may begin to get a better sense of the fact that something can be 100% and indisputably factual, yet still be very much in violation of WP:NPOV.

As I noted above, there are also other quotes from Ghandi that in which he is quite complimentary of black Africans. One quote, in particular (and I'm afraid I don't recall off the top of my headwhere the specific reference can be found) that comes to mind is where he said of black Africans something like "You call them noble savages. Noble they are, but savages they are not." That's definitely not an exact quote, as I'm operating strictly from memory here, but it is an accurate paraphrase. And my point is that any article trying to delve into this issue must include that kind of material also. Just as thoroughly, meticulously and accurately researched as is your current material. There is just no way around that. There are some other points of conention in the article as it stands right now, also, but this is the primary one that (in my opinion) would have to be addressed, and addressed well, before it becomes worthwhile to start going into the specifics of the others. Mwelch 21:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Dear Mwelch, Please advise me as to where I can find a citation for the said quote. My aim and objective is to balance out the understanding of one of the most famous figures in World History and if this is coming out as POV .... I'd like to change that. 202.163.67.241 04:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see you found it yourself. Once again, I thank you for another show of good faith. You do seem to be genuinely trying. What I'd advise you to do now is take advantage of the fact that there's no time deadline on this. Don't worry too much about trying to save the article from deletion right now. Wikipedia has had inadequate coverage of this issue for this long; it's not going to be a disaster for it to go another week or two weeks, another month or two months. In anticipation of the fact that this AFD debate may not turn out in your favor, perhaps you might want to copy the page into your own user space and make it a work in progress. Then you can have the time to continue to work on it to round it into shape. Find other sources like the one you just sought out that give the view more balance. And just as importantly, let the reputable and scholarly sources you find (on both sides) provide the analysis. That's what other editors are referring to when they correctly point out that the article currently has original research problems. You have excellent sourcing on the quotes themselves, and that is good. But you are basically the one providing whatever analysis there is of those quotes . . . and that's not really acceptable. You need to let your reputable, published sources do that for you (again remembering to always remain mindful of the "undue weight" and "fairness of tone" issues discussed in WP:NPOV). For ideas on how to write more in that style, you might want to look at Wikipedia's featured article list and see if you can find one about an inherently controversial topic. If it has attained featured article status, then you know other editors have approved of the way the both sides (or the multiple sides) of the issue are presented and balanced. Look to get your article written in a similar style. Be in no hurry. Really take the time necessary to get it right. And then, once you've gotten it that way, you can look to re-introduce the topic to Wikipedia with a much better article. We'll all still be here. 8-) Mwelch 08:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear mwelch, as with your other suggestions, I have taken note of these ones as well. Having looked at various featured articles and other content, I am frankly stumped. Many of them are much more POV than this article in my view. Furthermore, nothing in the article is my own analysis. Several books by very respectable publishers have come out on this issue and I have regurgitated their point of view. As the article stands now, I don't see any POV especially after the incorporation of the counterview. About the debate, I didn't know this is a vote... in which we might as well fold this up and stop wasting our time... I mean when there was a consensus on the planet that the earth is flat... what could anyone have done? Teabing-Leigh 15:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, of course it is up to you whether you wish to continue to pursue this or whether you feel you would be wasting your time. I cannot speak to other editors' opinions but as far as what I see wrong right now it comes down to balance, (I'll admit right now I haven't researched this issue thoroughly, but my instinct is that I find it difficult to believe that just the quick mention and two quotes you've provided in the latter section is all that there is on the "other" side of the argument. I could be wrong, but I suspect that if we start digging into books in the library, there might be more found to subject), and your analysis/original research. I don't have time right now to track down FA's to offer for comparision for the overall writing style, but just with regard to a couple of things (besides the possible lack of balance) still in the article that still seem problematic to me, some examples would be:

"Whatever the truth, this (the 2003 statue controversy) sparked curiosity amongst many historians and academics to study in depth Gandhi's career in South Africa as a champion of Indian rights." (unsourced statment — not saying it isn't true, but you need to cite the specific source that backs it up. What historians and academics were specifically inspired by this controversy to now take up this issue?)

"Calls to reinterpret Gandhi and his role in history came from several politicians and academics around the world. Earliest critics of Gandhi emerged from India itself. Renowned Bengali author Nirad Chaudhry, Secular humanist M N Roy and the principal author of Indian constitution Dr. B R Ambedkar vociferously attacked Gandhi and Gandhi's ideology." (unsourced statement that's not entirely clear on how it connects to the article's central topic — not saying it isn't true, but you need to cite the specific source that backs it up. What exactly did they say? Was their criticism of his ideology related to their feeling that ideology was racist, or was it something else? And what is your source for their statements?)

"While Gandhi has generally be lauded for his role in inventing 'non-violence', his alleged role against Black people in South Africa has been overlooked." (That his role has been "overlooked" seems to be your analysis of the situation. Original research.)

"Another notable view is that while Gandhi might have held these views in South Africa, his views evolved considerably after he reached the age of 60. The argument holds that for Gandhi to have merited the admiration of and to have inspired people like Dr. Martin Luthar King Jr. and Nelson Mandela, he must have made a clear departure from his previous views on the black race." (Again, since you provide no sources of anyone actually making this particular argument, it appears to be your analysis of the reason for difference between the earlier quotes and the later ones. I give you credit for being willing to articulate an "opposing" viewpoint, but your crafting of that explanation still is original research.) Mwelch 21:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mwelch,

On Point 1: Not my analysis. Have added a source.

On Point 2: Not my analysis. Have added another source.

On Point 3: This was in Gandhi's favor but I have added a source nonetheless.

Please point out further such examples which you may consider problems with the article. 202.163.67.241 06:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless this is moved to Black Nationalist views on Gandhi's alleged racism.Baka man 15:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 05:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Made more changes to incorporate Gandhi's later "evolution" with sources to bring balance. 202.163.67.241 06:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Madhava 1947 (talk) 10:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rewriting for balance It's not original research, unless anything other than repeating other encyclopedias is "original research" (an attitude which would make Wikipedia a giant waste of space). The article is carefully sourced. Pragmatically, it will just keep coming back, & we can argue about it endlessly & waste more space on it, which is why I was leaning toward "Weak keep/merge." But, looking over it, I have come to feel more strongly that it should be kept. Considering its scholarly support; absent actual libel (which I don't see proven here) against Mr Ghandi, it has as much place here as various other small Ghandi-related pages. Complaining about the bias & then just deleting it solves nothing. Instead, improve it.Ventifax 08:19-08:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any evidence that the topic itself is a notable subject, as opposed to merely being connected to a notable person. Is there any history of substantial articles in reliable sources treating this as a notable topic? Without such sources there's no way this can avoid being synthesis, POV, or both. There is a controversies section in the article on Gandhi; anything sourceable from here could be included there, assuming the editors there agree on the value of the material. Mike Christie (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kill it. See comment below.
- This looks like some kind of (bad) fourth-grade essay. Not only does it fail WP:NPOV, it has weird things, like badly placed colons and weird bolded conclusions which are NOT AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE. I personally believe that, although I can see where these quotes could be seen as rude, Gandhi was describing the sorry state that South Africa's policies had left the Africans in, and that he did not want the Indians to suffer the same fate. Add that to the fact that the sources are dubious (Singh is like a ghost, Trinicenter can't be trusted as far as you can throw it and many webpages that call Gandhi racist contain racism themselves), the nigtmarish placement of random bolds, italics, and ALL CAPS, and forgetting (or perhaps purposely omitting) the reason WHY Gandhi beleved that Indians and Africans should be separate (for the record, it's because Indians, not necesarily including Gandhi himself, and South Africans generally had a mutual animosity. Gandhi was trying to PREVENT CONFLICT, as usual). And above all, this article puts words in Gandhi's mouth. Gandhi never actually used words like "superior stock", "incapable of being human", or even "I don't like South Africans". In fact one of the very quotes cited for this article states that he had nothing against them. All in all, this article is a mess. Delete it. Regards, Belgium EO 21:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. OK the article certainly needs clean-up. I started on that a little but just haven't had time over the past several days to continue. If it stays, I will find some time at some point to resume. But I'm sure all agree that if the article should be deleted, it's not because of things like colons or where the italics are, so let's put that aside. Your explanation of Gandhi's thinking is not reason to delete the article. It's actually good material (assuming it can be cited) to add to the article.
  - The bold-face summaries of ensuing quotes (what I beileve you're referring to in the complaint that the article puts words in Gandhi's mouth) are indeed problematic. Definitely needs to be a fix there, no argument.
  - But I think more to the core is your claim that the sources are not valid. This is the backbone of everything, so if that's true, worrying about the rest of the article is academic. And, in my opinion, with regard to sources, things basically hinge on the Singh book. (I wouldn't presume to defend something like Trinicenter.) You don't seem to find the Singh book an acceptable source. Is there a reason why? It's published by Prometheus Books, to my (admittedly very limited) knowledge, a reputable publishing company. Is there something you know about Singh or Prometheus that would indicate that is not so? There are other acceptable sources that make mention of the issue, like the Guardian article . . . perhaps one might want to argue for Grenier's column in Commentary magazine. But when you get down to it, if that Singh book cannot be cited, then I'd agree with Mike Christie's concerns that there's really not enough other stuff to pull this all together in a coherent way without violating WP:NOR synthesis. Is there any light you might be able to share on just why the Singh book would be considered invalid? Mwelch 21:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Prometheus I have a problem with. It's Singh himself. He's a REALLY suspicious guy. NO neutral biographies of him exist, and the only picture of him looks like a bad Photoshop job. That's what I meant by "like a ghost". Virtually no informtion on him exists and he doesn't seen like the type of person a scholar or encyclopedia writer would cite. To add to that, he misleads people. Apparently, he claims that no photo of Gandhi exists in which he (Gandhi) is in the vicinity of a Black person. Direct your attention to the guy on the far right. Regards, Belgium EO 23:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know that gentleman's name? Cuz I gotta be honest wtih you . . . that guy doesn't look black to me.

Full disclosure: I am black. My officemate is Indian. I don't know any black person who, upon seeing me, would doubt that I am black. I also do not know any black person who, upon seeing my officemate, would think for a moment that he was black. Like the man in the photo, my officemate has much darker skin than I. However, like the man in the photo (as I see it), my officemate's features are not black. Despite the skin tone, it's just not at all difficult to tell that racially my officemate is not black. The photo is not of the greatest resolution, and the hat prevents a look at hair texture, which is definitely one of the primary visual differentiators between a black person and a dark-skinned Indian (though I'd note that the style of his hat is a fez, which is more consistent with an Indian than with a black South African), but from what I can make out in that picture . . . looks like the same situation to me.

Think M. Night Shymalan or Vijay Singh. I don't know what white folks think when they see someone with that appearance, but neither I nor any black person I know ever think for a moment that they look black, despite the fact that their skin tone is quite a bit darker than alot of "obviously" black people (like me). I'd put the guy in the photo in that same category. I might not be willing ot bet my house on it, exactly, but I'd wager that that guy is a dark-skinned Indian.

All that said though, whether that guy in the photo is black or not is really not a primary concern, I don't think. If he is, and somebody dug up a single photo of Gandhi with a black person in it, that doesn't invalidiate everything Singh says in his broader point. Of greater concern is what you're saying about how there is just no info available about Singh. On the surface, I can certainly see where that might raise an eyebrow. When I get a moment, I'll look into that. Mwelch 01:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on the concerns over G.B. Singh: Indeed, I don't see anything about him out there. It would be nice to have some definitive background about him to which to point to help establish him, I'll grant. But in the lack of any solid negative evidence against him, either, I can't say I feel all that comfortable with the idea of excluding his book for nebulous reasons, like he "doesn't seem like the kind of person" that should be cited. Given that he is something of an unknown, I'd fall back on the publisher again. Reputable publishers scrutinize the credibility of the authors they publish. I do see information out there about Prometheus, and nothing I've seen suggests they are anything but a reputable mid-size publishing house. Therefore, in absence of evidence to the contrary, I think we have to assume that they have so scrutinized G.B. Singh, and we have to trust that they have done their job correctly in that arena. It's just like how we are trusting that The Washington Post or The New York Times has done the fact-checking they're supposed to do when we cite one of their articles in making an assertion in a Wikipedia article. And if the Singh book can be cited, then this issue can be addressed without it being original research. Mwelch 00:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - I am a bit surprised by Belgium since the article has been improved and there are no weird colons or bold citations left within or without the article Teabing-Leigh 05:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: It is Gandhi speaking of the superiority of IndoAryan and IndoGermanic stock not meTeabing-Leigh 05:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation of Gandhi's statement about the Indo-Aryan stock:

"A reference to Hunter's 'Indian Empire', chapters 3 and 4, would show at a glance who are aborigines and who are not. The matter is put so plainly that there can be no mistake about the distinction between the two. It will be seen at once from the book that the Indians in South Africa belong to the INDO-GERMANIC STOCK or, more properly speaking, the ARYAN stock We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do, only we believe that they would best serve these interests, which are as dear to us as to them, by advocating the purity of all races, and not one alone. We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race. "[9]

- - Why it should be kept.

- - Given comments by Mwelch, ventifax and other people ("merge"), it is clear to me that the article should be kept and I am open to all suggestions to edit and bring more balance to it..
  - Mwelch thanks for your changes and considerable improvement to the article.
  - On the issue of te source... the book (Gandhi behind the mask of divinity) by G B Singh, who is a retired colonel of the US army and who has passionately forwarded this cause, is a carefuly researched book that forwards a very plausible view. Prometheus Books is definitely a respectable publisher: http://www.prometheusbooks.com/ ... with many of their books as respectable textbooks in several US universities http://www.prometheusbooks.com/cat.html.
  - There are other books like "Gandhi we all know" which tracks the evolution of Gandhi and is generally apologetic of his racism. Then there is Richard Grenier's famous "The Gandhi nobody knows"... but I am not familiar with the man's background. As for Ungandhian Gandhi it traces Gandhi's myth as a saint-politician, kind of on the lines of Orwell's famous criticism of Gandhi.
  - Mwelch asked for Pakistani sources... In Pakistan, despite Gandhi's status as father of Pakistan's rival nation, Gandhi is well respected not the least because Jinnah himself had paid glowing tributes to Gandhi on his death describing his death as a loss for humanity.
  - My own exposure to Gandhi's views on race and caste etc came through Gandhi's collected works and through a well researched article on the Indian website Sulekha... mostly during my undergraduate studies in the US. However.. the one Pakistani source which alludes to Gandhi's racism is Kamran Shahid's book Gandhi and Partition of India..
  - All in all, enough people have raised the issue of Gandhi's racism before me for this to merit WP:ORwhich it is not.
  - The article does not forward any POV but brings to attention a historical fact. It would be a point of view if the discussion did not mention that Gandhi's admirers seem to hold that Gandhi later evolved his point of view on race. That is a legitimate counterpoint which has been added to the article.

Therefore I plead that the article should be improved and NOT deleted.

Teabing-Leigh 09:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - ADDED references by Dr. B R Ambedkar, a very respectable Indian politician, intellectual and the revered leader of all Untouchables. He also was the principal author of Indian constitution and India's foremost champion of the cause of abolition of untouchability. Teabing-Leigh 10:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Mr. Teabing, all you've proven is that you can write really long pleas not to delete stuff. I honestly don't see how Gandhi pointing out that he is of Indo-Germanic descent is cause to believe that he was racist. If that's logic enough to keep this article, then you should make an article yelling at me because I am of Swedish descent (I'm kidding of course). Also I don't see why you think Gandhi is describing ALL Africans here, when he could just as easily have been talking about the squalid conditions of SOME of them. In one of the very quotes you cite, he flat-out states: "we entertain no ill feelings toward them". He then goes on to say that there is little common ground between Indians and South Africans. This supports my assumption that he was trying to prevent conflict. And you're still putting words into his mouth. You still have that awfully-placed bolded passage that states he thought Africans were subhuman. He NEVER said that. He never said anything to suggest that Africans were anything BUT human. You have the right to dislike Gandhi. Dr. Ambedkar has the right to believe that he did not do enough for Dalits. If you have to express your opinions by writing things like this, keep 'em off the wiki. My vote is still delete. Belgium EO 20:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How the hell is this POV-pushing if it has 30 references? The allegation made of Gandhi is a well-rehearsed one, and a very prominent one in the assessment of Gandhi's life, as demonstrated by the VAST number of sources on the subject. Whereas "Gandhi's racism" clearly promotes the POV that Gandhi was racist, "Gandhi's views on race" is no more a POV-pushing article than Hitler's sexuality or George Washington and slavery. Heck, what about the umpteen "Criticism of X" or "X controversies" articles, which must (by their very nature) deal solely with negative material. This, on the other hand, allows a balanced treatment of an important historical subject, that has been the subject of a mountain of published academic research already. Bastin 22:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It has 30 references because people are trying to overcompensate for the fact that this article is a piece of garbage hinging on dubious sources and quotes that can be interpreted several ways. Belgium EO 23:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept that some of the 30 references are possibly dubious (for example, Gandhi's own statements cannot be quoted as evidence by themselves unless there is no doubt whatsoever as to what they mean). However, there are still over a dozen references without Gandhi's own work. This is reflected by the massive literature on the subject of Gandhi's views on race. Google 'Gandhi, racism', and one is not returned a list of sites praising his anti-racism work, but rather the contrary: 926,000 results, of which the first NINE all criticise Gandhi for being racist. On the subject, books, newspaper articles, and academic journals abound.

So, clearly, there is a debate to be had, that is of historical and biographical interest. The refusal of the pro-deletionists to allow this debate to be aired reflects horrendous bad faith and a real failure to understand how to address these issues. An article may be deleted for bias ONLY if it is inherently biased (e.g. "Gandhi's racism"). In this case (whilst some of the language and approach may be inappropriate), it's not inherently so, because it can quite easily incorporate evidence of his anti-racist positions. If, that is, you lot can be arsed to do it, rather than defend hero-worshipping of a man that academics have no problem with questioning. Bastin 01:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

- I can be arsed to do it? Is that an insult? I don't see how nine out of 926,000 google hits are grounds for keeping an article. And I'm not hero-worshipping him, I can understand where people are coming from here, but this topic merits not its own article, but something in Gandhi's article titled "controversy over opinions on South Africans" or the like. This article is getting better, but it just seems that people are stopping at nothing to prove that Gandhi was something he probably wasn't. Belgium EO 02:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From the looks of it the Controversies section on the Gandhi main page covers these issues well enough and could be expanded if the authors of this page wish. At this point there doesn't appear to be enough quality content to justify a fork. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rae Griffen[edit]

Assertion of notability is blatantly false, fails WP:V, and content of the page plainly indicates a hoax or joke Russ (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a hoax. Seraphim Whipp 11:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.--Mattinbgn/^talk 11:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Ab e g92contribs 11:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even an amusing hoax. Emeraude 12:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clearly nonsense and made up. --Seattle Skier (talk) 06:41, 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 Redirect to Peter A. Olsson. Cúchullain ^t/c 03:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malignant Pied Pipers of Our Time (book)[edit]

This is a book published by a vanity press, Publish America. The author may be notable, but since that claim to notability rests in part on this book, while the notability of this book rests entirely on the author, what we have is a very small walled garden. Most of this article is either original research or about the author. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minimal content. Beyond telling us some things about the author, the article does no more than assert the existence of the book it's supposed to be about. BTLizard 11:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect into Peter A. Olsson - I've already copied one missing reference (the first, a scholarly journal review) there and there is indeed not much other content here.--Tikiwont 12:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For reasons stated below:

Fits criterion (4), (5), also (1) with sources cited, and will be expanded upon, of Wikipedia:Notability (books).
Nothing in the article is original research, virtually every single bit of information is backed up by citations.
Analyzed in the Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry.
Featured in 2006 on The History Channel documentary Cults: Dangerous Devotion.
Plenary speech at the annual meeting of The American Society of Psychoanalytic Physicians, in 2006.
Required reading at King's College, Pennsylvania, course on "American Cults".

More listed in article mainspace. (11) citations so far, will be expanded upon. Smee 15:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Incidentally, 2 interesting 5-star reviews by medical doctors on Amazon.com

"Compelling and Provocative Introduction to Cults", Shawn Shea, M.D., Psychiatry, August 3, 2005, New Hampshire
"An important study in a time of world-wide terror", David J. Turell, M.D., Internal Medicine, August 1, 2005, Texas

Not a secondary source, but interesting nonetheless. Two medical doctors, two different specialties, two disparate locations in the United States. Thank you for your time.

Smee 15:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

comment these two links to doctors above don't link to any kind of review but to a list of Creationists and what appears to be a single-member "Institute", respectively. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply - I know, it was just incidental info, the medical doctors had written their reviews on Amazon.com. Smee 19:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

That such "reviews" are given as among the best that could be found for the book implies a certain lack of notability and POV DGG 01:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are not "among the best that could be found" - I simply thought that they were interesting. Smee 04:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Redirect as per Tikiwont; this is just the author's biography and a one line "oh and he's written a self-published book". - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:14, 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.--Wizardman 13:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cluck-U Chicken[edit]

Self-promotion. Seraphim Whipp 11:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um not actually self-promotion, was written by User:Crazyswordsman, but of questionable merit nonetheless. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article on legitimate restaurant-chain. Recommend article be tagged for {{cleanup}}. Aarktica 13:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is unknown whether User:Crazyswordsman works for the company. It does seem like advertising of some sort, suggesting a relationship between the article's creator and the company. Seraphim Whipp 13:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Point well taken. The concern I had was that an article on a legitmate subject is being throttled because it might have been written by a shill. It might be more productive to tag the article {{NPOV}}, instead of deleting it. Aarktica 19:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, any restaurant chain with 37 locations is obviously notable. Andrew Levine 01:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Where does it say there are 37 locations? Is it verifiable? Seraphim Whipp 09:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[18] -- there, and I can vouch for at least four of the Jersey locations I've seen, not that there's any real reason for them to lie on their own promotional website about where their locations are. Andrew Levine 16:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Cool. I'm a brit so I'd never heard of this chain and was under the impression it was some sort of university eat-out. As a result, I hadn't checked out the website. Seraphim Whipp 17:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm an american and I've never seen the Queen... guess she doesnt exist.... oh wait. BZZT You win the dumbass of the day award. Google... its your friend. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That was an unnecessary comment. You make yourself look foolish. Seraphim Whipp 12:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. - grubber 01:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Alkivar could have put it a bit more softly, but I am still rather put off at how carelessly this nomination was made. Yamaguchi先生 02:59, 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 delete, makes no assertion of notability. Quite the opposite, in fact. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's Wally Brotherhood[edit]

A quite obvious hoax or non-notable organisation. Mattinbgn/^talk 11:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not MySpace. BTLizard 11:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. Ab e g92contribs 11:50, 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 speedy delete. -- RHaworth 14:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless Bollinger[edit]

Article makes no attempt to establish notability of website Mattinbgn/^talk 11:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. So tagged. MER-C 12:33, 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 01:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kater Fritz[edit]

Article created by User:Kater Fritz on a band which has thus far released... a demo. Some vague assertions of notability, so not an A7 candidate, but no evidence of multiple non-trivial external coverage either. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another band. StuartDouglas 13:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. --Seattle Skier (talk) 07:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 01:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

School of Self Defense[edit]

Non-notable aikido school Peter Rehse 11:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would delete as failing to make more than a token claim of notability, which is entirely unsupported by external references. There is a walled garden here including this article, Benjamin Galarpe, Manuel "Omar" Camar, Rolando de la Cruz, Angeles Aikido Club, Chan Hok-seng, Francis Ramasamy. These articles have a total of zero sources between them. Guy (Help!) 11:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 16:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to assert notability. Noroton 01:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:A. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Masterpedia 02:12, 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. WjBscribe 01:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victim retribution[edit]

This is mainly a dictionary definition, I think. It's hard to tell because I'm not quite sure what it's saying. AFAIK, it's not an official legal phrase. Google shows only about 83 results for the phrase. If the article is about the victim getting some kind of compensation then I think it should be deleted, renamed, and rewritten in a more systematic way. Contested speedy (A1). ... discospinster _talk 12:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We could possibly recreate a more comprehensible version and maybe under a different name. I'm not exactly sure what the article is saying. Victim's compensation exists, usually through government subsidization, and several articles exist on wikipedia about specific agencies for compensation, but victim retribution? Wouldn't that also cover punishments such as jail and community service (if it is the proper name for it)? --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 13:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice - I think the subject is potentially an encyclopedic cultural phenomena, but the article in its current state is not salvageable. Tarinth 16:07, 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 01:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astronocolour;[edit]

Image:Astronocolour CD Cover 231.JPG

Image:Pictures 1161.jpg – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:A badly, only one non-wiki ghit outside of myspace and last.fm. Also takes on walled garden properties considered with the other stuff nominated. MER-C 12:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:NN StuartDouglas 13:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of it. Looks like it fits the speedy criteria WP:CSD#A7(band), there is no claim of any notability. It's also WP:SPAM / WP:AUTO from a single-purpose account (see Special:Contributions/Fadedwinter). --Seattle Skier (talk) 06:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Nonsense. Lakers 05:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.--Wizardman 12:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities who have appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of magazine covers. Otto4711 12:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So, what's wrong with just listing everyone who has appeared on the cover? "Rolling Stone" seems to have some particular notability, which explains why out of all the magazines who have ever ranked songs or albums, this is the publication with actual Wikipedia articles for these lists. (See: 500 Greatest Songs of All Time and 500 Greatest Albums of All Time.) So it is obviously a distinct magazine, and so deserves more recognition on the site. I think listing those who have appeared on the cover is a good accomplice to the actual Rolling Stone article, or maybe instead of deleting this article, merge them together. 2Pac 14:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All that can be inferred from the presence of articles on the two record lists you mention is that someone wrote them. It does not mean that similar record lists compiled by other publications are not equally notable, just that no one has yet written articles on them. Otto4711 14:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certain magazines like Rolling Stone, Life, or Playboy are iconic and well-noted for who has bene depicted on their covers over the years. I'd say it is allowable under the criteria of Nixon's Enemies List given at WP:NOT#DIR. Tarc 14:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a major accomplishment to "get your picture on the cover of the Rolling Stone." The cover is perhaps the most famous part about the magazine, and it is appropriate to list those who have accomplished this feat. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 16:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable accomplishment (immortalized in song, no less) and deserving of a list. And, yes, I do support similar articles for Life, Time, Playboy and Newsweek should such articles appear. 23skidoo 18:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. This is a useful list, relatively maintainable, and represents a notable accomplishment. JavaTenor 19:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - with all due respect, you all have it backwards. People do not become notable because they are on the cover of Rolling Stone. People go on the cover of Rolling Stone because they are notable. I checked more or less at random 25 articles linked to the list. Not one of them mentioned the appearance of the subject on the cover of Rolling Stone. If this is truly a notable career achievement one would think that the articles would mention it, but they don't. Otto4711 01:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a list not a category, so the listed "feat" need not be defining. Carlossuarez46 01:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being on the cover of this magazine is a measure of popularity. This magazine has great value in pop culture. --FateClub 20:15, 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 keep- no valid deletion reason given. The fact that all targets are linked to from an article on the most notable target does not mean this is not a useful aid to navigation. WjBscribe 02:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Pair (disambiguation)[edit]

These disambiguation pages are unnecessary, because the article Dirty Pair already links to everything these pages link to. A.M. 12:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnecessary redirect. Anyone searching for Dirty Pair is going to hit the right article or be led to the right article from the Dirty Pair article. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 19:15, 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 redirect to Dirty Pair (disambiguation). WjBscribe 01:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Pair Flash (disambiguation)[edit]

These disambiguation pages are unnecessary, because the article Dirty Pair already links to everything these pages link to. What's more, this one only links to one article with "Flash" in its name, so it doesn't even disambiguate anything. — A.M. 12:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnecessary redirect. Anyone searching for Dirty Pair is going to hit the right article or be led to the right article from the Dirty Pair article. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 19:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Cúchullain ^t/c 03:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of SLAM Magazine cover athletes[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of magazine cover subjects. Otto4711 12:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how this list is particularly notable as it doesn't seem that the magazine is known for its covers. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 16:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Appearing on SLAM does carry some weight. I read the magazine from time to time, and the letters page is consistently filled with comments about the covers. Some of the images are quite popular (like this one). I don't know if any of this justifies the article's existence, but it's wrong to say that the magazine isn't known for its covers. Zagalejo 22:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question would be whether there are independent reliable sources attesting to the notability of the covers that would override the directory concerns. Otto4711 19:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOT, "Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference." As far as the covers being "notable," see for example here, where "Unlike his American teenage counterparts, Krstic understood a 6-foot-11 center needs to do more than just dunk and preen for his Slam Magazine cover shot." --Dragonfiend 05:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That someone mentioned the magazine in a single sentence in a much larger article is a trivial reference of the sort that does not establish notability. Is being on the cover of SLAM magazine the subject of a substantial or multiple non-trivial sources? Otto4711 14:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; the source makes it clear that being on the cover of Slam Magazine is considered an achievement for basketball players. Here's another source, "Young Huskies pick SLAM over SI": "We were on the cover of SLAM magazine and other magazines with Emeka (Okafor) on the cover," Brown said. Coach Jim Calhoun interrupted, pointing out that older folks might have mentioned other publications. "Just out of curiosity, it wasn't Sports Illustrated, it was SLAM magazine," Calhoun said. "When you've made SLAM magazine, Taliek, you've made it?" "Yeah, you've made it," Brown said. "SLAM magazine is hip-hop, it's big top for us young boys."--Dragonfiend 18:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is still what amounts to a relatively trivial mention. It's a couple of paragraphs out of a much larger piece and even if one accepts it as non-trivial, multiple non-trivial sources are required and even then, while that may mean that an article on the topic of appearing on the cover might have some encyclopedic value that does not mean that a bare list of people who appeared on the cover does. Otto4711 19:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, from the February 15, 2004, Indianapolis Star, "Whatever it is that constitutes superstardom, Indiana Pacers forward Jermaine O'Neal has attained it. His jersey is spotted throughout a recent video by the rap group State Property. He has recently been featured on the cover of Slam magazine ..." From the April 27, 2001, New York Times, "In Sydney, [Vince] Carter had changed into a preening, angry young poser, intent on showing the world he was worthy of a Slam magazine cover." It seems clear from these sources that making the cover of SLAM Magazine is of some importance. --Dragonfiend 20:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, it doesn't seem all that clear. A single-sentence mention of the magazine cover in a long piece is not a non-trivial mention. The people on the cover may well be notable, but they are not notable because they are on the cover. A story that mentions in passing that someone was on the cover of a magazine does not establish that a bare list of the people on the magazine is encyclopedic. Otto4711 22:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found this article, which compares one of SLAM's unedited cover portraits of Allen Iverson to those of other magazines (who have been known to edit out AI's tattoos and jewelery). I'm not sure that this counts as non-trivial, but I suppose it could provide some content to an article about SLAM's covers. Zagalejo 15:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There does not yet seem to be much consensus about lists. I think part of the reason is that it is inherently much more difficult to set criteria for establishing a notable connection between the items on a list. The citations above create a good faith argument that there is some significance attached to appearing on the cover of the magazine, so that this list rises above a mere directory of information. Also, the list is sufficiently defined in scope to be manageable and is not based on original research. The list doesn't have much value to me personally, but without a clear reason to delete, I default to weak keep.--Kubigula (talk) 22:51, 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. WjBscribe 02:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Icon-based game[edit]

Delete - Unverifiable, non notable, original research Tnomad 13:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically icon-based gaming is not recnogised cateogry of gaming in any magazine, journal, book, site of gaming I've ever come acorss. It is merely a part of the GUI design of the overall product. Icons are used in almost all games and software and I don't see any verifiable information in the article to justify them being classed as their own notable genre of gaming deserving of a wikipedia article. Tnomad 13:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a recognized term in the industry, which is supported by a relatively small number of Ghits. Article is basically WP:OR. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tarinth (talk • contribs) 16:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Not a genre I've ever heard of either, sounds made up. Plasticbottle 05:40, 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. WjBscribe 01:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infernal Noise Brigade[edit]

Notability not established or sourced per WP:MUSIC. There is one published source given (I have no idea of the reliability of the publication), but when I searched for additional sources, all I could turn up was promotional material and blogs. RJASE1 ^Talk 13:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Actually, in light of Zleitzen's sources, I'd like to withdraw the nom. Way more notable than I thought. RJASE1 ^Talk 14:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've never heard of these people, but having read the article and done some research I've found it quite interesting and notable whether it meets guidelines or not. This is a strange case and I'm not sure how applicable WP:MUSIC is, flexibility may be preferable. The band seem to be more of a protest organisation than a musical group. Anyway, here are various sources I have dug up:

I think the international scope of the group gives it some notability. How many bands are covered in a foreign academic paper, and featured on the cover of another? Make of that what you will.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 14:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see that the nomination has been withdrawn, so I guess this is moot, but one glance at the history would have shown that I had largely created this article. As an established editor, I would certainly have appreciated if, before formally nominating it for deletion, someone had contacted me and said that they felt that my citations did not sufficiently establish notability. I could have done the legwork that Zleitzen just did. (For what it's worth, I felt it was already clearly above the threshold, based on touring internationally and based on their political activities.) Even if you had not noticed me as an author: nominating a longstanding article for deletion without so much as a question on the talk page first is rather drastic. - Jmabel | Talk 18:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - no assertion or indication of notability whatsoever - the references listed above are all in the context of a laundry-list of "among people on the demo were...", and no indication they've done anything other than go on a single protest march. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Excuse me? As the lead paragraph clearly indicates, they were at protests at the WTO Meeting of 1999, the 2000 IMF/World Bank Meeting in Prague, the 2003 WTO Ministerial in Cancún, 2004 United States Republican Party National Convention in New York City,the 31st G8 summit in Scotland, and toured England, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Austria. How is that "a single protest march"—unless you are saying that their career counted as a single 7-year protest march. - Jmabel | Talk 18:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: Google shows 243 separate mentions on the site of The Stranger, the main paper that chronicles the Seattle scene. For perspective, Harvey Danger, by all accounts a major Seattle band, get 822 mentions - Jmabel | Talk 23:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Change to abstain as it seems they might be notable on the Seattle scene (although a lot of the sources listed above seem a little dubious - I certainly wouldn't count "Red Pepper" magazine, for instance, as any kind of reliable source on anything). - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. I think those are more than enough links to justify inclusion. YechielMan 02:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten Tomb[edit]

Seems to fail WP:BAND. YechielMan 13:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Four full-length albums on notable labels, several European tours (first one actually before their first LP), "Forgotten Tomb has been a pioneering force in the field of the so-called black/doom metal genre",[19] multiple non-trivial coverage,[20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] one band member formerly in Shining,[40] et cetera. This meets quite a few of the criteria. The article already asserts notability through record labels so I will not be adding any of this to it. Prolog 14:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass WP:BAND from above refs and a further web search. Bubba hotep 15:00, 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. But I'm moving the article out of mainspace to Talk:Microfracture surgery/List of sportspeople who have had microfracture surgery in case anyone wants to use the content.Chaser - T 19:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of sportspeople who have had microfracture surgery[edit]

Delete - listing people by surgical procedures they have undergone is generally a bad idea. People in general do not gain notability by having had a particular surgery. For a related discussion (about a similar category) see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_19#Category:People_who_have_had_Tommy_John_surgery Otto4711 13:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong delete - List of what??? I mean, really, this is taking the idea of "loosely related topics" to an extreme. How about List of politicians who have recieved flu shots. Wait, wait, I had better be careful about WP:BEANS ... Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this article as a supplement to the main microfracture surgery article because this is a very high-profile surgery in the sports world. The surgery is a recent development that is often referred to as "experimental" or "high-risk" in the media, which leads some to question its effectiveness. I believe the list has value because:
- it provides an easy way to see what athletes in which sports have had the surgery
- it provides links to their individual articles so in most cases a reader can see how (or if) their athletic career was affected by the surgery
- the article is not original research and satisifies WP:A; every single item on the page is cited with a reliable source from a variety of media outlets - a comparison to flu shots or any other trivial medical procedure is invalid
- the list contains information directly relevant to the main article but is too long to be included there
- it serves two of the "main purposes" outlined in WP:LIST - it is grouped by theme, and can also be use for navigation for someone researching this topic

Given the extensive sports media coverage of this specific surgery and its effects, I simply don't see what policy or guideline the list fails to satisfy. Don't forget WP:PAPER. -Big Smooth 16:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One other point: I feel this list is more than a directory because it is organized by sport. When a high-profile athlete undergoes this surgery, I believe readers would look for information on the experience of other athletes in the same sport. For instance, if Kobe Bryant had microfracture surgery, the list would inform many interested readers of other basketball players who have had the surgery and direct them to their article to learn more about their recovery. The same could be said for David Beckham and soccer, or Peyton Manning and football. -Big Smooth 17:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- You're right, Wikipedia is not paper - but it is also not a directory. If any of the examples in your list are somehow particularly important cases to the development of microfracture surgery then they might warrant a mention there. Also if the surgery had a particularly strong impact on a player's career then it would warrant mention on said athlete's entry. In spite of assertions that the surgery is "experimental" or in some way controversial (which is close to POV pushing) it is a fairly common procedure, as evidenced by the length of your list. It may not be a minor, trivial procedure like a flu shot, but it's also not a defining characteristic linking these people. It's still a loose association. You make a great argument that the information is useful but usefulness is not a reason for inclusion. Arkyan  ^(talk) 17:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Points well taken, although I'd still argue the link between these people is more than tenuous - it could be argued that it does become a defining characteristic of the player given how often this surgery is mentioned in news stories and broadcasts. As for the "experimental" assertion, that's not just me, that's major media outlets: see [41] for an example of it being called "controversial" although this article [42] specifically points out that with recent successes the "controversy" has all but disappeared. I will agree that the surgery seems to be becoming increasingly common which will decrease the value of this list in the future; if this is a reason for deletion then I can understand that, although I still feel it is valid for inclusion now. -Big Smooth 17:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a case in point, consider that the articles of the 18 NBA athletes listed as having undergone the surgery, only 5 mention the microfracture surgery, and only 2 of those mention the impact it may have had on their recovery and career. Please don't get me wrong - the work you put in to making sure the article is properly sourced is fantastic. It's just that given the paucity of information regarding the surgery on the player articles, it doesn't seem to be that important an aspect in their careers, and doesn't seem to make for a good candidate for a common connection in a list. Arkyan  ^(talk) 17:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete far, far, far too specific. List a few notable ones in the microfracture article, that's more than enough. Guy (Help!) 22:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Way too specific.--Bryson 04:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Microfracture surgery. These are famous sportspeople and this surgery is significant enough. --FateClub 20:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 21:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makeout bandit[edit]

disputed PROD for unreferenced neologism delete Cornell Rockey 14:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete protologism, unverifiable. — brighterorange (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I don't think it's a protologism at all; rather, my impression was that this phrase was somewhat dated. I am absolutely sure that references can be found for this, however, this is not my area of expertise. Apologies for the obnoxious italics; I just feel very strongly about this. Ab e g92contribs 23:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find any reliable references on Google. Epbr123 02:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if this protologism were a word in common use, this is still just a dictionary definition and Wikipedia is not... . Without some encyclopedic information eg cited references to famous incidents of makeout banditry, there's hardly any reason for this to be here at all. Collabi 10:07, 3 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, copyright violation. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SLAM Magazine's Top 75 NBA Players[edit]

Precedent was set here:[43] and here:[44] among other places. Non-notable list, talking head nonsense, and most importantly a blatant copyvio. It's just a straight copy of a copyrighted list. Quadzilla99 14:24, 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 Speedy delete, blatant end-run around WP:PT. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Jeopards (band)[edit]

Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. Already been speedy deleted twice and salted at The Jeopards. 165 unique Google hits. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable independent secondary sources. Does not meet WP:MUSIC guidelines for notability. Consider Speedy Delete. -Nv8200p talk 14:33, 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. yandman 13:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Adams[edit]

Questionable notability of a writer/producer of three movies. Second half of article is a copyvio of http://imdb.com/name/nm0010835/bio. Guroadrunner 14:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A couple of TV movies, but not really notable. There's also Anthony Leigh Adams which was created by the same person and doesn't appear to be that notable either. Plasticbottle 05:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability and article is copyvio, among other issues. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 03:02, 3 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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Social Nationalist Afghan Party[edit]

I can't find any independent backing of the existance of such a party. Only link is to website, which is probably a spoof. There is little commentary on current Afghan politics and no material at all in Farsi. No contact info. Also note contents like [45] Soman 14:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:ATT. I haven't seen too many legit political parties with homepages on GeoCities. Probably also WP:HOAX. NeoFreak 16:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no assertion of notability presented.. Baristarim 00:24, 3 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 deleted as nonsense/attack page/hoax. Newyorkbrad 17:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen's Advanced Guide to Disses[edit]

Hoax Article Jameshands 15:06, 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 21:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Joe Roche[edit]

Subject of article fails the guidelines for notability per WP:BIO. No major works, No major media coverage. Nv8200p talk 15:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Alf^Photoman 15:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, that's different. He has an IMDB entry, but there's nothing on it! First time I've seen one like that, and I wonder how it got that way in the first place. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is film-related only; should it be on the visual-arts related list? I'm reluctant to comment on it & hope the VA list doesn't get filled up with other cinema stuff. Johnbod 19:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multimedia art is considered "visual art" Alf^Photoman 20:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the article neither describes nor categorises him as anything other than a film-maker, but I see what you mean from the website. From the Visual arts side, he doesn't seem notable to me (yet), but he might be on the film side. Johnbod 21:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone digs up something notable on the film side. The visual art fails WP:BIO Alf^Photoman 23:53, 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 No consensus. Cúchullain ^t/c 02:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wham City[edit]

Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:ORG. Only media coverage is one article in an alternative weekly publication. The members listed are mostly non-notable. Nv8200p talk 15:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V, and the fact that only two of the many listed members have articles (and one of those is on AfD!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Baltimore City Paper is a well-established alt weekly. Perhaps the article could be condensed to only include the more notable members, such as Dan Deacon. Toscaesque 16:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There may be a WP:COI element in the article, but I found a couple of decent secondary sources[46] [47] and I think they probably meet ORG. However, I agree with Toscaesque that, if the article is kept, some condensation is called for.--Kubigula (talk) 05:21, 4 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 by Mike Rosoft. WjBscribe 18:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Olson[edit]

Speedy delete; author has been removing tags. YechielMan 15:21, 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. WjBscribe 02:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gamemecca[edit]

Notability not established or sourced per WP:WEB. RJASE1 ^Talk 15:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that this material does not appear to be something you would find in an encyclopedia. However, the information that was posted in this article is of a great deal of interest to the members of and newcomers to Gamemecca. Most members know little to nothing about the origin of the website and what has happened since it was created, therefore this page was going to serve as an indispensable tool to bolster the site's history. Please do not delete this thread and undo the large edit that took out 1/2 the page I spent a great deal of time on. Caged 15:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The purpose of Gamemecca is not to inform Gamemeccans about it; if you want to do that, I suggest you create your own wiki or make an 'about us' page or something. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 15:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on comments above, Caged seems to have severe misconceptions about the purpose of Wikipedia and its articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:WEB. I do have a novel idea for the contributor, however - if Gamemecca needs a page devoted to the history of the website, how about a history page on the website? It makes far more sense than a Wikipedia article. Arkyan  ^(talk) 18:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 22:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable at all. Plasticbottle 05:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Caged - if that's the use intended, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --User:Krator (t c) 23:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 02:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SklogWiki[edit]

A wiki that does not appear to be notable or have been written about by secondary reliable sources. Lack of sources and no claims of meeting WP:WEB. PROD was removed by article creator ~~without comment~~ with notice on talk page. The external links are all largely irrelevant to the subject and the only actual source is a brief article that doesn't even mention SklogWiki. Only 33 Google hits for this (15 unique). Delete as failing WP:ATT and WP:WEB. Wickethewok 15:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"PROD was removed by article creator without comment."

An extensive comment was made on the said talk/discussion page. If there was a more adequate place for such discussions than I am sorry for any inconvenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.111.20.5 (talk • contribs)

Ah, you're right, I wrote that based on the lack of edit summary and didn't notice the talk page until afterwards. Wickethewok 17:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only 33 Google hits for this (15 unique)

This is indeed true; the SklogWiki was started on the 15 of February this year. I have not spent a lot of time promoting it as yet for the following reason. The domain *.sklogwiki.org has been purchased, but since SklogWiki is hosted in a national laboratory, so meetings had to be held to see whether an external page could be served up from an internal host. Today that go-ahead was given, and hopefully within the next 72 hours SklogWiki can be found via www.sklogwiki.org. Once this is so I shall start the "promotion" via the large number of scientific mailing lists that are either open-acces or that I have access to. --161.111.20.5 17:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a non-notable website. As stated above, a Google search returns very few pages on the website. The article effectively amounts to an advertisement, even if the website is an *.org website. Dr. Submillimeter 15:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could in principle become notable later, if it gains any visibility and becomes successful, but should not be part of the encyclopedia now. Anville 19:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The site is just a stub of a wiki at this time (and seems to only contain stubs). It could become a notable site later, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --EMS | Talk 04:06, 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 Alex Bakharev 22:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Border history of Romania[edit]

A first nomination for deletion resulted in no consensus more than half a year ago. Many users voted "keep" in the hope that the article would shortly be improved. I still believe this is not possible, since whatever encyclopedic content could be included in this article belongs rather to the History of Romania article. This standpoint is now more or less proven by the facts that (1) there have been 4 edits to this article since the previous AfD, none of which was in any way substantial, and (2) the only reference to this article (from the article space) remains a single link in the "See also" section of the History of Romania article.

Apart from being practically useless (the images can be used later even if the article gets deleted now), this article also runs a mild risk of becoming a POV fork at some time, since it allows presenting historical states without providing enough context on what they do or do not have in common with modern states, unlike other articles containing sufficient amounts of prose (such as the well-written History of Romania series). Delete. K issL 15:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and the arguments for deletion given in the first nomination. Wikipedia is Not Wikimedia Commons. Gizza^Chat ^© 09:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've posted a short message to the talk pages of all users who took part in the first AfD. K issL 09:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I said before, these pictures would be better served in the history of Romania article itself, if anywhere. That article is better than it was the first time around, but could still use more pictures. Grand master ka 09:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopaedic at present. However, I will change my vote if the cleanup is carried out satisfactorily. Vizjim 09:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable topic, needs expanding (but how many articles in need of expansion are there and are never deleted?). Dpotop 10:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all objections are about the un-wikiness of the article, not about its current state. When something is absurd, you don't make it better by expanding it. Dahn 10:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per KissL, Grandmasterka, and DaGizza. To which I will add: not only is that article a POV fork of no relevant use, but it is also not about what its title says it is about (the borders of Dacia and medieval Transylvania are certainly not the borders "of Romania", and wikipedia catalogs the more popular imaginary realms, not individual fantasies). Dahn 10:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge this is not Wikimedia commons. - Francis Tyers · 10:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the middle ages, the East-Roman Empire was called Romania, thus, the title is not hisorically correct. If the title was eg. Historical states on the terriory of present-day Romania, there would be no problem with it. But if these maps were included in Category:Maps of the history of Romania, there would be no need for this article at all --KIDB 10:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very simply, this article contains information that is more easily presented visually than in text. This is another example. I did not check each map, but it seems to me there are few if any fair use images there; that is not a reason not to have a gallery of these maps. Perhaps a move to something more precisely descriptive of the contents, like Gallery of historical maps of Romania, might be in order. - Smerdis of Tlön 12:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As said above in various ways, one of the problems is that a state called Romania has only existed since the 19th century, not the 1st century BC. What exactly was going on during those two millennia is not straightforward enough to be able to be conveyed by just a series of maps. (Otherwise, why don't we present the histories of all countries like that?) KissL 15:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - The captions in the article, while they surely could be expanded, made it reasonably clear that the various states in the region were not all called Romania. "Romania" and "Romanian" are one of those ambiguous terms that can mean both a citizen of a state of Romania, and a speaker of a Balkan Romance language. We don't present the history of some other countries like that because no one has written those articles yet. A category would be a poor substitute for this page; shifting borders would be harder to track. (FWIW, countries with less complicated histories can present similar data differently; look at Image:USA Territorial Growth small.gif. If this has something to do with Balkan ethnic politics, please say so. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indirectly, it does have somewhat to do with ethnic politics – most ethnic groups over here are trying to prove in various ways that "they were first" in the neighbourhood where they currently are and even its surroundings. In this sense, the situation is not analogous to the US, where a consensus exists on historiography (unless I'm badly mistaken). However, if we were talking about an article titled "Border history of the US" containing just the maps in Image:USA Territorial Growth small.gif with some captions, my opinion would still be that it is not (and has no hope of becoming) encyclopedic. K issL 16:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, its just maps and maps. Well, my opinion on this article being kept has changed. Since nothing has been done since June 2006, this article does not deserve to be kept. As for the maps, they can be in a category and I don't see why its useful. Terence 13:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable for Romanian history. It needs clean-up, but that's not a good enough reason to delete it. It also needs more text, but maps are a very good way to refer information. --Roamataa 13:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Border History is not a good way to organise this; it'd make more sense split up, the maps put into the main article or into articles about each period. fel64 14:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs a cleanup is not a rational for deletion, I see none other presented. Is this nomination a joke or something? WilyD 14:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a mere collection of images, and I have seen no indication that the "article" in question will be otherwise. Olessi 15:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Move to Commons. - Jmabel | Talk 16:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NOT. WP articles are not galleries. Nor should they be. The function of pictures is to illustrate articles and not to be articles by themselves. While deleting the articles, keep images of course and use them in proper articles with History of Romania series being the most natural candidate. A commons entry is also a solution to have all these maps handy in one place. --Irpen 18:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. I copy this page to Commoms. See commons:Border history of Romania. --Yakudza 20:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - on the one hand, this is not the border history "of Romania", but rather goes back much farther. On the other hand, given the existence of articles like Territorial changes of Poland, Territorial evolution of the United States and Territorial evolution of Canada, the article does have potential, provided either a change in title or a shift in focus to post-1859. Biruitorul 01:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and maybe change the name of the article in Territorial evolution of Romania. We can not include in the History of Romania all details, is better to have a separate article and in the main article to have a link to it.--MariusM 01:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as Territorial evolution of Romania, the definition of national boundaries is a very significant topic, especially for a country that has evolved so much as this one. --FateClub 20:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify (merge and delete) to commons:Atlas of Romania. If it had more text, it could be similar to Territorial changes of Poland or Territorial changes of Germany, but currently it is just a gallery.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just delete as per Piotrus' arguments. This is too lousy to be salvageable. Pavel Vozenilek 09:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is merely a collection of maps that already appear in the satisfactory History of Roumania series. Alternatively, Transwikify as suggested above. Certainly the article should not remain here. Peterkingiron 20:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The maps are good content, but there is no reason for them to be collected under this single heading. The topic is covered in History of Romania. Even if additional text were to be added, giving the images narrative support, the material would still be better placed in individual articles such as Dacia (which indeed has one of these images). Mike Christie (talk) 17:35, 3 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. I will delete the copyvio revisions. Mango juice^talk 15:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Chana Radcliffe[edit]

A promotional biography copied from the Kid Principles website and clearly indicated there as being under copyright. Victoriagirl 15:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:CSD#G12 Copyright violation. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 16:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've reverted the article to its contents prior to the copyvio, are there any other concerns about this article? WjBscribe 23:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I recognize WjB's contribution in returning the article to an earlier version, one that is not in violation of copyright. While I'm not convinced that the subject meets notability requirements, I acknowledge that this was not the cause of the AfD nomination. Victoriagirl 20:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure about the status of this AfD as the concern that prompted the nomination has been addressed by WJBscribe, whose editing also intentionally or incidentally removed the AfD tag from the article. To the extent that this AfD is still in progress, I note that there do appear to be sufficient secondary sources to meet WP:BIO - [48] [49] [50].--Kubigula (talk) 04:03, 4 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 02:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy jerks[edit]

More of a definition, maybe should be merged with Second Great Awakening? Guroadrunner 16:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only source in the article is (at the moment) a 404. Very little help from a google search to save the article. -- BPMullins | Talk 19:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete sounds like the name is a POV fork.--Sefringle 01:29, 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 02:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GradeSaver (second nomination)[edit]

This was nominated before, speedy deleted, and then recreated. It should be considered properly this time. Problems: no reliable sources; only the site itself and alexa; there's also a serious NPOV problem here. While there has been coverage, that coverage has been negative, which is not reflected in the article. blameless 16:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or complete rewrite Very POV. If someone, somehow, saves the article, I commend you. W1k13rh3nry 01:35, 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 16:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bard moqe[edit]

The article in original research. It belongs in a wikipedia sandbox. The text in the article itself says that it was "invented" in Feb 2007. ɤіɡʍаɦɤʘʟʟ 16:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because the articles have pretty much the same content:[reply]

Ah, it doesn't seem to be notable. The "invented in February 2007" would indicate that it hasn't yet had time to become notable. The article is a mess and is unsourced. Until there are third-party sources, I would say probably Delete the article. Herostratus 17:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research for the most part, but unsourced and non-notable at the same time. Leebo ^T/C 17:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced, probably not notable yet. I have also tagged the article for context, lack of citations and general cleanup just in case it survives the AfD due to the addition of new information before the close of the discussion. ◄Zahakiel ► 20:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - per nom. WP:NFT seems to apply. - Aagtbdfoua 01:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article claims it make Tamil easy but as a Tamil i dont see hoow this is working. I did not come accross this Bard moqe or its crater other than this article.--Terrance 04:30, 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 01:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hilton Hotels[edit]

I don't really see a reason for this page to exist here, let alone how incomplete the article is Caiman 17:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. There's no real context to the listings, so away it should go. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 17:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This list was removed from the company article since many editors wanted to have a list of all hotels and not just the few notable ones. Since that would have been excessive for the article, it is better to have that information in its own article. If this article is deleted, please make it clear if you support a full list of hotels in the parent article so that there is support for the constant reverting needed to maintain that article if you do not. Vegaswikian 17:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But I don't support a full list of hotels in the parent article, either. Deciding which, if any, pass WP:N and belong in the parent article is an issue for the editors there and not for AfD, as it constitutes a content dispute. However there is no reason to place a full list of hotels, either there or here in its own article, either way is still a directory which Wikipedia is not. Delete this list. Arkyan  ^(talk) 18:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Full list of hotels = spam.SYSS Mouse 19:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If any specific hotels are notable enough per Wikipedia policies/guidelines as a separate article, then I think that's a good enough qualification for a "Notable Hilton Hotels" on the main article. A listing of the rest of them is not especially useful since it's much more efficient to provide a link to Hilton Hotel's own list, which they manage/update to an extent that probably can't be matched here. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 20:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as there are "over 500" hotels in the chain. List the most notable ones in the main article, and do a {{see}} to Category:Hilton hotels. Done. --Dhartung | Talk 01:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I find the list helpful for travel planning and since this would be notably absent from a "significant hotels" list, I would like to see the article retained. 64.81.167.222 01:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Hilton Hotels, since it is still a stub. --FateClub 20:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The right place for a list of Hilton Hotels is on their own website, which they no doubt maintain themselves. Also Oppose the idea of Category:Hilton hotels: should we really have such a category? Use their own website! If we must have such a category (and we seem to), the list is merely repeating the same information. Peterkingiron 20:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 02:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fever (Madonna song)[edit]

WP:MUSIC has long had a standard prohibiting seperate articles for covers of pre-existing songs. With hundreds of artists having covered "Fever", several of whom had major hits with it substantial hits, what makes Madonna's version (especially since it's neither the first nor most historically significant recording) special enough to warrant its own individual article?

I would say reduce significantly, merge whatever is left into Fever (1956 song), which should be expanded. FuriousFreddy 17:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can't find any specific prohibition of the type mentioned above. Recordings that meet criteria such as that set out in Wikipedia:Notability (songs) are notable enough to be included, and Madonna's version was a substantial hit. 23skidoo 18:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was thinking the same, I've seen articles about cover versions before. Although, if there is such a policy prohibiting this then change my vote to merge with Fever (1956 song). Masaruemoto 19:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per there being no valid reason offered for deletion. There does not appear to be anything in WP:MUSIC that prohibits articles on cover songs. Otto4711 20:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Wikipedia:Notability (songs) has a list of dot point guidelines that says if a song meets at least 2 standards, then it's a good candidate for notability. At the very least, the song meets the standards as set in points #1, #7, & possibly #2. Spellcast 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Fever (1956 song). Wikipedia:Notability (songs) (which is currently inactive) also states "The fact that a song is notable enough to deserve an article does not mean that each individual recording of a song deserves an article." Having separate articles on separate recordings of a song just exacerbates the problem of there being little coverage of the original version of the song compared to coverage of one or more of the covers. I'd also argue that a lot of the information in the article on the Madonna cover isn't essential for inclusion - not all single formats and official remixes of a song (especially a Madonna song, where you have loads of remixes released on various formats) are notable. Artists such as Madonna, Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston or even Hilary Duff shouldn't be given special treatment. We have articles on Respect (song), I'll Be There, I Heard It through the Grapevine, I Will Always Love You, Lady Marmalade, (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction and many more that include all information on every recording in one place...why not "Fever"? Extraordinary Machine 13:43, 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. Mango juice^talk 15:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional self-harmers (2nd nomination)[edit]

To have any content at all, this list would have to rely on editors' personal observations and conclusions on characters in works of fiction. As "common sense" as it would be to declare a character a self-harmer, this list does not belong on Wikipedia, also because the characters by themselves are generally not notable enough to warrant their own articles (as many of these characters have not been analyzed or featured by themselves in the media as standalone subjects). Blueaster 17:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this ridiculously subjective list. How much self-defeating or injurious behavior is required to qualify as a "self-harmer"? Doczilla 19:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree, this is remarkably subjective. It'd be less subjective to have a List of fictional self-cutters. Also, I suspect this would quickly become unmaintainable. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 00:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Self-harm is the criteria for being on the list, a proccess described on self-harm (now moved to self-injury) as "deliberate injury inflicted by a person upon his or her own body. [...] A broader definition can also include the phenomenon of those who inflict harm on their bodies by means of disordered eating, or compulsive tattooing or body piercing or impulsive non-lethal injuring. [...] Self-injury is usually not associated with an attempt at suicide; the person who self-injures is not usually seeking to end his or her own life, but is instead hoping to cope with or relieve unbearable emotional pain or discomfort." This is the definition that the list is based on. --OGoncho 00:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it's excessively broad. How much deliberate injury is necessary to qualify? For instance, why is Harry Potter on the list? Doczilla 00:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose because of a punishment in which he is forced to write lines while his hand is cut with each stroke. I would not think that qualifies, as he does it as more of a "FU, government," kind of thing. Perhaps insisting on references like page numbers, descriptions of scenes, or transcripts would help (as long as we're careful to keep the crufty stuff out). --OGoncho 18:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's accurate about the house elf Dooby who punishes himself repeatedly, for example by hitting himself over the head. --Nate 09:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yes, why is Harry Potter on the list? But only for the book version, not the film. Plasticbottle 05:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important topic, with many articles from reliable sources as evidenced by the works in the list. Does not seem triggery. There is no element of personal observations or original research in the selection, since the book reviews will describe explicitly that the works properly included in the list are about self-harm. Not all the works are fiction; some are important nonfiction works about dealing with the problem. Edison 05:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Importance" doesn't have anything to do with WP notability; plus, there is only one source listed, which is a collaborative project, and therefore not reliable for our usage. In addition, this list is very poorly defined, because we do not know whether items included should be characters who habitually hurt themselves with intent to harm, characters who habitually put themselves into dangerous situations, characters who accidently harm themselves, or characters who at one point harmed themselves. In addition, you can't just assume that the same observation which would warrant inclusion into this list (that a character has commited self-harm) has been made by a non-trivial paper or review. And even still, if some definition of this list can be aggreed upon, it will still be highly debatable whether or not that definition should be used over another. Blueaster 21:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge - Self-injury in popular culture is also AfD at the moment could secondarily cited examples be used to combine the two? one comment on non notable characters, would it be sensible to restrict the list to only those with there own article or where it forms a major part of the story, e.g. The Secretary or Girl Interrupted --Nate 09:08, 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. Mango juice^talk 15:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-injury in popular culture[edit]

To have any content at all, this list would have to rely on editors' personal observations and interpretations of creative works. As "common sense" as it may seem to declare a work to contain reference to or be centered around Self Injury, this list does not belong on Wikipedia; also note that -many of the works themselves do not WP notabilty guidelines, and -the entire music section is a laundry list of songs and lyrics in which editors have personally observed reference to self injury. Blueaster 17:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another tiresome list of sightings of a particular object/idea/phenomenon in pop culture. Contains no encyclopedic information and is of no value, does nothing to inform the reader what the significance or history of self-harm in cultural references, and so on. Arkyan  ^(talk) 18:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyloapedic, original research, random - in other words, canonical listcruft. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks significance and encyclopedic value. ZBrannigan 02:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think a lot of the things on the list are not even about Self-injury, particularly some of the song lyrics. Plasticbottle 05:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Self-harm is a major problem in some cultures and has numerous sources to attest to its importance. "self harm" gets over 1.1 million Google hits. Problems with inappropriate inclusions in this article are better dealt with by editing than by deletion. Reviews can be used to objectively determine which works deal with self-harm. Not all the works are fiction: "A Bright Red Scream" is about coping with the problem. Edison 05:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Self-harm in popular culture" as itself is probably a very notable subject. However, this article is nothing but a sprawling list made of personal sightings. In addition, "self harm" is by itself may be a notable subject, but that says nothing about this list and it's own standing. And if a work is non-fiction, by definition, it should not be kept on here, because it's not in the category defined by the title. Blueaster 21:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article was created to remove a growing list from the main Self Injury article, if this is deleted i'm concerned that the section will be re-created and start to clog up the article agian.

I agree it is completely out of hand, but a hard pruning of it then merging back into the main article might be the be the best solution, restricting to referenced examples only, e.g. with the songs it has been explicitly stated it was about self injury in an an interview. I did try this when it was part of the main article but for the most part extra incidences were just added. --Nate 09:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you shouldn't keep us from information. thats unfair. why delete it anyway? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.165.36.114 (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Do not delete until a dedicated maintainer for the pop-culture section in the main article is identified. Also do not forget to exclude this person from 3RR as the people who add the references never sleep. Pavel Vozenilek 09:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DXRAW 03:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and follow suggestions of Nate above when refs are added to main article. Springnuts 11:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RevisionI have just removed any unlinked entries comments? --Nate 08:29, 3 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 deleted, it would be an unlikely redirect. yandman 13:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phivos (songwriter)[edit]

I found this tagged for speedy deletion as an advertisement. I decided to bring it here instead because there are claims of notability and if they could be sourced this could be a WP:MUSIC/WP:BIO compliant article. The problem is that even if you sift through the nearly ridiculous level of fandom (or possibly self-promotion) that exists in this article, there is scant that is actually WP:ATT from what I can see. Such a "world famous" songwriter with a series of major label contracts should garner some level of verifiable information, but it appears that almost none exists. If kept it needs a rewrite, but my opinion is that when you go with what is verifiable, this doesn't meet any of our guidelines, so Delete.--Isotope23 18:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some real sources show up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's turning really interesting: anonymous users (the same person, I think) repeatedly removing all the tags from the article, without any notices and respect to the encyclopedia. Methinks something needs to be done ASAP... Teo64x 18:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of this is apparantly real [51] [52]. It appears his name is typically written as "Phoebus". Oh ho! Lookie what I found - Phivos (composer). Appears someone is trying to fix that article up to pass muster, so I'm going to give this one a big ol' delete. edit - although I suppose just re-directing this one would work too. --Celain 22:26, 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oliva's eye[edit]

Topic is non-notable, unpublished story; see article talk page Dominus 18:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my summary from the talk page:

There are no Google hits for "Oliva's eye", for the name of the story "A story of a black rainbow", or for the author's name "Taft O. Miller" or "Taft Miller". There are no Wikipedia articles that link to this one.

The article claims that the story was "published in January, 2007", but it doesn't say where it was published.

I suggest that the subject is entirely non-notable.

Today, an anonymous user removed the PROD warning from the article, adding the following message to the talk page:

This is a real short story, although not sold in any bookstores, it has been written. Please do not delete it, I have made them remove any silly comments from their homepage. Although the short story is real, it is not on google because it wasn't submitted to google partly because I do not have a homepage.

Taft O. Miller

I believe that this supports my suggestion that the article is about a non-notable, unpublished work. -- Dominus 18:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On google I founded that there a short story called a story of a black rainbow but was not written by Taft Miller or had to do anything with oliva's eye.

Speedy Delete per comments about the story which state that it is "not sold in any bookstores" or on a website. Fits criteria G11 (Blatant Advertisement), A7 (unremarkable), possibly A1 (lack of context). Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 19:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheery Sidenote I'm not sure to what extent Admins might find this relevant, but most of the significant contributors to this article have a history of blatant vandalism. Just an FYI. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 19:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per the above and per the talkpage: "real short story, although not sold in any bookstores, , it has been written. That just about says it all IMHO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responce[edit]

Alright, let's settle this.

This is NOT a major book, it is a short story written in a short amount of time. It was not made to be published by any bookstore, it didn't win any prizes. It was just a book about a VERY disturbing thing that happened between two of my friends, so I wrote a story about it. I just thought I would make a Wikipedia page about it, my friend choose the page name

About the google thing. Not everyone is on google! I already told you this book isn't published! Please get off the google thing!

If you want to delete it, thats fine. Even though it would be nice to leave it, I know wikipedia doesn't love average people, it only likes celebrities and famous people, because no matter how little people look at the page, it has to be deleted to save the 1 KB of space of wikipedia's precious space, even though the page IS a encyclopedia entry, it isn't important enough.

So whats the point of creating new pages if they are always deleted?

TaftOMiller 23:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New pages aren't always deleted. If they were, English Wikipedia wouldn't have over a million articles. The concern is that items must meet notability standards as outlined in This notability policy and must have enough information that it can be verified as outlined in this verification policy. If something doesn't meet those base requirements, it's not considered notable enough to be included on Wikipedia.

If you want to host the story (or information about the story somewhere), try any of the hundreds of free webspaces out there. There's even free wiki-hosting sites if you'd like to allow your friends to edit the article as well. Wikipedia, however, is not for things made in school one day. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 23:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as advertising for an unpublished, non-notable story, and as a second choice delete per WP:FICT as "Oliva's eye" is not the name of the story, but part of the body of one of the characters within the story. --Metropolitan90 05:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I know[edit]

The story A Story of a Black Rainbow sound's a lot like the story A tale of a Gray Rainbow I dont know if it was puplished or not but it was told by Paul Miller who traveled to a few schools in North Carolina telling the story to 1st and 2nd graders. There was no such thing as Oliva's eye however there was jane's eye which was used to discripe something of great beurity.

ps. Sorry for the spelling I guess I should of stayed awake in 1-3 grade.

Speedy Delete - admittedly not a notable short story, and has no sources. --Haemo 01:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about the fake story above, my friend already addmitted to making this story up. TaftOMiller 01:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What?[edit]

Okay..... who wrote this? I can accept that there is possibly a book titled something similar to my title, but PUAL Miller? JANE'S EYE? Who wrote this? "The People of GEORGE"? Come off it man, your just makin' stuff up know and I don't like it at all, and to anyone who actually TRUSTS this guy. Your totally insane.

By the way JUAN or DUSTIN (yes I know it's one of you guy's) you would not know that I live in North Carolina.

Come on man.

AND DON'T EVEN SAY THAT YOUR REALY SOMEONE ELSE OR THAT YOUR STORY IS REAL!!! JUST FESS UP!!!!! —The preceding

TaftOMiller 00:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

SPEEDY DELETE This needs to be closed ASAP.--Ng.j 08:25, 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 G11. - Mailer Diablo 16:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marketsmith[edit]

The article reads like a buzzword-filled piece of promotional material which fundamentally requires massive rewriting to qualify as an encyclopedia article. At the very least, it probably violates WP:NPOV to an extent that it the article probably shouldn't be left there whilst being cleaned up. Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 18:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources. No redeeming value. --J2thawiki 19:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article seems to have been created as a promotional aid for the now deleted Marketsmith, Inc. by the same author. --J2thawiki 19:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The author, User:Susan Wernick, is the name of the Director of Communications at Marketsmith, Inc., as seen here. Perhaps this should just be a CSD and not AfD. Any thoughts? -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 19:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there issues with putting both AfD and CSD on an article? I'm not too clear on it. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 20:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's allowed. If an article has been submitted to AfD but it turns out to actually be a candidate for speedy deletion, the appropriate speedy tag should be added to the article (besides the AfD tag), and if the article is speedied, that will cut the AfD discussion short. --Metropolitan90 05:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Delete It lacks sources to establish the notability of the term, but it's also written in an informal tone that sounds like spam. The situation that J2thawiki noticed sounds plausible. Leebo ^T/C 19:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as blatant advertising. The Conflict of Interest issues worry me as well. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 20:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 02:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlis star[edit]

Just a smidge over the CSD-A7 threshold, but still not meeting WP:BAND in any way. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 19:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:BAND. BlackBear 17:19, 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 Closed - Copyright Violations need to be reported to Wikipedia:Copyright problems not AfD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nick (talk • contribs).

AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains[edit]

Delete - copyvio speedy tag removed without explanation but it seems pretty clear that the article is little mre than a reproduction of the AFI's copyrighted list. Otto4711 20:31, 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 Speedy deleted - acknowleged hoax. Newyorkbrad 23:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otto von Nostitz[edit]

Judging by Google Search results, this is either a hoax, or a NN tennis player. GregorB 20:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. The suspect article is the contributor's only contribution, never a good sign. Newyorkbrad 21:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly an un-person. I have argued in the past, without success, for the formation of WP:UNTRUE. It would fir here, and I think be more appropriate that WP:HOAX.--Anthony.bradbury 21:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. My thoughts also. NN bios are routinely speedied, but even with fairly blatant hoaxes one must go through the motions (prod, afd or both), which is perverse. GregorB 22:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The reasoning is that occasionally something that looks hoaxish is actually based in reality. It's happened more than once. That being said, I have no qualms about summarily speedying something that is an out-and-out fabrication, as long as it's a 100% clear case. Newyorkbrad 22:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "He came into the spotlight in 2008 by snapping Roger Federer's winning streak at Wimbledon and eventually went on to win the title." Oh dear. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 22:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedied. That last line quoted by Strangerer was just created by the article creator, and I consider it an admission. Newyorkbrad 23:08, 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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worth1000[edit]

Advertisement, Spam and fails WP:NOT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lord David (talk • contribs).

not spam or an advertisement and doesn't "fail WP:NOT" just because someone declares it does. 13 mention mentions listed at [53] and 43 more claimed here, would seem to have a reasonable case for meeting WP:WEB, just needs improvement. (this is a keep for people who only see bolded words) --W.marsh 21:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep I think this nomination is bad faith, I mean:

Worth1000 is one of the most popular sites of its kind and has served more than 5.5 million distinct visitors in September 2004. They have also been featured in many different publications, TV shows, and radio including PC Magazine, Popular Science, Good Morning America, BBC, CNN, New York Times, Weekly World News, Detroit Free Press, TechTV, USA Today, G4, Inside Edition and many others.[1]

of course that's notable, I think someone just lost a contest and is having a hissy fit they didn't win! Owlofcreamcheese 21:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The authority for that is the website itself. The sentence should be removed as unsourced. Since all of the other references are eiher produced by the site itself or liked to it, this is a Delete as COI. This does not mean a proper article could not be written; it does mean there is no sourced content worth preserving, DGG 01:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:COI: "conflict of interest is not in itself a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is."--W.marsh 01:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, assuming the list of media references in the second paragraph is correct. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-referenced article on popular site. FCYTravis 00:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article could use some touch-up, and references should not be to a "list" of references, but huh? 100+ Google News Archive results is a pretty good start. --Dhartung | Talk 01:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Site mentioned in NY Times and ZDNet. Notable. --Pixelface 08:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:WEB notability. There's an article about it in UK newspaper Metro and a mention of the same site in The Sun. The site's Photoshop competition is world-famous. --Canley 09:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Needless to say, this is what it smells like, a WP:POINT nomination. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PhotoshopContest.com and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/PhotoshopContest.com. User began editing Wikipedia with linkspam in this article, was probably creator of PhotoshopContest.com, argued keep on its AFD, converted to present username and came over here to start this nom. --Dhartung | Talk 11:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal relevance marketing[edit]

The original self-promotion aspects have been reduced, but it remains, by the author's own admission, original research. -- RHaworth 20:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-admitted original research should be enough. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 21:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Original; research Alex Bakharev 01:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought. Suriel1981 00:01, 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, defaulting to keep. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northeastern High School (Springfield, Ohio)[edit]

I know I generally follow the keep-em-all approach to high schools - but this really is nothing more than an empty shell and shows no sign of anyone working on it or planning to expand it. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This a wholly non-notable High School. I know that there are some editors who are under the impression that all high schools are intrinsically notable. I have delved into WP:POLICY and this is NOT the case.--Anthony.bradbury 21:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that argument I generally follow - any big school is by definition notable to its own town, even if not to a wider community, and most school articles could be expanded (pretty much everywhere has at least one famous alumnus) - but this article's such an ultra-stub I don't see how it could be expanded. - Iridescenti (talk to me!)

Delete per nom.RaveenS 21:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would agree with Iridescenti if the article contained no information and had been tagged with whatever the tag is that says "should this be deleted?" for a month of two without response. But as far as I can see this is a relatively new entry. This is too early for an AFD. Mike 22:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Frankly, I find the mention of their 1923 basketball title a promising sign.. I do not particularly like to eliminate stub articles on schools,or on anything else, because people may well finish them. it's articles people have worked on and found nothing to say that I find more problematic. We seem to be going on a course that will eliminate the stub category of articles entirely, and I'm not sure that this is a good idea. DGG 00:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mike. Epbr123 01:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs time to develop. Too many Wikipedians appoint themselves as police and make these silly nominations. Leave it alone and mind your own business. EagleFan 14:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Northeastern Local School District or Springfield, Ohio. There is the seed for something. Vegaswikian 06:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Vegaswikian. Usually, I'd consider state championships to assert notability of schools, but in this case, the school in question didn't win it - a school it consolidated with did. -Seinfreak37 16:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Vegaswikian. — RJH (talk) 21:14, 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. WjBscribe 02:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of racing drivers[edit]

Nominated for deletion as it is rather indiscrimate purely as amateurs can apply for a race car license and therefore they are a race driver, should all be split into specific lists instead (i.e. F1 or NASCAR). Originally nominated by Garth Bader 17:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC), renominated by Garth Bader 21:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This would be enormously huge if it were ever even close to complete. Works better as a category. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and categoruse per Andrew Lenahan. Would work far better as a series of categories, even if additional context could be added to the article in its current state. -- saberwyn 00:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and categorize per nominator's cogent commentary. FCYTravis 00:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Better as a category, as other commenters have stated above. Otherwise we will have debates about the completeness of the list, and the criteria for membership. Should not have entries for people without their own articles. Doing a category gives us that property automatically. EdJohnston 19:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just my 2p worth: ~~surely at this point in the debate this is a speedy close. Although all five wikipedians above have used the word "delete", in fact upon reading their votes:~~
- User:Garth Bader is actually voting for a split into smaller articles and the removal of some nn items: a job he could do himself if he chose (or propose that one of the projects take on) without involving the AfD process.
- ~~User:Starblind is voting to convert to category: a job which is obviously far easier to do while this article exists.~~
- ~~User:Saberwyn is supporting Starblind's convert-to-category vote.~~
- ~~User:FCYTravis claims to be supporting the nominator but is actually supporting Starblind's convert-to-category vote.~~
- User:EdJohnston is supporting Starblind, adding the (surely wrong) comment that it is a bad thing that we should debate the completeness problem and the criteria for inclusion problem, and the (definitely wrong) comment that lists should not contain red links.
- No actual vote from me at this point, but I will just comment that where actual work is needed on something, just bringing it to AfD should not be seen as a cheap-and-cheerful solution. AndyJones 13:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While you are disagreeing with lots of people, it's not clear what your actual position is. It would be easy for the closing administrator to userfy the list for an editor who was willing to create a category for it. Your motion for a 'speedy close' suggests that you feel the result is unanimous, but we don't know your vote. EdJohnston 15:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I'm not making my position clear. I don't necessarily disagree with anyone above (except for a couple of side-issues in EdJohnston's vote). All I'm saying is that IF everybody believes what they have written above THEY are not actually voting to delete this article. They are using the word "delete" but are actually voting to keep it so that various work can be done on it. (Sorry, I don't know if that's actually much clearer!) AndyJones 17:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I decline to have you redefine my vote; I'm still voting Delete. The article is a mess because the concept of the article is a mess, not because insufficient work has been done on it. However I suggest you should go on record as voting 'Keep'. EdJohnston 21:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm not so bothered about this that I want to stay around to debate it, to be honest. I've unbolded my speedy close comment to make it clearer that it wasn't a vote, more an observation. AndyJones 14:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable - The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category. And yes, I am quoting from WP:LISTCRUFT. Suriel1981 23:28, 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. It should be noted however that any sources demonstrating notability do not need to be in English- we have a lot of multilingual editors who could translate... WjBscribe 02:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KK Buducnost Bijeljina[edit]

Non-notable sports team. Leuko 19:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^{take the} 21:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn. --MaNeMeBasat 08:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless English-language sources can be found demonstrating notability. Suriel1981 23:07, 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G-Unit MidWest[edit]

non notable record label. G-unit is notable, this one is not. Further, there are absolutely 0 sources, it is entirely original research, and it is rife with "rumor" ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 21:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article reason the only it is being nominated is because people go in there and put false claims. Whenever i created the article i put the truth into it.Tru Soulja 18:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable record label, 0 sources. People adding false claims to an article is not a valid deletion reason; if people have done so, remove that false information and provide sources for the rest. --Geniac 08:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Geniac. Non-notable and unsourced. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 13:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep real record label just not signing artists until 2008 i sent a message to Trick-Trick myself and he told me.74.241.139.205 20:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced. not a real label.

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

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

The result was Delete Tizio 09:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

150 Entertainment[edit]

non notable record label. Unsourced. No assertion of notability. 50 Cent is notable, this is not. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 21:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this page no sources its a fake record label.
Keep look at Young Hot Rod's myspace and you will see a page going to it.74.241.139.205 20:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real record label I also seen it off of Young Hot Rod's myspace page.Tru Soulja 20:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only sources provided are MySpace pages, which are not reliable sources. --Geniac 00:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced purely speculation.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ¿? ✍ 16:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday Was a Lie[edit]

Crystal ball article on a film which has not even begin shooting yet, so may be entirely different by the time it's released, if it ever is. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Important enough to have a featured panel at Wondercon, a pretty important convention. Stars Chase Masterson, a fairly well-known actor in sci-fi circles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. According to IMDb and the film's official website the film has been shot and edited and is currently being scored. The film also has a consistent rating of around 20,000 or higher on the IMDb film meter indicating a high level of popular interest. Numerous press/media websites and TV series are covering the production of the film; e.g. SidewalksTV], a nationally-syndicated television program (note that this website even has a link to the Wiki entry on Yesterday Was a Lie). The premise of deletion is therefore invalid. Sorrywrongnumber 20:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S.: I have added several press/media links to the main page, including a link to the WireImage page covering the film's wrap party, further illustrating that Guy's basis of deletion (that the film hasn't shot) is incorrect. Sorrywrongnumber 03:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Where do people think they got footage that is as beautiful as what is posted on the film's official site? I don't understand why this unfounded (and curiously negative) comment was even considered. 2Misters 02:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This film looks great from what I've seen so far. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.185.200.165 (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Please note that WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument. Corvus cornix 21:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, but in fairness you should also point out that the premise of deletion (that the film hasn't yet shot) has been demonstrated to be false, so it is also not a valid argument. Sorrywrongnumber 03:56, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mutant Ninja Turtles Gaiden[edit]

Article does not assess any notability about the topic and has already been deleted once before. Brandon Dilbeck 22:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It sounds like fan-fiction to me. -- Ritchy 22:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable fan-created comic. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleedman for a thematically related AfD. JuJube 22:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced article about comic fanfic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indications are that this isn't a licensed product, and Wikipedia doesn't really list fan projects unless they manage to claw their way up to notability somehow, which this one has not. As a side note... Holy Teenage Mutant Mary Sue, Batman! Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 03:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious fanfiction like everyone said. Plasticbottle 05:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete I made this article for a friend. I understand that the storyline is fictional and non-canonical. ok. Just tell me what to do to keep it and future related articles from being deleted. Darth JCS
- The biggest issue isn't about its canonicity. The problem (well, one of many) is its lack of notability. Plus, there just isn't anything in the article about the topic except for a smallish plot summary. --Brandon Dilbeck 23:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a webhost. Please host this page on your own website. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fanfiction is rarely notable and this article doesn't explain its supposed notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- -- Ben 15:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete If it's already been deleted before, then crap, I think that's a speedy criterion. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 01:25, 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 14:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neb(Musician)[edit]

Looks to be self-promotion. None of the references provided are reliable. Prod removed by author. JuJube 22:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article references are press releases and websites associated with the subject. Not reliable. No evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. -- Whpq 22:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:50, 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 17:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William McGaughey[edit]

vanity article about a webmaster, created by said webmaster, all references point to his own websites ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As William says, its a vanity article, and as such I expect the author to put in the work to prove that it is worthy. On the face of it isn't worthy. I couldn't check the ISBN of the books, it doesn't even have any links to check who this person is, so unless or until there is something to check delete it! Mike 23:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent evidence of notability. andy 23:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I just now found an article for his book though, Five Epochs of Civilization and it doesn't look too bad for an article... The ISBN number is there too... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC) But the links there, again, all go back to his own website... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:21, 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 speedy delete. Natalie 02:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Paull[edit]

insufficiently notable, fails WP:PROF Ga rr ie 22:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It may just be late, but I can't see much point to this entry and I can't see what I might check to find out whether this person is at all notable. The article fails to answer the basic question "why should I read this?" Mike 23:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. He is a principle which in itself is not notable.Ga rr ie 23:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just ridiculous. How many AfD's on Aquinascruft do we have to go through before it become disruptive? Hesperian 23:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete meets both criteria WP:CSD#A1 and WP:CSD#A7 Gnan garra 01:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 01:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Ga rr ie 02:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. CSD A7. So tagged. Mwelch 02:28, 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. Cúchullain ^t/c 04:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Freechild Project[edit]

Delete. This article is a gross advert and the group is non-notable. Puget 23:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:ORG. According to that guideline, A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. All current citations on this article meet this criterion. The article cites a plethora of sources as to the notability of Freechild, and about the advertising aspect, I have no idea of how to fix it. User:Puget doesn't cite any particular violations of WP, and I think this is really just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - Freechild 23:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is just self-promotion for a non-notable non-profit org, and it may even qualify as a vanity page. Many of the references are just vapor sources that don't support what the author(s) claim they do. For example, in support of the claim that the Freechild Project is "internationally recognized," the author(s) cite an article in the Australasian Journal of American Studies. Even if being mentioned in an obscure social-science journal published outside of America qualified as "international recognition" (IMHO, it doesn't), if you actually look at the source, the Freechild Project isn't even mentioned in the body of the article. Instead, a review of Todd Gitlin's book that the journal article's author found on the Freechild Project website is listed in the bibliography. In addition, the article lists as "accolades" several awards of questionable importance, such as a "cool site" award. Most of the Google hits for the site are for automated rip-off sites like Answers.com, or links from sites within the special-interest community that the Freechild Project is part of. Wikipedia is not meant to be an exhaustive guide to everything in existence, and this organization does not merit a WP article. - Skaraoke 07:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Its ironic that Skaraoke asks for notability, then complains when the google hits, citations, and "special interest community that the Freechild Project is part of" does not meet his liking. I'm also not sure that any of the 17 citations on the article are so-called "vapor citations"; that much said, WP:ATT does not mention "vapor citations", and no other page on WP mentions "vapor citations". "Vapor citation" actually comes up 3 times on google. There are no exceptional claims in the article, particularly regarding The Freechild Project's international relevance (with multiple citations); neither is there original research or unsourced comments. As the article illustrates, this program is notable and merits a WP article. - Freechild 16:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second examination, Skaraoke mentioned "vapor source", not citation. My apologies. That does come up 55,100 times on google, clearly as a chemistry-related term, not in reference to citations though. - Freechild 17:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "vapor source" refers to a citation that "evaporates" once you examine it more closely (i.e. it doesn't actually say what the author was citing it to support, or it doesn't exist at all). Regardless of how many other people use this term, it is an accurate description of the citations that I mentioned above. Citations that can be described that way don't belong on WP, and articles that rely on citations like that don't belong on WP. - Skaraoke 18:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying this article relies on "vapor sources" implies that is all there is in the article and that the merit of the article is reliant upon those sources. You explained one specific citation of concern; since then point I have added several other citations that strengthen the claim made in the article. There are 16 other citations in the article; you have yet to mention any other. At best this article requires Template:Citecheck; this AfD is out of order according to that argument. - Freechild 19:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the aforementioned statement and several problematic citations, as per above stated concerns. - Freechild 23:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article states:

Freechild has been acknowledged by cultural critic Henry Giroux as "especially relevant in getting young people to participate in the realms of politics and critical education."

As the article states before this quote, "cultural critic Henry Giroux" is on the Freechild Project's advisory board. Of course he's going to say the FP is "especially relevant." C'mon, who do you think you're fooling with this one? - 171.66.185.219 01:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No foolin' on that one. Of course, Henry Giroux is a world-renowned theorist who has published more than 30 books, with this quote coming from one of them. That alone justifies the quote; his perspective and attendance to the program probably justifies the article, too. That, along with the other citations, further supports the merit of this article. - Freechild 01:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What's going on here? The creator of the AfD started it on his first edit, and has never edited Wikipedia outside of it. This IP above me has also never edited Wikipedia before; his first and only edit is to this page. There seems to be some sockpuppetry going on. --Rory096 06:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep-As someone who is not involved in Freechild but is also not biased against the Youth Movement, I have to urge a keep for this article. When i look at the arguements of the opposition, I am baffled. Skaraoke says it should be deleted because in his humble opinion Freechild isn't internationally recognized despites its mention in Australasian Journal of American Studies which he derides as an "obscure" source. The Australasian Journal of American Studies isn't an obscure source as it is so asserted. It is a multi-continental social science journal that specialises in the study of American soceity. I fail to see how it is somehow a not noteable that Freechild was picked up on in this Social Study journal. It seems to me that if an international social science journal feels this organization warrants mention, then that organization must have some merit and some recognition,

With all due respect, this misconception is a perfect example of why I objected to this source. I will say it again, with some extra punctuation just to make it a little more noticeable: The Freechild Project IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE BODY OF THE ARTICLE. The article's bibliography cites a book review of Todd Gitlin's book that the author of the journal article accessed from the Freechild Projects website. This could have been found through a search engine, and it does not give rigorous support for the Freechild Project's "international recognition." Aren't you at least a little bothered by having been manipulated and deceived like this? - Skaraoke 21:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

even if its in a community Skaraoke doesn't happen to frequent.

I'm a graduate student in the School of Education at Stanford University. I've had plenty of contact with this community. - Skaraoke 21:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the opposition is so weak that they have realied solely on question whether the accolades are good enough to count.

But this really is a valid issue. The significance of having received an "accolade" is very much a function of how importance the accolade is. Getting the Nobel Peace Prize is an "accolade." So is having your dog get a Blue Ribbon at a dog show. Which one do think is going to get the book deal? Obviously, an extreme example, but hopefully you get the point. - Skaraoke 21:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then, they resort to google hits as a back-up, even though if i recollect correctly, google hits aren't supposed to be used in article merit arguements. I apologize in advance if i'm wrong about that. And while i'm sure Skaraoke did go through all 44,000 google hits, its seems to me that a organization would be considered notable if it is held in high regard and mentioned alot within the community and niche it is in....

Then, once changes have been made to make the article even more acceptable, people argue for its deletion because they quote a person who liked the org so much it joined its advisory board as a show of support? I don't understand that arguement at all. If the Secretary of State said a threat was relevant, would you discount that because she is in the State Department?

I think deletion of this article is not based upon evidence but instead upon biases inherent within its detractors. If solid evidence was produced, I would be fine with deletion, but the only leg they stand on is flimsy conjecture and opinion. A deletion would be wrong and bad for WP Theowannabe 06:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Chip[reply]

In regards to what Rory096 posted, i too find that very fishy indeed. Ulterior motives? Theowannabe 06:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Chip[reply]

Motto: If all else fails, accuse the other side of cheating. Sockpuppetry is a serious accusation, and it should not be made without solid evidence. Otherwise it just makes you look desperate. - Skaraoke 12:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KeepI am not involved in the FreeChild Project either, but I do not see any grounds for deletion. --Aking 20:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry is a very serious accusation. But it would seem that its just you and then this mystey person who hasn't edited anything before and hasn't edited anything since that are opposing this article, so it is something that could be brought up. Futhermore, this "Rory096" hasn't chimed in on the debate, he mearly commented on something he noticed. He hasn't taken any sides at all. I don't see how his observation should reflect badly upon us. Theowannabe 22:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Chip[reply]

Maybe he has better things to do. Not everyone is willing to donate their free time to the same degree. That's hardly a legitimate cause for suspicion, and I hope it normally takes more than that for you to fail to assume good faith. (Please see the warning that I left on your talk page.) - Skaraoke 22:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I wasn't even accusing you, just saying that the IP and the nom were the same. You seem oddly defensive. Nevertheless, Theowannabe didn't make any personal attacks, he just commented on my noting the circumstances of the nom. That is certainly not personally attacking anybody; you shouldn't be so liberal with your warnings. --Rory096 23:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Hmm, I wasn't even accusing you, just saying that the IP and the nom were the same. You seem oddly defensive."

Ah, yes, the "I wasn't technically accusing you of anything, so your defensiveness makes me even more suspicious now" tactic never goes out of style, but I'm not going to fall for it. Are you trying to get an honorary position on HUAC? - Skaraoke 03:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, remain civil. I actually was not accusing you; I had no reason to think that you did anything wrong. I was only accusing the nom and the IP because they had each never edited Wikipedia outside of this AfD, which is suspicious. --Rory096 04:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, after User:Skaraoke refused to participate in WP:MEDCAB, I have requested the formal WP mediation process for an issue between User:Skaraoke and myself that pertains to this AfD, and I've cited talk page this as an incidence of his antagonism. You can read about it here. - Freechild 00:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into CommonAction, which is its parent organization and which appears to have the same goals. One program operated by a regional nonprofit is not likely to be notable by itself unless it has won substantial recognition. However, whatever notability this project and its parent organization possess would be made more apparent by combining the two articles. --orlady 16:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From the content of the article, it is clear that there is strong political opposition to the work of this organization by those who think it, variously, "liberal" or "communist" . Ignoring that, and not even considering whether that opposition by itself is enough to make for notability, the group and its work features in fully enough sources to be N, and has N sponsorship. DGG 01:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The sourcing of this article is beyond merely suspect, it is clearly stretched to inflate claims of significance. As an example, The Freechild Project has also been cited for making theoretical contributions to the field of youth service[5] and youth participation.[6] is backed up by [5]: an undergraduate term paper that cites the Freechild project to help determine a framework for the rest of the paper: it's not an important point in the paper, it's certainly not a paper about the Freechild project, and it's just a term paper anyway: not at all a reliable published source. And [6] is not much better: it is a reliable source but it doesn't attribute any such thing as "theoretical contributions" to the Freechild project, rather, it's a source about how to foster youth participation in social activities in Halifax and mentions the Freechild Project. This problem is endemic in the article. Normally, I might say that the article should be edited to reflect the sources more accurately, but after examining the sources I am still unconvinced that the Freechild Project is really notable, and more importantly, the article has been written to promote it, in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOT (soapbox). Mangojuice^talk 15:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And in response to DGG, the criticism is not adequately supported either: there are three sources: the first doesn't mention Freechild, the third is a web forum, and the second is notes from an amateur talk in a club in which the Freechild web site is criticized for linking to adult topics. As Skaraoke said, the sources look good but evaporate completely on examination. Mango juice^talk 15:47, 4 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. WjBscribe 02:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Digger (comic book)[edit]

Unsourced, unverified, and un-claimsofnotabilitied. Delete, per WP:ATT and WP:N-K@ngi e ^meep! 23:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a comic book available nationwide, from a reasonably major independent comic book publisher. Could use improvement, but I don't see that it should be deleted. I'll add it to the Wikiproject comics noticeboard in case somebody who knows more about it can contribute more. FrozenPurpleCube 02:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet the qualifications for notability, and I've read some of the comics myself. Could use some sourcing, but I don't imagine they'd be too hard to find. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 03:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shouldn't be too hard to find some better sources. With it being around for more than 15 years and over 130 issues by now, it is one of the longest running series in the small press / independent segment of the U.S. comics market. Just as a side note: not only published nationwide, but also internationally. There's a German translation, from publisher Eidalon. Kilthan 11:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of comics and animation-related deletions. -- -- Ben 23:57, 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 Withdrawn by nominator (no prejudice to otherwise referenced Albums/singles which need seperate attention and were speedily deleted) Agathoclea 20:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Shut_Up_Stella had to be deleted as copyvio Agathoclea 20:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fan 3[edit]

Completely non-notable. She's released only 4 songs and doesn't even have a label. Also co-nominating Let Me Clear My Throat (album) (highlight of article: "It was unreleased due to lack of interest."), Geek Love (Oh My Gosh) (her one song that actually was semi-popular), Digits (Fan 3 song) (a song from the soundtrack of Shark Tale, oh so notable), Boom (Fan 3 song) another soundtrack song, Broken_Home another radio single (article even admits lack of notability: "The song was sent to radio in March of 2005, but failed to make any mark."), Shut_Up_Stella (her new band) and ShutUpStella (album) which is just a rumored album, with no details as yet. Delete the lot of them (note: there are various other wikilinks in these articles to other alleged songs by this group but they lead to songs by other artists) Nardman1 23:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and somehow I missed What They Gonna Think and Category:Fan 3 songs during the initial nomination. Nardman1 00:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't even know where to begin, and I apologize for this entry being long, though it is a complicated issue. For starters, both Fan 3 and Shut Up Stella fulfill WP:MUSIC. Instead of getting into the nitty gritty of each section of WP:MUSIC, let me just say this: Fan 3 is signed to Geffen (see both allmusic.com and Geffen's webiste). Shut up Stella is signed to Epic Records (see more info here), and thus both artists are Notable and deserve to be on Wikipedia. Now comes the hard part: much of both Fan 3 and Shut up Stella's articles were written by a known vandal and sockpuppet, who goes by Fan3, Jack tha Ripper, JO Simpson, among a variety of other names. I, Deiz and Agathoclea have been on his track and have been blocking him systematically once he returns and vandalizes some more. Because of this, much of the information on both Fan 3 and Shut up Stella's articles is incorrect. This includes the albums released by both artists (Fan 3 only has one album, Digits, which isn't even mentioned on her main article, for example). And thus, I conclude with this: We should keep both Fan 3 and Shut Up Stella's main pages, but should delete the albums and singles, as they were all (I believe) written by the vandal/sockpuppet, and are probably mostly innacurate. I will make it my personal pet project to massively clean-up, copy-edit and fact-check both Fan 3 and Shut up Stella, and add album pages and singles, etc. accordingly. Rockstar915 04:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~After writing this, I realized that Shut up Stella doesn't even have its own page. But it should, as it is notable. And, assuming the AfD passes, will create it after the AfD closes. :)~~ Right-o, well, I'm changing the links accordingly. Thanks, Nardman1! :) Rockstar915 04:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's at Shut Up Stella. Nardman1 05:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination per Rockstar915. I didn't realize most of the information was incorrect. I'm glad you caught this. Reserving right to relist in say 2 months if no action taken. Nardman1 10:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found this through a related WP:CFD discussion. I know nothing about the performer in this article aside from what is written in the article itself. However, the article does clearly indicate that this person has produced music that is notable enough that it is included in TV and movie soundtracks. This appears to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Dr. Submillimeter 09:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment even though the nomination has been withdrawn, I do think that there is some merit to deleting both Fan 3 and Shut Up Stella's albums and singles, as many of them are either completely incorrect or don't even exist. Rockstar915 19:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I withdrew the nomination it was per your recommended cleanup plan. If necessary, would you tag for speedy deletion/afd/whatever the necessary articles when this nomination ends? Nardman1 02:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no! Sorry for the confusion. I knew what you meant when you withdrew the nomination. I just put the comment up so that any admins wouldn’t just close all of the AfDs. If they do, though, I’ll def speedy them. :) Rockstar915 03:53, 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.