Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 28

Guide to deletion

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

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

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

List of homeopathy articles without images

List of homeopathy articles without images (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

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

I'm really not sure to think about this article, so that's why I put it under AfD, instead of speedy, in hopes of comments about whether the article should stay or not. As always, comments appreciated. BlackBear 13:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Rough sex

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

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

Neogolgism to promote sites.You very nice place 11:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Article is blank now anyway. W.marsh 18:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Rainbow kiss

Original research, not notable slang term Alex Bakharev 00:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Maybe see Rainbow Party for context? Abeg92contribs 00:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not a notable term for sexual activity; per WP:NEO --Haemo 00:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Do not redirect to Rainbow Party, only the second definition fits this and it's even less notable. --Dhartung | Talk 00:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, probable OR, and as per WP:NEO. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 00:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable Mukadderat 02:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 04:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Don't redirect to rainbow party. Thats come nasty shit.--M8v2 05:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in a dictionary of slang. DoorsAjar 06:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As per nom.--Phill ^{talk Edits} 09:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom., WP:NEO, WP:N. Scienter 16:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Maybe add WP:CFSD to the above list. If I would have been on NP at the time, I would have just put a db-nonsense on it. BlackBear 17:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Location of Osama bin Laden

Location of Osama bin Laden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Is an article stating that no one knows where Osama is. Doesn't seem to merit its own page. Would support a merge with Osama bin Laden Kntrabssi 12:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• delete / merge - This article has little to no proof to the whereabouts of osama bin laden, if anyone had a clue where he was it would be the government. besides, with how easy it is to edit and defame and or deface an article these days, this page is just asking for vandalism or worse, propagandization. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.7.175.116 (talk) 08:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
• keep worthy of an article based on text, SYSS Mouse 12:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the topic is without a doubt notable as it is often the topic of news items. Also, the article appears to be well-sourced. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - "The whereabouts of Osama bin Laden are unknown" pretty much says it all. If an article consists mostly of "rumor has it" and "according to sources" then it's a news article, not an encyclopedia article. Otto4711 13:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - this is just a collection of rumours and conjectures. What is of value - if anything - should be merged with Osama bin Laden. BTLizard 13:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - This is one of the biggest issues in the world right now... If we have articles for a bunch of random stuff most people have never heard of, we should definitely have an article for this. BlackBear 13:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is rarely if ever a good reason for keeping an article. Articles stand or fall on their own merits, not because there are other articles on stuff that you consider "random." Otto4711 14:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I still feel the article is worthy of the article. BlackBear 22:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Osama bin Laden after taking out unsourced rumors and OR. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 14:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as it is full of speculation and OR. Feels a lot like crystalballery, just in a geographical sense. A redirect to Osama bin Laden would be an acceptable compromise. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Where's Waldo? Christopher Jost 15:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete An awful article based on blogs and other unreliable sources. if there's any legit info to salvage, put it on the main Osama page. Tarc 16:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge any sourced information to Osama bin Laden. -- Whpq 16:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Osama bin Laden per Whpq and Darthgriz⁹⁸ . Scienter 16:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I was going to say "merge", but every "fact" in the article regarding location turned out to be nothing more than a rumor, and several factoids don't even pertain to his location. I don't see how a collection of rumors would enhance the Bin Laden article. It should suffice to say that there have been many false reports of his death and unsubstantiated reports of his location. Djcastel 17:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Al-Bargit (talk • contribs) 18:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
• Keep verifiable information - merge if it ends up too short to stand alone (I don't have time now to follow-up but maybe I'll get back to it later today). A re-write is also in order: a heading like "Sightings" makes it sound like we're talking about Bigfoot. Jakerforever 19:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• KeepImportant topic, seems well covered. Robinson weijman 19:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. Most of these sources are not reliable (in this case). Reliable sources do not base their reports on "rumors" and "our sources". Sure, the rumors are verifiable. But that is not enough. Remove the worst stuff and merge the rest to the main article. You can keep the "rumors" that are actually based on something, but if the source gives no information at all about their original source, get rid of it. --- RockMFR 21:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as conjecture and OR. If there's any useful information (I see none here) beyond that, one can merge it into the article on Osama Bin Laden. --Dennisthe2 21:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Who needs this? Redirect to Osama bin Laden. Bigtop 22:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd support a delete and redirect, for what it's worth. IMO, we don't need that in the history. --Dennisthe2 22:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge anything noteworthy into the OBL page, then delete the rest. Realkyhick 01:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Again, please note that merge and delete is not a valid option. --- RockMFR 01:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Pointless since no one really knows where he is. The article is speculation and basically a list of sightings.--Bryson 02:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Reliably-sourced quotes to main article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to the main Osama bin Laden entry. MrMacMan 06:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge or Redirect to Osama bin Laden.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 12:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Osama bin Laden cs 19:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Osama bin Laden. After all the speculation is cleaned up, it seems that what remains would fit inside the section Osama_bin_laden#Current_whereabouts. --JianLi 20:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - the main Osama bin Laden article already covers this. Zerbey 20:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - this is identified as a sub-article in the main one on Osama bin Laden, but it needs work as the contnet of the current main article ought to reappear here. Alternatively, this should be retitled Alleged sightings of Osama bin Laden and be cross-referred with 'see also' at the end of the Location section of the main article. Even the rumours are noteworthy, bearing in mind his notability. Peterkingiron 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • You raise good points, Peter, but to be perfectly honest, this is in my opinion an article that probably would work better merged to the main article (per my !vote above), if even that. Whatever I can say here at this point is already discussed herein, so I'll leave it at that. --Dennisthe2 16:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep DXRAW 03:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • ...care to explain? Please see WP:JUSTAVOTE.
• Merge/Redirect to main article Mystache 15:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge only content supported by reliable sources, not speculation. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 21:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This article does not cite any reliable sources, except for a single BBC URL, so there is nothing worth merging. Every merged fact would have to be independently checked, so you might as well forget what's here now and start from scratch. EdJohnston 02:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Rlevse 23:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Zeller H Advanced Sniper Rifle

Zeller H Advanced Sniper Rifle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Irrelevant weapon, poorly constructed article.

Vixwald 00:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a video game guide. On a side note: "poorly constructed article" is not a reason for deletion. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not a notable weapons, and WP:NOT a game guide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haemo (talk • contribs) 00:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
• Delete, one game weapon which isn't even unique or unusual certainly isn't sufficiently notable for an article. -- Mithent 01:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikiepdia is not a game guide, if there was a list or article for the game redirect to that, if not then delete. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 14:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. and WP:NOT. Scienter 16:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Battlefield 2142. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep DXRAW 03:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The Eulenspiegel Society

The Eulenspiegel Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Given the lack of any third-party, reliable sources, I don't believe that a claimed membership of 800 is enough to meet the notability criteria of WP:ORG. RJASE1 ^Talk 00:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:ORG, WP:ATT, and contains weasel words. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup per [[User:Reinoutr|Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr's)] link below. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Potential keep, needs sources. Google News Archive results such as this show it has an international profile. (How is the number of members relevant to notability, anyway?) Within this societal niche they seem to have a lot of credibility. --Dhartung | Talk 00:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• weak keep since it is sourced--somewhat to my surprise. I never heard that weasel words was a reason to delete an article. It may be the only way to stay within the limits of V. DGG 01:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I mentioned weasel words only to list some of the multiple things wrong with it. It still doesn't have any sources besides the group's homepage. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 04:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is an important organization in the history of sexual minorities. Sources should be findable. In fact, I know someone who might know just where to find those sources, so I'd urge you not to delete the article right now. DoorsAjar 06:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, is covered a lot in a variety of books dealing with BDSM: [3]. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per Cpt. Morgan. I added a minor source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noroton (talk • contribs) 01:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

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

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

The result was keep. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Logitech MX revolution

Logitech MX revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

{{prod}} was removed without comment by User:149.28.228.106. After several edits by that user, the article remains without any claim to notability for this computer mouse product. Mikeblas 00:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Suggestion Maybe we should merge this discussion page with the one for the VX revolution. Then it would be eaiser to comment on them. Plus, if one gets deleted and the other is kept, it wouldn't make sense, so it's either keep both or delete both. KjtheDj 19:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete per WP:SPAM. RJASE1 ^Talk 00:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as it is 100%, unadulterated spam Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup - this is a relatively significant product release by a major electronics company; how is it not notable? Yes, it needs to sound less like an ad. In a few seconds I found reviews at CNET ([4]) and Anandtech ([5]), both of which I would consider reliable secondary sources. I'm sure it was also reviewed in dead-tree-format computer magazines. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Answer. It's not notable per the above. It's just another mouse. It'll be discontinued in a couple of years and replaced by something else. -- Mikeblas 02:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Virtually any computer product will be "discontinued in a couple of years and replaced by something else." Should we not have an article on, say, the Pentium III? That fits the above description too. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 23:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment I think you already know the answer to your own question, but I'll indulge you anyway. The Pentium III is notable because it's a far more complicated product with far more innovations. The development history is documented in books, its architecture is studied in textbooks, and there are a variety of interesting aspects of its history, performance, implementation, and application. (That's not true of all processors, by the way.) And it's true of very, very few mouses. On the contrary, should we have an article about every single product ever reviewed at a couple of websites or in a printed magazine or two? I hope not; that is, I hope the people using reviews and "references == notability" arguments understand that opens the door to hundreds of thousands of articles on all sorts of run-of-the-mill products, from stereo gear to knitting needles. That's pretty obviously not what Wikipedia needs, and I guess I mistakenly believed that everyone could see that. -- Mikeblas 00:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Its just another processor. It'll be replaced by something better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KjtheDj (talk • contribs) 23:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
          • Arrrrrrgh! Have you ever even touched this mouse? It sounds like you don't know anything about it, except that it is a mouse. As far as I can tell, there aren't even over ten mice that would even be notable enough for anyone to think of puting them in Wikipedia, so this doesn't "open the door" to all kinds of junk. Its just making an article of a product that I own that I like. KjtheDj 21:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC) KjtheDj 20:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Comment. Please remember that "I like it" is an argument to be avoided in AfDs. -- Mikeblas 02:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Reply to above If it is true of very few mouses, this is one of them. The only other mouse I can find in recent history to receive this depth of coverage is Apple's first multi-button USB mouse, the Apple Mighty Mouse, notable as representing a shift in thinking for the historically single-button Mac community. Irene Ringworm 02:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Another reply Maybe if this was some low rate 15 dollar mouse you would have an argument. However, this mouse has plenty of good sources, as already stated, has many cool features, and other stuff. I mean, there are plenty of other articles on mice, such as the Logitech G5 and the Apple Mighty Mouse. Why not delete those to if you want to delete this article? KjtheDj 19:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Comment. Its price doesn't make it notable. The "delete those too" argument is completely inappropriate; it should be obvious that I can read, evaluate, and edit only one article at a time. A such, there will always be some other article that should also be deleted. We're not talking about the Mighty Mouse or the G5 here; we're discussing the MX. -- Mikeblas 02:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep and cleanup as above - this mouse was quite widely reviewed as the range does have a unique feature in its unusual scroll wheel. An article should probably focus on that. -- Mithent 01:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep and cleanup, it's a product by a major consumer electronics company, and as Crotalus has proved above reliable secondary sources exist confirming its notability. Krimpet (talk/review) 06:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Just another mouse. SYSS Mouse 12:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Funny how you say "just another mouse" when you name is Syss Mouse —The preceding KjtheDj 00:02, 29 March 2007
• Delete per WP:N and maybe WP:SPAM. I think many of us can sympathize that can be tough to see your article erased for failing Notability, but the author should have been aware of Wikipedia policy and should never remove a prod. Scienter 16:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - No, that's not Wikipedia policy - anyone can remove a prod from an article for any reason bar blatant vandalism. Please see WP:PROD. exolon 23:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I was incorrect and KjtheDj was proper in removing the prod. Thank you for the correction. Scienter 23:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup per Krimpet. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep sources seem thttp://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Logitech+MX+revolution%22o exist... so meets notability standards, even if AfD voters apparently don't like the product or at least don't care about it. It's not spam just because it's about a commercial product. See also the related AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logitech VX revolution. --W.marsh 18:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Note. It takes more than sources to meet notability standard. Please see WP:N for the additional criteria. -- Mikeblas 00:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • How trite... I've been involved in discussing and promoting WP:N for months. I think I've seen it. --W.marsh 01:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. Then I'm surprised that you forgot to indicate you considered the quality and depth of the references, per WP:N, in your decision. -- Mikeblas 01:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
        • There are 125 results for this product on Google News [6] including publications like the Seattle Times. Perhaps there's not enough to write a featured article on this mouse, but the level of useful information we could get from the existing sources satisfies WP:N. The level of scrutiny you'd like us to apply is really out of step with what is done at AfD... most topics are kept once a few reliable sources can be found, let alone dozens. You may not think it's enough, but most people would. --W.marsh 02:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Sorry that I don't fit in with the status quo. But that's the only way to move things forward, isn't it? WP:N offers nothing to suggest that it isn't meant to be interpreted in precisely the way it was written. Many of the hits you've found in Google are posts in forums and on blogs, which aren't meaningful references -- unless it turns out that WP:R is also not meant to be interpreted the way it is written when it talks about dubious references. I indicate above why I think it's necessary to take a hard line when determining the -- Mikeblas 02:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
            • You're throwing out 125 results on the basis that some are blogs... I think you've already made up your mind here. --W.marsh 02:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
              • Nope; I've only pointed out that many of the hits you're relying on are not all viable. In fact, very few of them are. Of course I've already made up my mind; I wouldn't have opened the AfD if I hadn't. I can be easily moved by a persuasive argument, though. Or, by an explanation of why our notability policy means that Wikipedia should be a historical catalog of all products ever produced, in all categories, which happen to have been reviewed by a website or magazine or two. -- Mikeblas 02:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
                • CommentPersonally, when I came to Wikipedia, I thought, "Cool, this has the potential to be an encyclopedia about every thing. People could be able to find everything from pencils to continents." But I guess I was wrong after I had found WP:N. Plus, like I have already said, if this was an article about a 15 dollar mouse, things would be different, but it is not about some 15 dollar mouse. Plus, I started this article because it stood out, to me, as a mouse that wasn't just "some other mouse." I guess that kind of sounds like I'm trying to get you to buy it, but that, honestly, is the truth. KjtheDj 20:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
                • So a few of the sources are viable... but that's still not enough for you. That's my point... you have decided the kinds of articles that get written about computer mice are never going to be enough here. WP:N was actually written so Wikipedia could include a vast number of articles on topics like this... so long as they could be appropriately referenced. The point of WP:N was never to dramatically restrict what we could write articles on to topics with dozens of journal-quality articles as sources. So if that means we can have hundreds of articles on computer mice, that's what it means... maybe you want something more restrictive than WP:N. Such things have been proposed, but never went anywhere really. --W.marsh 03:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
                  • I'm really amused at how you're happy to tell me what it is or isn't that I'm doing. Your oh-fer at it, so far--but keep trying! I think I'm not asking for something more restrictive than WP:N; I think I'm just interpreting it at face value. I haven't decided anything about the kinds of articles that get written. WP:N tells us that, and it says that the references need to be substantial and meaningful. There are plenty of mice products which are notable: the first mouse itself, the first optical mouse, the first wheel mouse, and so on. I think there's a history of doing deep stories on products that are truly revolutionary or notable--stories, not reviews. Look at all the stories on the Macintosh, or the Corvettes, or the Pentium, and so on. This mouse is not in that class of product; I'll be happy to consider it so if there are books like Corvette: Fifty Years (ISBN 0760311803), The Pentium Chronicles: The People, Passion, and Politics Behind Intel's Landmark Chips (ISBN 0471736171), or Insanely Great: The Life and Times of Macintosh, the Computer That Changed Everything (ISBN 0140291776) about it; but right now there aren't. -- Mikeblas 02:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup, and merge with Logitech VX revolution, an identical product for laptops. External coverage is pretty much limited to product reviews but the depth of coverage (Anandtech writes over ten thousand words), suggests that this is more than "just another mouse". That being said, the current article reads like marketing material. Agree with Mithent that the new article should focus on the unique features. Irene Ringworm 19:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Indeed; since the references for this subject are mostly reviews, how can they be used as references in writing anything other than a review? -- Mikeblas 00:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply. Most new product introductions do not receive the depth of coverage that this one has received. Anandtech, Cnet, and their print cousins typically give little more than a passing mention to new peripherals in a buyer's guide. Anandtech gives this particular peripheral a nearly ten thousand word article describing major competitors, the history of logitech mice, and closing with "We found the overall design, ergonomics, and quality of materials to be the best of any mouse we have used to date. While the Revolution has several new features from both a hardware and software viewpoint, we found the new scroll wheel to be the most important technology introduced on this mouse." Certainly not every mouse on the market needs a wikipedia article but the MX and its VX sibling represent a significant offering from a major company that has achieved a level of attention and depth of coverage far beyond the norm. Irene Ringworm 02:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Question. How would you go about substantiating your "depth of coverage" claim? If you can find a way to do so, maybe it would be a good addition to WP:N. Until then, these reviews are just that -- reviews. I've explained here (or in the VX AfD, maybe) about how essentially all products get reviewed--even crappy ones. We can't possibly consider reviews a sign of notability, as review subjects are chosen indiscriminately. Truly notable products have hundreds of thousands or millions of words written about them: textbooks about computer architecture cover the Pentium's internal design, while the manuals for the product alone are more than 5000 pages, plus the books about the team and the way they worked. -- Mikeblas 02:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Reply By direct comparison with other comparable products. Most new mouse releases and other peripherals (game pads) don't garner ten thousand words from Anandtech - they usually don't even get their own article. A simple product refresh to the G7 series, for example, might get a passing mention in a weekly buyer's guide or - maybe - a three or four hundred word article. The same goes for coverage in other print magazines - not extensive in the way that a processor or new car release might be covered, but extensive compared to other comparable products.

By your standards, no mouse would be notable. If this is your position, then please simply state such (as DGG did above and leave it be. If your position is "some mice might be notable but this one isn't", you're going to have a tougher fight with that one. Maybe take the battle to the Logitech 'G' series page and start there? Irene Ringworm 05:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply. I think I've made my position pretty clear, so I'm surprised to see you misinterpret and/or overstate it. I don't think this mouse is notable enough for an article. The article doesn't make the case for it, either. The mouse hasn't won any interesting awards; its development story wasn't notable; its feature set isn't notable. There are notable mouses--they do win awards, they do get coverage beyond just product reviews, and so on. Few mouses are notable -- and that only makes sense. If all or many was notable, how would they be notable? -- Mikeblas 18:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, cleanup I am sorry I deleted that prod. I wasn't logged in and I was using a different computer than usual. I am not used to Wikipedia policies, as I am new. However, now I know. I do say that it needs cleanup, as the author. I also accidentally cleared the talk page for the article. See it for what happened. Whoever was posting, please put it back so I can see what it says. I did put a comment, on the talk page. Thats were you are supossed to put it, right? I have deleted that comment because now I feel it was rude. At first I thought it should be merged, but after looking at the changes I think that if we successfully edit Logitech VX revolution we can have ourselves two okay articles. KjtheDj 23:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Please see my comment on Scienter's contribution above - you are allowed to remove a prod for any reason, so you didn't break any policy. See WP:PROD for guidance. exolon 23:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Please see above. Scienter 23:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• 'Commment WP:PROD explains that you should leave an explanation of why the article shouldn't be deleted when removing the PROD. I noted what happened in the nomination for context, not because of any problem. -- Mikeblas 00:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge per above. Realkyhick 01:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak merge I don't think that you are going to be able to cleanup this entry well enough. MrMacMan 06:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I took a crack at an NPOV article to replace the marketing sludge in the original article. I tried to avoid the Logitech buzzwords and stick to the specs and notable features, in line with existing articles on computer peripherals. Irene Ringworm 17:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you. it is a lot better. See, if everyone tried to fix the articles instead of deleting them, we wouldn't be having this discussion. KjtheDj 20:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note I added a "Main Complaints" section and added the Amazon Product review as a source. KjtheDj 20:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• This may qualify as original research, in that you are inferring information from product reviews rather than citing a verifiable source. I'm not sure it adds much to the article. Irene Ringworm 20:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • • You're right, but people may want to use it, if the article survives the deletion process. KjtheDj 21:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Killed the section after appropriate comment by Mikeblas. Probably better to add links to a few notable product reviews (Cnet?) rather than User comments at amazon (which also constitutes a commerical link) Irene Ringworm 16:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Right; the user reviews at Amazon are self-publishing, and unsuitable for use as references at Wikipedia. -- Mikeblas 02:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note. One way that other classes of subjects establish notability is with awards. Celebrities, music, books, and so on, all can win awards. So can products; a car might be voted "compact light truck of the year" by a magazine, or win the Caldicott medal, and so on. A mouse, it seems, would be up for an IDEA award, or a "Best in show" or "innovative product" award at a trade show.[7] Has this mouse won anything beyond an "editors choice" award in a comparative review? -- Mikeblas 02:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It has won a couple of design awards but the only external sources for this are Logitech press releases. There are dozens of awards which exist for the sole purpose of advertising, so I've tried to avoid including them (even though they may establish notability). Irene Ringworm 05:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and try to merge more Logitech products together. I understand that from marketing point of view the more pages the better but that's no justification to turn WP into an online catalog. Pavel Vozenilek 09:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Question. So is this a vote to delete or to merge? There are already articles on MX series mice that could be merged into a single article. A vote to delete removes all existing content. Irene Ringworm 14:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WjBscribe 23:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

FlashcardExchange

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

Fails WP:WEB Chocolatepizza 00:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7 (no assertion of notability) Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as unremarkable webcontent. So tagged. MER-C 13:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. Scienter 16:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 21:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Nothing in article or sources (mostly blogs and myspace) to suggest there is anything notable about this individual. WjBscribe 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Betka Schpitz

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

Notability not established or sourced per WP:BIO. RJASE1 ^Talk 00:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Several mentions or articles in a number large or even small circulation magazines, as well as a popular topical blog might meet WP:BIO. I was limited to what I could look at while I'm at school, but I'm not very confident that this AfD nomination should be granted. (No claim of bad faith by the nom. implied whatsoever). Scienter 17:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not enough to prove notability. Realkyhick 01:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No sources to back up notability claims. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, says the inclusionist, knowing no one cares. I have added a link to a review of her blog on DirtySpoke.com, which argues for notability. I'm inclined to keep pages like this where there's some sense of a larger media awareness of the figure (rather than merely an ignored vanity site). The exposure from her blog, the modeling, & her formation of Just Suck It Already.com add up to a notable subcultural figure. She's odd, she's offensive, she's covered elsewhere (she's googlable, she has myspace to hype her), & she's still in our bailiwick. I'd much rather have stubs on people like this than more pages on individual TV episodes. Ventifax 04:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 21:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Perfect cube

The Perfect cube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vanity. I suspect non-notability because google does not lead me to any third party reiviews of the scupture. Whosasking 00:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I'm not convinced that this article should be deleted, although I can understand the non-notability claim.--Phill ^{talk Edits} 09:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - appears to have OR problems as well as the COI noted in the nom. -- BPMullins | Talk 13:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Does have problems with OR and has absolutely zero sources, reliable or otherwise. Also is written in a self-promotional tone and may well be a vanity page. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: Would like to keep but only if WP:A since this certainly is WP:OR. If fleshed out, great. If not, trash. Christopher Jost 17:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete Individual works of art should get articles only if there are truly sources. I suppose the images could go to wikiCommons. DGG 23:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Interesting, but unfortunately, no indications of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Move to Matt Hope Merge this with Horn Massive, let the guy have a stub with a link to his own site. Ventifax 04:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete absolutely no citations. This is a vanity page (see the history) and has all of the pitfalls that come with it. --JianLi 21:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Can we add Horn Massive to this AfD? It's also a vanity page by the same author. --JianLi 21:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. IF anyoen wants to BJAODN it I'll provide the info. I might do it myself.--Wizardman 12:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Beuche

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

I suspect this article is a hoax, judging from the content and lack of Google hits. Sable232 00:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Suspect hoax as well... a reliable source, even an obscure book, would make me happy. The article has only had one susbstantial edit (besides the cheese paragraph), and that was by the original, unregistered user. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 03:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - unsourced, and unsourceable. No relevant google hits for somthing that is supposedly part of folklore. -- Whpq 16:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I was thinking this could possibly be a legit folklore item until the "...have been dangerously drunk" line. This is a prank. Scienter 17:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Bollocks. Realkyhick 01:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I think Realkyhick has summed it up perfectly. Suriel1981 00:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Turf it Strongly suspect Complete Bollocks. Could be welcome on humourous wiki. Ventifax 05:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

could be good for WP:BJAODN Suriel1981 05:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Jaynan

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

I found this article interesting, but rules are rules. It's about a nonnotable player of a marginally notable game. YechielMan 00:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This article seems to be misinformation. The links I've checked point to the Leeroy Jenkins thing, and don't seem to reference this. Leeroy Jenkins video is from World of Warcraft, not Gears of War, nor an XBox 360, unless I am horribly mistaken. Hoax, even. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 03:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Check some of the links, this is clearly a prank. Scienter 17:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete maybe BJAODN, but not sufficiently verified.-- danntm ^T _C 19:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone else. Interesting, but should be deleted. Acalamari 22:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above, plus I think it's a joke. Realkyhick 02:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Cúchullain ^t/c 04:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

List of deaths in the Friday the 13th series

List of deaths in the Friday the 13th series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a real bad case of listcruft. While the article itself isn't TOO bad (and if it survives this nomination, I'd be willing to go through and clean it up), I fail to see the necessity of having so much duplicate information on another article, where the movie articles have enough information in them as it is. Because I've completely botched the listing, this is the first nomination. Mo0[talk] 01:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support deletion - While I believe in the notability of "Friday the 13th deaths", I don't think we need a list telling us every single death in the franchise. The films have been reemed for their use of gore and obligatory death scenes, and I think that should be noted in a prose section on the film series page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge into List of films by gory death scene MetsFan76 14:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mean merge the entire list? A lot of those deaths are repetative.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• I will reiterate my voice in the first AfD and say Delete this article. Nothing in it has changed - it is still a laundry list of people who died in a horror film of all things. It's what horror films are about, so isn't a list of deaths in a horror film superfluous? Lists should not be an indiscriminate collection of facts, and what could be more indiscriminate than deaths in a horror flick? Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep per WP:FICT. This is what amounts to a list of characters for the film series. Character lists are perfectly appropriate for Wikipedia as evidenced by Category:Lists of fictional characters by series. The list should be moved to List of deaths in the Friday the 13th film series to distinguish it from the TV series of the same name. Whatever happens, do not merge to List of films by gory death scene. Otto4711 17:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The first step is not to create a page for minor characters, but see if they can be listed on the film's article itself. Seeing as no 1 film has a list of minor characters that is too long to be on the page, I don't see why they need their own page. Second, being fictional, when writing about fiction you don't just write the fictional part and leave it. This is an encyclopedia, and I see hardly any evidence of encyclopedic content in this article. The encyclopedic content of this article is something that this article symbolizes, not what this article literally shows. What I mean is, this article symbolizes what F13 is famous for, gory, graphic deaths. Some of the deaths are noted on certain "top scary moment"-esque shows. Kevin Bacon's death is a very recognized scene, the death of Brenda...not so much. As I said before, it's something that should be written in prose, with reliable sources, discussing the nature of the deaths, the reaction by critics and the MPAA by the graphicness of them, and that's it. A list of every stupid little death is not important. Part 5 had what, 3 people killed by their eyes cut out. This is encyclopedic how? It's redundant deaths. The one about the girl being killed because she got caught in the blast of the shotgun in Jason Goes to Hell? That's not even "related" to the main character of the series. We might as well have a "List of deaths in Die Hard" page. Or, "List of deaths in Harry Potter".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether one should or shouldn't create a list article for minor characters (and there is nothing that I can find that indicates one shouldn't; as noted, WP:FICT actively encourages creating them rather than stubby articles for each one), this list exists. It does not appear to violate any Wikipedia policy or guideline and frankly the attitude expressed toward it by some of the people in this AFD indicate a strong willingness to ignore policy and guidelines in favor of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Calling the content "stupd little deaths" is rather telling. As for making similar articles for Die Hard or Harry Potter, I have no problem with that. It's just one more way of organizing the information on the characters. Which remains the point, that this is a character list which happens to consist of characters who are killed. If the list were called List of Friday the 13th film characters I doubt anyone who's declaiming against it would care. Otto4711 22:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, WP:FICT states that it should only be its own page when it doesn't fit in the article. I don't know about you, but last time I checked not a single F13 film article was bordering on excessive length. Secondly, having a "list of deaths" is like have a "list of every scene in this film" page. It's one thing to have a list of characters page where you can talk about the character, give some actor insight into the character, etc. A list of deaths is nothing more than a list of plot points, a list of scenes from a film. Where is the notability in listing 189 deaths in detail? None. You'll vote to delete a "list of magazine covers" but not a list of deaths? Fictional deaths at that. Wikipedia is not a repository for Friday the 13th deaths. This list bypasses the "list of characters" information and just wants to include fancruft. Also, don't try and pass judgement. I love the series, I own them all, but I know pointless fancruft when I see it. Again, the notability behind the theme of death is one thing, listing every single death in a film is another. Remember, "Wikipedia is not a substitution for watching the film," and a list of deaths is providing that substitution.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• The exact wording of WP:FICT is Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. This article covers the entire film series. The article on the film series, Friday the 13th (film series) would be overwhelmed if this list were included in it. I did not suggest that you don't like the films. I suggest that you don't like the list and your dislike of the list is leading you to endorse deletion when no valid deletion criterion has been offered. "Fancruft" is a lazy argument and it is not a valid deletion criterion. As to how I vote on any other article, that's irrelevant. Each article is supposed to be judged on its own merits and you've said nothing that demonstrates the need to delete this article. Otto4711 23:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I say it's fancruft, then it is to me. That's my opinion, and I don't believe that my vote said anything about cruft in it. I dont't think calling any argument "lazy" follows that civility policy you were flashing around at RGTraynor. Regardless, the "list" is broken up by films, thus the "minor characters" would be on each respective films page. This list is nothing more than the cast from the film articles. Listing deaths is not notable, you might as well list every scene in a film. "Deaths" are nothing more than scenes, and thus this list is nothing more than an ill contrived substitution for watching the movies, which is something that Wikipedia is not. As for your "valid deletion criterion offered", I think what's really going on here is that 6 other people believe there is valid deletion criterion here, and 1 person doesn't.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You are certainly free to believe that it's cruft, as long as you understand that "cruft" is not a criterion for deletion. Sorry if you think that calling an argument lazy is being uncivil.

Now, if your contention is now that the article is a "cast list," well, we have those too. See Category:Actors by film series. In fact, cast lists are now the preferred manner of keeping that information on Wikipedia, in place of the categories we previously had and which are all in the process of being listified and deleted.

As for the idea that these are nothing but plot summaries, I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. All we know from the list is the name of the character and the implement of his or her death. We do not know any other details of the scenes nor do we know any details of the scenes in which a death did not occur. They are not substitutes for the plots of the films and people reading the article will not know the plots.

As for the numbers game, Wikipedia isn't a democracy and AFD is not a vote. Otto4711 04:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to try and dismantle my discussion, at least try and quote me right. I said it's nothing but plot points, not a summary, that is completely different. As for the "cast list being preferred", why don't you look at what a cast list entails, and then compare that to this article...not the same.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 10:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per WP:NOT#IINFO. I'm not seeing any assertion of encyclopedic importance here. Not every random fact pop-culture-wise is of encyclopedic importance, and surely this is redundant info: we must have this information elsewhere in the articles about the films? Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries, either. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Anyone who's followed my AFDs knows how I love citing WP:NOT#IINFO but I don't see how a list of characters which is tightly bounded in scope and complete (pending another sequel) can be considered indiscriminate. If this were "list of deaths in horror films" then yes, and I firmly believe that List of films by gory death scene should have been deleted ages ago for being indiscriminate, but character lists are allowed and are indeed encouraged over individual minor character articles. This article is not a plot summary or collection of plot summaries either, as they provide little or no information about the plots of the films, just the character names and manners of death. Otto4711 18:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above. While restraining my disgust over what someone must be thinking to lovingly create such a list, it's just an indiscriminate collection of info, and I can't imagine what possible encyclopedic use it might have. (No, I'll think you're a liar if you try to tell me that you really had a burning desire to know who was killed in F13 movies and how.) RGTraynor 18:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please express your opinion in a civil fashion. Otto4711 18:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Which I did. How's that assuming good faith working for you? (And one wonders if you'd have said anything were you not strongly supporting this article, but I should assume good faith my own self.) RGTraynor 23:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is working just fine for me. I believe, in good faith, that pre-emptively calling people "liar" is an act of bad faith. Otto4711 04:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is not even comparable to the various list of characters from certain franchises because the characters have at least one sentence's worth of description about themselves. This list in question is about how the characters died and nothing more, which makes it a trivia article. I don't believe that I would be opposed to a list of characters from the series. A possible compromise would be to re-title this article to a similar list title and provide actual description of the characters besides how they died. If this is not possible, I stand by my vote. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Yes however a good amount of friday the 13th characters wind up having very little screentime so placing a quick description of them wouldnt be very helpful. Also adding more detail would break rules of WP:LIST as being too exessive. Jamesbuc

• Merge back into each individual Friday the 13th article if such a list isn't already there. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Which article? The "film series" article, or the individual film articles?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The individual film articles. Since these are horror films, a "List of deaths" section within each such article seems appropriate. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a "list of deaths" in the individual articles is appropriate as the information is nothing more than spoiler info, that has nothing to do with the article. I think the list should be turned into List of Friday the 13th characters, and real character informatio be added. I don't even think that needs its own page, because it isn't like each film is populated with tons of people. The films already have a cast section with all these characters. They should just be expanded upon to include character information. We have to remember that Wiki is an encyclopedia first, and death scenes are hardly notable as a whole.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If you believe that the article should be a character list, then you should !vote to Keep and Move the article to List of characters from the Friday the 13th film series. Otto4711 12:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting what I say. I don't want to keep this information, the information, as it's listed, is not notable, important, or hard to find (I already provided a link to the list on another site). I think a REAL character list should be created, one that follows other character lists. You keep citing the writing about fiction for minor characters, but that doesn't apply here, because this list isn't a list of minor characters it's a list of EVERY DEATH in the series, whether by a minor or major character. Not the same. A real list of characters would have information that is congruent to a "CAST" section in a film article, more specifically a film article that has reached FA status. It would look like this, this, or this. The difference would be that the "list" would be longer.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Otto4711. Epbr123 00:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Please read WP:PERNOM. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge the pertinent parts of the list (linked actors) back to their original films, deleting the rest. Despite their (rather uncivil) belittlementof the genre, another editor has made the point that WP:NOT#IINFO. That said, some of the info has apparent value, as it has been wikilinked (contrary to List of films by gory death scene, which seems to be rather significantly crufty). Arcayne 02:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Fancruft. Not encyclopaedic in nature.--Bryson 02:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Listcruft, fancruft, Crufty the Clown, take your pick. Realkyhick 03:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• My pick would be cruft in any form is not a valid argument for deletion. Otto4711 04:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEPDelete This is a list that is not available anywhere else. As such, it may be very valuable to someone out there who wants to use it as a reference of some sort. Just because you don't find it useful doesn't mean someone else doesn't.--Ng.j 05:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Since this list already exists on a more appropriate fansite, I think it should be deleted.--Ng.j 15:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• This list is available in other places, Here's one copy. Fridaythe13thfilms.com is not only a popular site, but a source for some of these F13 articles. Look what else is on the site, I'm thinking that each film should have a link to this website. If you think "death scenes" are important then link it to the appropriate film's section on "body counts".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 10:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Please read WP:USEFUL. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 11:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment {nods} Besides which while the "someone might find it useful" line is endemic to AfD discussions, I really have a hard time imagining who, exactly, would find a list of how precisely some random gumbys got hacked in some slasher flick useful, divorced from the individual movies themselves. I note, weirdly enough, that the individual movie articles don't have this laundry list, and you'd think that's the first place someone wanting this info would look. RGTraynor 12:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I only found it because of the footer that's on the bottom of most of the movie articles, the template. I never saw it get mentioned in any of the movie articles. I do agree with you that I'd be more likely to look at the movie article rather than an exhaustive list, just pointing out that there's really no reference to this list in the movie articles. Mo0[talk] 16:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and WP:NOT#IINFO. Chevinki 17:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Please read WP:PERNOM and WP:JUSTAPOLICY. It's preferred that a more substantial argument be made with deletion discussions per WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Makgraf 06:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Please read WP:PERNOM. Deletion debates are not a voting process, and your vote should be backed with as independent of an argument as possible. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 11:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:PERNOM and WP:JUSTAPOLICY are just elements of the same essay, purely the opinion of a handful of editors with zero weight as either policy or guideline. In point of fact, there is nothing in WP:AFD#How_to_discuss_an_AfD.2FWikietiquette requiring expansive editor's comments in an AfD. The degree to which a closing admin pays attention to "Delete per nom" is one thing, but haranguing people to come up with longwinded arguments needs a better reason than your personal preference. RGTraynor 14:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment "Haranguing" is a strong word. I've requested people who have voted both ways to substantiate their claims. The guide to discussing AfD says, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." It also says, "Do not base your recommendation solely on the information supplied by the nominator," which Makgraf did. The essay basically expands on what arguments are appropriate and are not appropriate. Even if we don't abide by it, the user is essentially making this a voting process by saying "Delete per nom." So yes, per the guideline, arguments should be made. It has nothing to do with personal preference and everything to do how an AfD should be carried out, to seek a consensus. Three words' worth of a recommendation does not meet the need for "arguments" to be presented by the editor. At the end of the section, it even says, "You don't have to make a recommendation on every nomination; consider not participating if you agree with the consensus that has already been formed." Otherwise, the person's recommendation is merely a throwaway, insubstantial vote. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep There has been many attempts as far as deleting this page is, the reason it should stay is that it does keep to WP:LIST as it keeps all details short and quick without too much fancrufty detail. Also it makes an easy and simple look up of deaths from one series into an easy to read and consise page. This is much simpler than having to trawl through 11 different pages to find out your infomation. As a third reason is that it contains simple details complete with cast listings that also apply with WP:FILM easily. I am aware of another site (fridaythe13thfilms.com) containing this infomation however unlike this page users must still look through about 11 different pages and another 11 for cast links. It is just a lot more simpler to have them placed in one pageUser:Jamesbuc

• Comment - Tell me, other than following the guidelines for "List" (which I could do by setting up a "List of movies where people pick their nose" (that would be concise and short)), exactly what is the importance, notability, or even reason for keep the list? Everyone on here that says "keep" is just saying "it fits these guidelines", and the guidelines being how it's formatted. But no one has come up with a reason that rebuts the reason everyone else say they are not notably important, or encyclopedic. 10:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment According to Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists, "Lists that are too specific are... a problem. The 'list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana' will be of little interest to anyone (except the person making the list)." You seem to be saying that "It's useful," which is an argument based on subjectivity, a judgment that should not apply to deletion debates. Maybe fridaythe13thfilms.com should be advised to reformat their lists so there's a singular list, but just because Wikipedia has that list available does not seem to be the most intact reasoning per the arguments that I've made in my own vote and this comment. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 11:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes thats true but considering that the main site is for the singular films mainly I doubt that they will merge all the pages together, secondly there are also links to the actors that people could want but considering the legnth of the series it is easier placing them in various pages (ive had many occourances where somebody's been confused about which film they were actually in). In any case ill repeat what I said again, it IS notable due to the nature of the films and it fully keeps withing WP:LIST guidelines. Jamesbuc

(Sorry for this being so long)...Every horror film deals with death. Friday is notable in the fact that its death are rather graphic and they are one of the reason it's panned by critics all the time. As I said before, the "theme" of death is notable, but not a list of every death that occured. You're only listing plot points from a movie, with no real world context in the entire list. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, and being so you have to have real world context. That is why film articles are not supposed to be just "plots" and why "plots" are not supposed to be overly long with minute details about every minor thing (e.g. like the death of a hitch hiker in The Final Chapter). This is a list someone created because they couldn't put every single death into the plot, it's a circumvent of plot guidelines. All the "featured lists" have real world context, that is why the are featured, and the point of every page should be to get to that status. I stated before, I think the "theme of deaths" should be noted (with reliable sources from crew and critics) on the "film series" page, but not a detailed list of every joe schmo in the film, that probably didn't even have any lines, who was killed. People have cited the "minor characters" guideline, but this isn't a list of minor characters, it's a list of deaths for EVERY character, even ones that were not major or minor in the films. To be accepted, you cannot simply say "it meets this requirement" if it fails several others. Would you vote to make the guideline for film plots any length the editor wants? Do you think that film articles should be based solely on the plots, and that we should tell the reader every little thing that happens? That is what this list does. It doesn't even attempt to turn a list into anything encyclopedic. A "theme of death" can be encyclopedic, because the series is well known for it's obligatory death scenes, but where is the value in listing every single death scene? Should we create a list of everyone that wore white after labor day? I'm sure someone wants to know that information, it's taboo.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for reason given in original nom --Orange Mike 23:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this article contains only trivia info.Dimts 06:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a crappy Geocities page built by a 14 year old. The plot information should be incorporated within the plot summaries of the individual film articles. This sort of stuff is pathetically immature. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep noteworthy list of an important plot element. In line with WP:LIST. Unless we decide that the Friday 13th series as such is unencyclopedic, we should keep the list. -- User:Docu
• Comment to quote janejellyroll: "As an above argument for deletion stated, this list serves no purpose other than to create a quick reference of deaths in a particular series of horror films. However, this particular series of horror films is seminal, very popular, spans over two decades, and has been the focus of scholarly works ("Games of Terror" by Vera Dika is one that comes to mind). The list itself avoids common pitfalls we've seen on other horror movie death lists (pointless pictures, lengthy plot recapitulations, unnecessarily gory details) and meets the guidelines at WP:LIST. Would it really be a better solution for readers to have to go to eleven different articles to see, for example, how many people have been killed with a machete in the Friday the 13th series? (Okay, I know some of you can't imagine anybody wanting to know that information ever . . . but anyway)" (from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths in the Friday the 13th series). -- User:Docu

Wikipedia is not a substitution for watching the film. If they are going from article to article in search of who gets killed and how, then they are looking for a substitution for watching the film. This is why film articles contain more information than just plots and cast list. This is why they contain info about production, releases, critical reception, because articles are not based around the plot or plot points of a film. How many people died of the same death in Part V? I can think of 3 right now, without looking at the page, that died just from eyes being cut out. Gee, let's have an article that lists the same thing over again. This article is the equivalent to have a list of scores for every football game in 2006. The relevance being? Of course, football is about scoring, it's been around for decades, so that means we need a list that tells us how many points a team score in every game of ever season. It's called "prose". You are taking a plot and breaking it down into a scene by scene list, only excluding everything that doesn't involve a death.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - per Docu's reasoning above. Rklawton 21:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Leeds WAMS Scheme

Leeds WAMS Scheme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable academic assistance scheme. Only Google results are from Wikipedia and mirrors, trivial short write-ups, and the school's own websites. [8] Resurgent insurgent 01:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Interestingly enough, one of my best friends is the long-time deputy in the Student Office at the University of Leeds, and she hasn't even heard of this program. It can't be as notable as all of that. RGTraynor 18:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems rather promotional. Most universities have some sort of "widening participation" scheme in place for one thing or another, none of which are especially notable. A one-sentence mention of the scheme in the University of Leeds article is the most it deserves, if that. --RFBailey 20:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Tefillin Date

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

I've never heard of such a thing. I suspect this phrase is rarely used if at all. Eliyak T·C 01:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Well I don't think you should nominate this because you never heard of it, seems notable. Lakers 01:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Eliyak T·C 01:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I have heard of it, and I can say with 100% certainty that the term has no place in Wikipedia for a host of reasons, most directly per WP:NEO.--DLand^TALK 01:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep But it would be nice to see some sources Ron Ritzman 01:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I tried to find similars like "shack pack" since that's what sorority girls call the kit they bring along on overnights to parties. Don't get me wrong, I like it, it's cute, but it fails WP:N.Christopher Jost 02:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep We have One-night stand, and while I haven't heard of this, I suppose it's probably in the same "bin." Point being, if somebody heard this and came to look it up, it'd make sense to be here, just as I can see somebody looking up "One Night Stand." Adequate sourcing may be another issue, but that's not the nom, and I don't care to try and open that can of worm at the moment... --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 03:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Article needs reliable sources, an assertion of notability, and compliance with WP:NEO in order to be kept. Currently none. Without these, deletion request is within policy. The issue is not whether or not the topic is controversial, it's whether or not it's encyclopedic. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. 39 ghits per this search, including the Wikipedia article and references to it. Mostly blogs, forums, private web sites and the like. Note that this source isn't usable -- the term appears in a non-peer-reviewed reader's comment. Of the 39, only this appeared to be even an arguable WP:RS, and it mentions the term only in passing -- just not enough mention to support an encyclopedia article. The term may be the sort that gets mentioned in print but not on the internet. But I doubt it, given the kind of neologism it is. Open to reconsideration if sources are found, however. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Shira, you know as well as anyone does that this phenomenon is old and widespread (and is quite encyclopedic), especially among the MO youth who are not so eloquent and won't get it "published" in journals and at the same time their parents (and sadly even their teachers and rabbis) run in shame from these kind of discussions or deliberately ignore this topic with determined blinkers even though it's been been around for a veeeery long time (or perhaps because they did the same thing themselves when they were that age...?) The only reason it's not discussed more often in a "scholarly way" is that this is a very shameful and embarrassing subject. Thus, there is no reason to run to delete and censor it under the guise of all sorts of Wikipedia rules which cannot hide an important sociological phenomenon (actually it's a failing!) No use acting like pro-Chabad editors who swing into action to delete comments about the Meshichistim or the Rebbe when it's not to their liking. Time to grow up and face the facts. IZAK 06:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what this last sentence is supposed to mean. Please review WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • What it means, unfortunately, is that I've noted few instances of Shirahadasha weighing in on a Judaic-related AfD without IZAK making retaliatory claims of bias. RGTraynor 18:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't think it is at attack on Shira. I think it is an attack on PinchasC. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 18:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Actually, it's not an attack on anybody. This is just by way of observation: That editors are human and they have their obvious pet topics they not only protect but also promote (when they actually get down to some serious creative writing) so that we have some on the "cutting edge" of Modern Orthodoxy promoting neologisms such as the new-fangled Partnership minyan or voting to keep derogatory articles about Haredi non-entities such as Shlomo Helbrans, but in this instance voting to delete a topic ("Tefillin Date") that casts Modern Orthodoxy in a negative light, which is much like some obviously pro-Chabad editors, I wasn't even thinking of anyone specific, who will try to eradicate or "chop down" topics that cast Chabad in a negative light such as the Barry Gurary or the Yechi articles so that, unfortunately, the whole truth and nothing but the truth never gets to see the light of day. Now that's not so complicated or nasty is it? IZAK 08:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No sources provided and no evidence to suggest that this is anything other than a WP:NEO violation. Alansohn 04:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep because this expression, and the phenomonon, has been around for a loooooong time. It's most definitely NOT a nelogism. IZAK 05:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• No sources, delete. Vizjim 09:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, does not seem notable enough for an article on wikipedia. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Whether or not the phenomenon is recent or ancient is not the issue. There are no sources for this and never will be that is the definition of WP:OR. The real curiosity of this phenomenon is that the people are very strict with a relatively minor law (tefillin) and ignore a major law (premarital sex - especially if she was a nida). I would support the inclusion of this general idea in Off the derech as this is not uncommon with those people at the fringes of orthodox Judaism. Jon513 13:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. An article about an expression? or a phenomenon? without multiple non-trivial published sources about it in any event. Whether or not the phrase is used by anyone is of no consequence - NYC JD (interrogatories) 13:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 15:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable and emblematic concept. Widely known and notable. Havn't you ever been on one? David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 17:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC) I mean delete, per Shira. Sorry IZAK - but cummon there are only 29 ghits, I don't think that people are covering up for MO failings here in the same way as some users try to for Chabad's dirty laundry. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - maybe a neologism, maybe not, doesn't matter. There's no assertion of encyclopedic notability here, or indeed of notability full stop. No reliable sources, no article. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Hold on a minute On third thoughts there do apear to be some good sources for the idea of a "tefillin date" here, here and one from Luke Ford: [9]. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 18:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is essentially a dicdef and/or unencyclopedaic. Of the three sources listed by David Spart above, the first two are the same article. Out. Brianyoumans 20:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • no no, there are three sources - but the first is a link to a google news archive search that gives two sources. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 20:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The first two sources are ones I cited above -- the Jerusalem post one is a one-sentence comment left by a reader (not from the newspaper itself), and the Los Angeles Jewish Journal has a single sentence in an article on a different topic that mentions the term once (as does the Luke Ford article). We're starting to get somewhere, but not sure this is enough coverage to support an article on the topic or establish that it's in common written use. Unfortunately the policies result in some perfectly good topics not being written enough about to support an article. This may be one. I've heard of the term myself, and if we had come up with more sources, my vote would have been Keep. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Okey dokey. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 20:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
        • So Shira, if, as you say: you've "heard of the term myself, and if we had come up with more sources, my vote would have been Keep" so then improve the darn article instead of pedalling backwards to contradict yourself. Wikipedia respects human intelligence and will allow a topic to grow if enough intelligent editors insist that the topic is part of the real world it is part of. Myabe you know of a few professors of Jewish studies... IZAK 08:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I couldn't find any reliable references on Google Epbr123 00:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, there are enough sources to show it's indeed a real term, taking into account the fact that internet sources might not be the best measure in this case considering the circles in which the term is used. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't deserve an article even if there are sources. Recury 14:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Valueless information Chesdovi 16:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Non-Jew with a view This feels like an urbandictionary entry to me (but it's not on UD, should I add it?). As a Gentile who doesn't immediately recognize the term tefillin, I find it interesting, & think it should be somewhere. I think some of us need to start our own sites with info that may run afoul of cries of "NN" (or has done). In the end, I don't know enough about the subculture to know if it's a widespread term, but it's probably mostly harmless, so I lean toward Keep. Ventifax 05:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Shimeru 05:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Rhudiprrt: Prince of Fur

Rhudiprrt: Prince of Fur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Furry comic published by what looks like a non-notable publisher, and has indeed been tagged as not asserting notability for a few months now. Doesn't cite sources, may as well be OR. Delete, per WP:ATT, WP:V and WP:N-K@ngie^meep! 01:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Article is nothing more than a summary of a comic with no assertion of WP:N, no reliable sources to satisfy WP:ATT. No reason to have this article. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Only 71 Google hits [10], almost all of them from the Wiki article and its mirrors, Wood's own website and a handful of commercial hawking sites. Even by the standards of the furry community this is scarcely a blip. RGTraynor 18:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Rewrite. Desperately needs dates of publication, & I think a different tone. I am not that concerned with presence of this page, specifically. I am however horrified to realise that Teri Sue Wood does not have a page either here or on WikiFur. I'll have to fix that. Ventifax 06:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I've actually heard of this one. And Google hits are a *very* poor way to discover notability of something primarily published during pre-WWW years. Ken Arromdee 18:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Not particularly. For instance, my own most recent publication credit (I've done a number of RPG books) was in 1991, well before the Web, and a directed search for my surname and that particular publisher alone turns up 580 hits [11]. I certainly don't claim to be a notable author under WP:BIO. Heck, let's not even go with major underground comix/strips like Cheech Wizard (which turns up 170,000 hits, thirty years after the creator's death) or the Freaks (43,000 hits, 15 years after the last issue). I remember an obscure one called Insect Fear that was published sporadically in the 1970s, and it has 1500 hits. RGTraynor 19:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC) [12]

Anecdotal evidence that doesn't change the point. Google is a poor measure of anything. Ventifax 02:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Plainly it is a sound measure of relative notability in this case, but if you've reliable, published sources (as WP:ATT, after all, requires) for the subject's notability, we'd all be glad to see them. RGTraynor 04:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails the attribution policy. Also fails to prove notability with reliable sources per nom. NeoFreak 06:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Shimeru 05:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Gnuff

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

Non notable furry comic. There's an interview with the creator of the comic listed as an external link, but that's about it. No reliable sources, no assertion of the notability of the comic, so delete per WP:ATT, WP:V and WP:N-K@ngie^meep! 01:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep.A series published internationally, by a respected and famous Danish cartoonist. Published over several years by Fantagraphics, one of the top comics publishers.

The article should be expanded and improved,true, but this anti-furry crusade is getting out of hand-- especiazlly as this is not a furry title. Rhinoracer 15:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Article is nothing more than a summary of a comic with no assertion of WP:N, no reliable sources to satisfy WP:ATT. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, internationally published, the creator is well known. 96T 16:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, is there some new WP:FURRY policy urging a purge that I don't know about? Artw 18:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep: if the assertion that the strip is widely published in Sunday newspapers is true, then it meets notability standards. However, reliable sources still need to be added to confirm this. Krimpet (talk/review) 01:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment:Here's Freddy Milton's bio on Lambieck: http://www.lambiek.net/artists/m/milton_f.htm The artist is obviously notable.

Information about Gnuff, from Allexperts:

http://en.allexperts.com/e/g/gn/gnuff.htm

...which site clearly states that Milton was interviewed, in print, in Amazing Heroesno 129; this is an authoritative source.

'Gnuff' also appeared in other comics, such as the Usagi Yojimbo color special:

http://www.usagiyojimbo.com/other/comics/uy-cs1.html

Clearly, a professionallly produced and distributed comic, the creation of a notable cartoonist.Rhinoracer 18:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• • All Experts is a wikipedia mirror, so not really a great reference. Lambiek is a pretty well respected source of information though. And the Usagi Yojimbo link should definately help establish notability, and should probably be added to the article right now. Artw 18:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (absolute, no kidding) Deleting Gnuff is like deleting Peanuts or Carl Barks. "Non-notable"? I'm sick to death of this anti-funny-animal crusade (by people who don't know critically acclaimed work in pop culture media from the fringe costume fetishists that "Furry" is being used to evoke.) This isn't even funny. Ventifax 06:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 05:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as totally failing WP:ATT. Article also fails to prove notability with reliable sources. There is no crusade against furries, just inappropriate articles. This belongs at WikiFur. NeoFreak 06:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Really? At an ostensible furry fansite that after 20 months still has no pages for Carl Barks or Freddy Milton? WikiFur is fannish & fringe, & tends toward vanity pages by Anglophone furries. Gnuff is not part of that subculture, & it deserves to be on a page that will actually be read by people who aren't "furries". Ventifax 06:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well wether or not this material is suited to a Wiki dedicated to English speaking anthropomorphism fans is not really the issue. The issue is this article meets the deletion criteria for wikipedia. NeoFreak 06:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep; WP:SNOW comes into play here. Picaroon 18:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Flocabulary

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

This appears to be simply an advertisment with slight WP:A or WP:N a work in progress. Christopher Jost 01:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that I've not yet completed writing the article and, as such, more citations and a few more sections are coming. However, if the article appears to be an advertisement, then I welcome anyone to trim out any POV. I'm not sure where you're seeing WP:A problems. Your claims of a WP:N violation are understandable, but I think that notability is established by the amount of publicity the project has recieved. Thanks, --Brandt Luke Zorn 03:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Seems an encyclopedic topic (just about) - Keep and tag for improvement. Vizjim 09:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, encyclopedic topic. --DorisHノート 17:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Well written, enough coverage to show notability, and better referenced than the vast majority of existing content. -- Mikeblas 18:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly notable per the sources linked (as well as the coverage referenced on the site's press page). Could use a little copy-editing in spots, but I don't see this as "simply an advertisement". JavaTenor 21:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Well attributed, but spammy - clean it up. --Dennisthe2 23:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Would this article be appropriate for inclusion into the Hip-hop and/or Eduction WikiProjects? I think it could be improved with help from others, though I am not a member of either of those two WikiProjects and so won't slap the WikiProject templates on the talk page without advise. --Brandt Luke Zorn 01:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's still a bit spammy, but attribs are enough. Realkyhick 03:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability proven with citations. - Freechild 07:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus. Cúchullain ^t/c 04:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Aspects of Pluto

Aspects of Pluto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

sister articles prod'ed: WP:OR, inherently unencyclopedic content. Would perhaps belong in an almanac. Potatoswatter 01:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This concerns astrology, not astronomy. Some of these numbers are useful when making predictions... (in which case WP:CRYSTAL still applies?) But knowing how bright Pluto is some day 10 years from now is really, really, unimportant. If you want to observe on a given day you can consult a calculator; these numbers aren't for "today". I didn't stress that at first. Potatoswatter 09:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Not CRYSTAL - astronomical motion is regular & predictable. Ventifax 06:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic about astrology. Potatoswatter 07:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment THIS INFORMATION IS REALLY TRIVIAL. Try Googling ephemeris calculator or even aspects of Mars - there are lots of links to choose from. Or ephemeris#External links. This is spurring lots of WP:NOT related legal discussion. WP:NOT is NOT the issue, and I apologize for bringing up the almanac thing. I thought it was clear that an almanac is by definition an indiscriminate collection of information... anyway, consider WP:NN. Wikipedia is not an almanac and indiscriminate information is discouraged because it is NN. I don't know why people want ephemeris tables like these specifically from Wikipedia, but look at that list of calculators! You can get any data you want, very easily. The original author ignored the prod on the other articles. Could someone weigh in on how these articles are actually useful, or advantages over the calculators and tables linked from ephemeris?
  • Before I post... I suppose lots of Google hits would defeat the NN argument. But also consider that many of those sites are also more informative on astrology as well, not to mention having much more data. What we need is more information in ephemeris so interested people can learn... not an independent handbook for astrologers who happen to like Wikipedia. Potatoswatter 21:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following closely related pages:

Aspects of Uranus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Aspects of Neptune (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Aspects of Mars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Not really WP material, but looks informative enough that it should be transwikied sometwhere (Wikisource, perhaps?). Grutness...wha? 03:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Considering that the original author copied the tables out of his astronomy software, it might be borderline copyvio. I'm not sure... see the link from the deletion log on Aspects of Saturn. Either way, people who know enough to use this info should have a source already or a way of generating it. Potatoswatter 04:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • FWIW, data generated by an ephemeris programme is not copyrightable. If it is generated correctly, it will lack originality, and originality is one of the requirements for copyright. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and comment Wikipedia is full of almanac information. Almanac facts are not copyrightable, only commentary is. I just find the name confusing. --68.186.42.46 07:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree... almanac info is inherently NN and therefore rare on Wikipedia. Do you have examples? You are right on the copyright side, although I still don't like the idea that he just copied and pasted from his calculator to generate several articles. (He didn't contest the prods, either.) This looks authoritative because there are lots of numbers, but again, anyone with a use for them already knows where to look. This info is readily available in eg Sky and Telescope magazine. The article doesn't even link to ephemeris (and I'm too clueless on astrology to be able to usefully fix that). Potatoswatter 08:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Generic info such as this could more appropriately be merged into a generic article like ephemeris. It would still be cumbersome, NN, and lack context though. Potatoswatter 08:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - pointless and listcrufty (and crystalbally) Vizjim 09:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I recently helped take the Mars article to featured article status Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mars :) and at least two of the reviewers asked for me to include information that is in this table - so since the aspects of Mars page already existed, I just pointed them at it and they were satisfied. So, delete this page and I will just have to include the info in the Mars page? This info isn't just for astrology - that's just a pointless comment. Yes the info is taken from a program but I provided a ref for one column of it and it checks out. Kind regards, sbandrews (t) 10:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, with some reluctance. Wikipedia is not an ephemeris. If this data was, in fact, generated by software, those who want it should get and run a comparable program. The data presented is both constrained in time to a few years before and after the present; this will require perennial updating, and there is a point after which old data will become much less interesting. Frankly, I expected this to be about aspects of Pluto and their significance in astrology: that is an article I would cheerfully keep. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you, I agree that this is the criteria that WP:NOT is the criteria we should be looking at - but I don't see it written that wikipedia is not an ephemeris on the WP:NOT page - so could you narrow it down to the specific part of WP:NOT that you think this page contravenes? Regards, sbandrews (t) 14:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT, and especially the sections that might arguably be relevant, are very problematic right now for just this reason. There are those who would call this "indiscriminate" information, when it isn't really; however, it is essentially raw data, not really subject to editing, only to reformatting. Perhaps a transwiki to Wikisource might be the best solution to preserve ephemeris data. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read the WP:NOT talk page and came to the same conclustion. It's as easy to edit this page as any other on wikipedia - I suspect that the main argument against this page is that it is numerical, and people just don't like numbers. Incidently there is a WP:NOT clause that argues in favour of the page, WP is not paper. I notice that on talk:Ephemeris there is someone complaining that ephemeris data is missing on wikisource, if the info is moved there who will safegaurd it from being deleted from there? Is this just a case of NIMBY, or NNIMBY (No Numbers!), regards sbandrews (t) 15:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the point of transwikiing it to Wikisource would be to preserve the data; and the Wikisource page could be linked from the main Pluto page by a simple template. Besides, everybody knows that numbers higher than three are mythical, don't really mean anything, and were invented by city slickers only to confuse us. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I just went over to wikisource to take a look round, never been there before - it's kinda small still, 50k pages in the English one. Anyway, this[13] page seems fairly catagorical that this page will not find a happy home there - and honestly, who said anything about going as high as three? sbandrews (t) 16:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Never really looked at the criteria for Wikisource, either. There probably ought to be some kind of coordination between there and here. Unless another home is suggested that will surely take and keep this sort of data, I'm changing my opinion to keep. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Wikisource apparently does not want to include data tables, as is relevant to the LC Classification discussion also. there might well be a need for a WikiAlmanac, though I'm not about to propose it here and now. There are other articles that are mainly collections of data. I suggest that the article could be improved by a discussion of the intended use of the information. DGG 23:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki — An ephemeris doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. If not wikisource, then a wikibook in an astrology and/or astronomy section might serve. I wouldn't think an astronomer would be using this information to plan an observing session. More likely [s]he'd want concurrent data, and there are online sites that provide such tables. — RJH (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• comment I am a little doubtful about basing decisions on what may be available elsewhere: For almost all non-historical subjects, there is material readily available elsewhere on the web. Where WP differs is selectivity and organization. Athletic results, for example, are available on the web, and in greater detail than shown here. Worldcat includes millions of books, but WP has a selection of the notable ones. etc. I thing convenient summaries like this are appropriate for WP. Possibly we can develop a more specialized location, but then it could be argued that election results should go there, while in fact they are included in articles about most politicians. there's immense amounts of data in W. This is not going to distort the balance. DGG 22:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, but this doesn't appear to be a particularly selectively interesting bit of information. There is no claim to notability or context. Potatoswatter 22:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced unorganized data-dump of a trivial nature, without explainations. 132.205.44.134 23:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, do not transwiki - "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." These articles are comprised entirely of indiscriminate information; they merely lists some arbitrary statistics on various planets. It is not clear as to whether the information is relevant to either astronomers or astrologers (or even who the intended audience was). The information is unreferenced and presented in a confusing manner; for example, it is unclear as to whether the distances and diameters correspond to the dates on which the planets are stationary, the dates on which the planets are in conjunction, or the planets are in opposition. Hence, copying these data to wikisource or wikibook is not even worthwhile. I therefore recommend straightforward deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 06:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Change/Expand/Replace The suggestion above of a page explaining the significance of aspects of Pluto in astrology is a good idea & could be integrated into this. As it is, it's pretty unclear & looks incomplete. Ventifax 05:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment shouldn't they all be merged into a single ephemeris in the Solar System article then, following your line of reasoning? 132.205.44.134 22:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Natalie 02:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Lee (businessman)

Patrick Lee (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable Epbr123 02:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. His company bio says even less, so question need for disambiguation. Christopher Jost 02:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Article doesn't even assert any notability for him, so CSD A7. So tagged. Mwelch 02:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was

Finheaven

The result was Speedy deleted db-web. Mak (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Non-notable fansite, fails WP:WEB. Michael Greiner 02:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, per nomination. --RFBailey 20:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Easily fails WP:WEB. Realkyhick 03:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep- nomination withdrawn. WjBscribe 00:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Bryan Wagner

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO Mwelch 02:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN per discussion below. Mwelch 20:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Subject's only notability is being elected to a partial two-year term on the New Orleans city council in 1980. Article's only cited sources are original research. Mwelch 02:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Mwelch. Obvious lack of notability, proximity to Louisiana ... Why, yes, it is indeed another by Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs). Whom I'm not being hard on, as he's still creating them as fast as we can put them on AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 05:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep apparently got a lot of media coverage in the 1980s, including by the New York Times [14] so that satisfies WP:A / WP:BIO. --W.marsh 14:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Wizardman 12:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Donald M. Rawson

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

Subject is non-notable per WP:PROF Mwelch 03:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. A non-notable professor. Entire content of article is original research: the article author's personal interview with the subject, the author's former professor. Mwelch 03:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 03:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Accomplishment is not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 05:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete Not notable as an academic researcher, possibly asa teacher, but how can we judge?DGG 07:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Mwelch and Dhartung said it well. DoorsAjar 07:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. I've come to the conclusion that if you've ever spent more than ten minutes with this author, he'll write an article about you. He has a history of writing about non-notable or barely notable subjects. It probably taints my view of articles he's authored, but so be it. Realkyhick 03:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Speedy deleted. Attack page created by a banned user. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Will Mcwhinney Jr.

Will Mcwhinney Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person does not seem to meet WP:BIO or WP:ATT. Appears to be some guy who's just a local volunteer. The "sources" are all broken links. Delete as lacking notability and sources. Wickethewok 03:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - No existing sources... how odd. Article information doesn't provide much case for notability. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 03:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• It may be worth noting that the article creator is repeatedly removing the AFD tag despite numerous warnings. I have provided the link to this page twice, but he does not seem to acknowledge this... Wickethewok 03:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm going to speedy this — it's been created as an attack page by a banned user. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Why is it an attack article? Wickethewok 04:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Answered by e-mail. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

The result was AfD withdrawn by nominator Newyorkbrad 01:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

John Malcolm Duhé, Jr.

Subject is not notable per WP:BIO Mwelch 03:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN per discussion below. Mwelch 20:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Retired judge of no note. Mwelch 03:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Mwelch. --Dhartung | Talk 05:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per discussion. --Dhartung | Talk 19:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A majority of the circuit judges have Wikipedia bios. Why is Duhe being singled out? Because he recently retired? That doesn't make sense. Chicken Wing 08:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note Check out this talk page. It seems there is an effort to delete every biographical article that user is involved with. Perhaps this effort was a little overzealous as at least one legitimate article has been caught in the crossfire. Chicken Wing 08:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• I cannot speak for Mwelch, but that Talk page shows that Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs) has a record of creating biographical articles of questionable notability. Some of them have been kept, others have been deleted (both via AFD and CSD). I certainly have no intent of nominating "every biographical article that user is involved with", only the ones where notability is lacking or questionable. Hathorn does have skill as an editor and has applied that to articles that are obvious keeps, such as Lieutenant Governors or members of the state legislature. --Dhartung | Talk 10:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, that was my point of directing to his talk page. He seems to create questionable bios, and so there has been an effort to delete them. What I'm saying is that this article got caught up in all of that, but it doesn't belong. Almost all the fifth circuit judges have bios. This one shouldn't be singled out simply because Billy Hathorn has edited it. Chicken Wing 11:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Let me just say that it certainly wasn't any attempt to "single out" Judge Duhe. I simply didn't see any indication in WP:BIO that notability is inherent, that's all. If there is such a strong consensus (and obviously, it is) that they are, I have no problem backing down on it and offering my apologies. I suspect I did err due to haste in the research though. I went to newslibrary.com yet now I see results where before I did not. I suspect now that I misspelled his name on my first attempt, and I just did not slow down enough to notice the error. Mwelch 20:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per above, and at least 1 published article was written about this guy [15], probably more since it's a bit hard to track down articles from the 1980s. Papers do tend to write about judges. --W.marsh 14:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as circuit judges, regardless of tenure or impact, have all authored notable decisions. He is referenced on pages about the 5th circuit and his appointment to the bench was itself a notable event. --sortaSean 16:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The United States Courts of Appeals are the level of federal courts one level below the Supreme Court of the United States. Judges past and present on these courts are inherently notable (at least I certainly hope they are, as I have created about 25 of their biographies). Newyorkbrad 17:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I'm a little surprised at this nomination to be honest. A U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals judge? These people are inherently notable, even if they are not famous. Retired yes, but this person held a tremendous amount of power during his career as a judge- definitely not a small potato. If the page needs sources, let's source it. I'll try to help out with this one. Thanks, Scienter 17:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep this isn't precedent setting, those arguing for it being kept have demonstarted(inc 5 secondary sources) its not an indiscriminate collection of information. Gnangarra 05:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Seven Network slogans

List of Seven Network slogans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An unreferenced indiscriminate collection of information. Originally {{prod}}ded [16], and subsequently removed [17] w/o comment. Full disclosure: I am the editor who originally {{prod}}ded the article; along with Ed g2s (talk · contribs), I have also repeatedly removed a gallery of fair-use images from the article. [18] & [19]

• Delete. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support removal of fair-use gallery from article, and deletion of images if not used elsewhere. Weak delete on article, unless some context about the slogans can be provided. -- saberwyn 06:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep with more information added and Remove Images - Mike Beckham 06:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as indiscriminate collection of information. I can foresee list of NBC slogans (American), list of TV Mobile slogans (Singaporean), list of TV3 slogans (Malaysia), or list of TVB slogans (Hong Kong) if this is kept. Oh wait... there's NBC slogans ripe for the picking. Resurgent insurgent 07:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• List of NBC slogans is up for AfD as well. Resurgent insurgent 08:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 09:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - this was split from the main article, where it made more sense. Don't just delete it because it was split off - this is happening far too frequently and has got to stop. The gallery of logos was kept from a previous AfD and should not be deleted. JRG 09:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The title of the page indicates this is a list of slogans. Even if we suppose such a list is encyclopedic, I do not see how a gallery of logos is relevant on a page meant for slogans. The slogans are definitely not "critical commentary" on the logos by any interpretation of the term! Resurgent insurgent 10:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as clearly being indiscriminate collection of information. While it may be true and verifyable from reliable sources the subject is not encyclopediac. Even if this were part of another, keepable, article I would advocate removing it as a pointless list - Peripitus (Talk) 09:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The advertising/namebranding of a major company is a reasonable subject to cover. It could be merged into Seven Network, but as some of the links I provided show, this kind of marketing is quite notable. FrozenPurpleCube 16:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

PS, could somebody explain to me how this is indiscriminate information? It's not a FAQ, travel guide, memorial or any of the other entries described at WP:NOT#IINFO, but rather the actions of a major company, something that is the subject of regular coverage in the media. FrozenPurpleCube 19:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That list in WP:NOT is not intended to be all encompassing. It is meant to provide examples of what is indiscriminate. The seven network does many many many things, much of which is reported on as they are a media company. You could easily make a referenced list of many other things at the network just due to this fact. A list like this clearly fails the notability requirements in that noone outside the seven network or associated companies cares enough to write substantially about it. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that the list at that location is all-encompassing, but the problem is lacking any connection to the criteria on that list, leaves the statement that any particular information qualifies as indiscriminate without substance. Thus I ask people to explain why they believe it is indiscriminate information, not to just declare it such. Without that articulation, it's not exactly much to go on. However, since you do mention outside people writing about it, well, guess what, they do. I already provided links which show that the namebranding/identity building of networks is something that is covered in the news. Not being an Australian, I don't know where to look for sources from that country which would be more likely to cover this company directly, but I accept that in principle such could exist for what seems to be one of the larger Australian broadcasting organizations. FrozenPurpleCube 23:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Not encyclopaedic in nature and un-referenced.--Bryson 02:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as lacking reference and fails to meet my criterion on use as providing a summary of notable people or things we have or should have articles on or useful list. Notable slogans should be noted in the article on the Seven Network although it seems to be the case that Seven changes its slogan every year. Capitalistroadster 03:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because it's information already included in the various TV station articles. timgraham 07:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, a non-encyclopædic collection of tidbits of information. Lankiveil 11:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
• keep at this stage. This list is an impressive collection of slogans used by a very notable company in Australia. I agree it wouldnt be considered encyclopedic if it was going to be printed on paper, but the lack of sources does not mean that the slogans are disputed, and the list format means it is not OR. Give the contributors time to develop this interesting article that demonstrates branding in practise. In the back of my mind is the fact that this is a prominent piece of a companies branding that is shoved down our throats daily (if we watch that is), and I cant help but think that there is an encyclopaedic piece on the brand that will come of this if we let it be. The outcome could be very similar to our articles on flags of each nation. Note that it would be very easy to add video evidence of these slogans, except that doing so it not as easy as jotting down the details of each slogan, hence the evidence being missing. In a way, the date range provided for each slogan is a citation. The article says go to an archive of the TV programs of this period and you will find that slogan. Also, these slogans are often mentioned in commentaries by other media networks in a derogatory way, and the more notable the slogan, the more often they appear in comedy and in satire. John Vandenberg 11:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as listcruft or include their most recent slogan in the network articles page--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Nobody has demonstrated that these slogans been written about by anybody who is independent of the Seven network. Adding video evidence is insufficient because that is not independent coverage - it is OK to validate each individual element with primary source material, but there needs to be secondary source material to show that the whole topic is notable.Garrie 23:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Allow me to be the first to demonstrate that: "The One to Watch": [20] "Love You Brisbane" [21]. Misc discussion about slogans [22], [23], [24]. Slogans are part of our culture. This is no different to the Swoosh having an article. John Vandenberg 05:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge slogans back to Seven Network article, on the condition that some information be added. As for the images, they are an interesting and notable part of the network, and should be kept, though this article is not the place. JRG 08:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. If you guys want to recreate it as a redirect that's fine.--Wizardman 12:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Gears of War (film)

Gears of War (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 03:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Crystal Balling at it's best. Film is not due out until 2009, according to IMDB. The only indications that the movie might possibly be made is the fact that New Line picked up the rights, which is not even close to an indication that the film might actually be made. There is quite literally no information about this film which is available. It could be summed up within the Gears of War article itself with one sentence, that New Line has optioned the rights to the game. Picking up the rights does not equal actually making a film, otherwise John Woo would have made a Metroid movie. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 03:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete In the immortal words of one Jim Jones: BAAAALLIN'!!! ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 05:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete until external verification that the movie is in production with imminent release. As said in nomination, what can be verified can be summed up in a paragraph (at the absolute, utter, ridiculous most), located within the game's article. Possibility of redirection to discourage recreation until the movie is imminent? -- saberwyn 06:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wikinews or delete. There is nothing in the article beyond an announcement of licensing rights, which might be borderline newsworthy given the success of the game it is based on. It is too early for encyclopedic treatment of the subject. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ---Haemo 07:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The only verifiable info is that New Line Cinema picked up the license for it. IF the movie gets made (and I stress IF since many video games have had their movie rights picked up and nothing happened afterwards) and solid info is released, it can be recreated. TJ Spyke 08:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - As above, though a brief one-sentence mention could be made in the main article. Wickethewok 13:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because acquisition of film rights do not equate actual production of the film. Studios often pick up film rights for various kinds of source material, but don't actually produce everything they have into films. I checked Gears of War, and the sole valid citation under the Film section suffices for now. Once a director, a cast, and a production start date is established, then there would be a stronger case for an actual film article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete until production officially announced. If I may comment, though, 2009 is only two years away so it shouldn't necessarily trigger the same red flags as 2009 release dates might have in 2006 or earlier. It's quite feasible for an officially announced -- or widely anticipated -- film release to now have an 09 date. Star Trek XI is only 6 days short of being a 2009 release, for example. 23skidoo 18:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment IMDb always assigns some kind of release year to a film, even though none has been announced. This is the same case with Gears of War, so don't let the release years presented by IMDb sway any kind of argument. IMDb even lists Raimi's briefly-announced The Shadow for 2010, as well as Thor (2009) and Sub-Mariner (2008), despite no release date ever suggested for these projects. They even have 300 stuck on 2006 for some reason. The recently deleted Alice has a release year for 2007, which is extremely unlikely with zero production news since 2005. You will never see a (TBA) attached to any of IMDb's films, always a release year. This kind of setup, which I've seen as a major factor in votes to keep articles on future films, should never be relied upon. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect the article to Gears of War to prevent re-creation, as saberwyn suggested. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect, with merge of some info as needed. Realkyhick 03:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was snow delete—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Alejandro T. Quiboloy

Alejandro T. Quiboloy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not established. In addition, Wikipedia is not a hagiography or a tribute page. Tito Pao 03:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Unencyclopedic tone, no evidence of notable accomplishment, no citations. DoorsAjar 07:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Howard the Duck 09:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable even if it were written in encyclopedic style.DGG 23:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete google search didn't yield any reliable sources. --Lenticel 00:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a tribute, not an encyclopedic article, and notability is limited at best. Sources are iffy. Realkyhick 03:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: I'll append Alejandro Turla Quiboloy to this nomination. --Howard the Duck 13:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Lieutenant Colonel Robert Strayer

Lieutenant Colonel Robert Strayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article does not assert notability of the subject per the guidelines of WP:BIO. Nv8200p talk 03:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, and a number of others at Easy Company (Band of Brothers) need to be looked at closely. They were plucked from obscurity for the book and then movie, but are they individually notable? I do not believe so. --Dhartung | Talk 05:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, with second option to merge into a annotated list. Vague importance established by being member of a group of soldiers dealt with in a book and tv series, but I think most of these articles will be very similar, and a list would reduce the duplication. -- saberwyn 06:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete They should be treated as we would treat the fictional characters, by a merge into the article on the book/movie. DGG 23:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect or delete There is nothing in the page that isn't already in Easy Company (Band of Brothers). If there is more information then it would be possible to revert the page and it add it in later.--Ng.j 05:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Huntingtown, Maryland's Snowstorms 2002-?

Huntingtown, Maryland's Snowstorms 2002-? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable events. No media coverage cited. Nv8200p talk 03:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete After this, can we make an article for "days of light rain?" (forgive my sarcasm, but it makes the point best) --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 04:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I thought the question mark in the title meant the snowstorms had started in 2002 and hadn't stopped since. Plasticbottle 04:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as unsourced and indiscriminate information. --Metropolitan90 05:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, individual, wide-scale weather events can be notable, but this is indiscriminate (i.e. snowstorms happen everywhere, why are these notable?). --Dhartung | Talk 05:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. --RFBailey 20:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Cúchullain ^t/c 04:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Honoré de Balzac in popular culture

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

An indiscriminate collection of the most fleeting references to the playwright as possible. (Tee-hee, didja notice that "Balzac" sounds like "ball sack?") Krimpet (talk/review) 04:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - totally unreferenced, non-notable trivia. The last couple of sections are particularly aggregious - by no stretch of the imagination can a pun based on his name be considered a notable pop culture reference. --Haemo 07:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Oppose any suggestion to merge any of this to Balzac's article. Otto4711 13:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, per the above, article doesn't make any attempt to address the history of Balzac in popular culture, the impact of Balzac in pop culture, and so on. Just a laundry list. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. At least the double entendres were funny, but it fails WP:IINFO. Realkyhick 03:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete certainly indiscriminate. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought the stupid jokes were funny though. Croxley 05:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if you do not want this information to reappear again in the main article (which would happen on 100%). I had created it for this exact purpose since nobody cared to maintain it and pop-culture references and fights over them constituted major part of recent edits. The proper solution for such articles is someone knowledgeable in anglophone popular culture taking care here.

If deleted preserve the part about Rodin's statue which is definitely notable. Pavel Vozenilek 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as per Pavel Vozenilek's argument. Textbook case of a "pragmatic keep" (about which I may have to write a WP page) Ventifax 07:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Pragmatic keep" is just another way of saying bettr here than there and it's a terrible argument for keeping an article. If the information is garbage on its own then it would be garbage in the main article. All keeping this article does is shift the responsibility for the garbage from one set of editors to another. Otto4711 05:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep If it's totally unreferenced which it 'isn't' at all if you bother noticing some footnotes, who cares? Anyone can simply add a reference there if they find it. This article is a treasure trove of information, information you probably won't be able to find in single area online. And oh, btw, someone didn't put the format for the footnotes which is why you can't see the references at the bottom. I'll add it now. ResurgamII 14:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It is indeed a "treasure trove of information", unfortunately that information is completely indiscriminate, of which Wikipedia is not a collection of. Krimpet (talk/review)
• Keep it is apparently partly sourced, and as I noted in the Kim Jong-il nomination, nearly every article including the Hitler and Lincoln ones in the Category:Representations of people in popular culture lack sources, but I would assume that sources could be found which is a big distinction in WP policies apparently: see WP:ATT discussing the difference. If we went ahead and deleted any partially sourced articles for that reason (just take a look at the ones some editors have flagged as unsourced Category:All articles lacking sources would WP be better or worse for these all being deleted?), CSD A4 and the GDFL terms would like prevent any recreation. On a more practical level, I agree with Pavel Vozenilek's view that this stuff will just migrate to the main articles. Carlossuarez46 19:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge into Christ For The Nations Institute. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Youth For The Nations

Youth For The Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article does not assert notability of the organization per WP:ORG. No reliable independent secondary sources cited. Nv8200p talk 04:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into Christ For The Nations Institute. Plenty of room there, no pressing need to disconnect the two topics, better context within parent article. A redirect would be plausible, too. Realkyhick 03:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - This would improve the Christ For The Nations Institute page, which currently doesn't properly link to Youth For The Nations.--Ng.j 05:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Robert Lowell Goller

Robert Lowell Goller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article does not assert the notability of the subject per the guidelines of WP:BIO. Nv8200p talk 04:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nomination. --RFBailey 20:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable--even though he was the town historian. This and other recent articles point out the inadequacy of our rules for N when dealing with local history. DGG 23:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, but DGG makes a good point about figures in local history. Realkyhick 03:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This sort of thing is why I'd like to see a WikiWho'sWho. I tend to reserve judgement on these things, but I'm not seeing the notability for Wikipedia as it stands. Ventifax 07:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Iaido in popular culture

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

This is a list a videogames with characters that use the technique Iaido. It's not really popular culture, and I think this technique is common in martial arts based videogames so it's not notable enough for its own article. Plasticbottle 04:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I must disagree, video games are part of popular culture. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. you misunderstand, I didn't say they aren't part of popular culture, I meant the list doesn't represent popular culture, just a small aspect of it, which is videogames. So it's not "popular culture", if it was then it would include films, TV shows, books, etc, etc. Plasticbottle 02:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Unmaintainable list of useless trivia. The introductory part of the article is present in the main Iaido article. That is more than sufficient.Dr bab 12:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as yet another indiscriminate list of meaningless trivia. Otto4711 13:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete:Guys, the only reason I created this article was because it was almost bigger than the main Iaido article itself. (Ok maybe that THAT big but it was big enough). And video-game fans kept adding more on that section rather than on the martial art itself. I wanted to delete the entire section from Iaido, but I didnt dare since I guess someone would have cried havoc so I moved it here. I have no vested interest in this section other than keeping it OUT of the Iaido article. Fred26 20:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. Fg2 01:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Can't possibly maintain this indiscriminate list. Realkyhick 03:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR. This article reads like they are observations made about sword/katana wielding VG characters with very little knowledge about the maritial art. How is it exactly that Link is practicising Laido? This article really doesn't have much to do with video games and really doesn't help the article on laido either. Its just another worthless "...in popular culutre" list. Mitaphane _?|! 03:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Progressive Bloggers and Blogging Tories (joint nomination)

Progressive Bloggers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|VfD|AfD|AfD2)– (View AfD)

Blogging Tories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD|AfD2)–(joint DRV)

A nomination at deletion review to fix the inconsistency of outcomes between the two prior AfD's didn't come to a conclusion, which is why the two are now joint nominated here for more discussion. Prior AfD history above. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 05:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Progressive Bloggers Keep Blogging Tories.

I nominated both of these articles for deletion in February, at the time verifiable and attributable sources did not exist for either article. Non-trivial and independent sources for the Blogging Tories were presented at the AfD [25][26][27], as of now comparable or other reliable sources have not been presented for Progressive Bloggers. WP:V is not negotiable, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping Progressive Bloggers.--RWR8189 05:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep both. These are really difficult to source via the web, as all you get is trillions of blogs. Anyway, the Tories sourced as above (though one of those sources is YouTube); the Progressive has an inline source (the Toronto Star). Also, note that CBC gives both factions equal billing here. Or how about a media seminar from the University of Alberta? Even without this, I'd ignore all rules and say that deleting one without the other would be on very shaky ground; they're opposing factions of a Canadian political blog war. EliminatorJR ^Talk 16:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I wouldn't exactly say IAR; I would say that the rules need careful and creative interpretation in relation to the subject matter of the articles. Where does one expect to find information on blogs? Shall we instead omit coverage of the blogosphere because we adopted our RS rules before they became important.? RS means or ought to mean RS in relation to the way the subject is documented in the real world. DGG 23:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment DGG is right - but just a thought - how about merging both to something like Canadian Political Blogging Groups? EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There would probably be dozens/hundreds.Keeping to the major national parties and blogs at a national level has certain advantages. But your suggestion would be good for a category. DGG 23:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I dunno... you could merge these two, along with Liblogs and Green Bloggers and still have a pretty consise article. Watchsmart 03:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep both. Bucketsofg 04:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep both of them I feel there is enough notability. MrMacMan 06:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep both Notable, sufficient sourcing to survive AfD, DGG's RS in relation subject matter seems wise. Edivorce 20:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep both How many times can the same articles be nominated for deleting?!? These sites are part of every day Canadian politics. They need to be kept. Jason Cherniak 21:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep both per Jason Cherniak. GreenJoe 05:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep both After some Googling, I'm with EliminatorJR. Seed 2.0 14:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The Vortex

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

While it looks like some work went into this, it's little more than an advertisement for a LAN gaming center. It should also be noted that one of the tournaments that this hosts has been deleted before. JuJube 05:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 00:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I have kept a neutral POV while writing this article and The Vortex happens to be quite notable in the gaming community. I'd also like to add every article has to start somewhere and I think there is alot of room for improvement than to judge so quickly. Omegacommand 05:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No sources, no evidence of notability (see WP:N). TJ Spyke 05:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Looks spam-alicious to me. 'Neutral' doesn't include such phrases as "one of the best". Cantras 06:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sources to assert and support notability can be provided. Surely this got some coverage in trade magazines or local papers. --Haemo 07:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- notability not shown. This is the second incarnation of this article; an earlier version was deleted last Octoberl as spam.[28] If press coverage is shown that meets the requirements of WP:CORP, then I'm happy to keep. --A. B. ^(talk) 11:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I know for a fact The Vortex has been featured in quite a few local papers and would like some time to research this and add sources and references. Omegacommand 18:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • AfD nominations last approximately five days. If you've sourced the article by then, I'll be happy to change my "vote." —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sources are added to indicate notability; also, clearly needs cleanup of its advertising-like tone and lack of complete sentences. — brighterorange (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like advertising to me. --RFBailey 20:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Mmmm — Southern fried spam. Realkyhick 03:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising Tnomad 13:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Shimeru 06:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Arnold Jack Rosenthal

Arnold Jack Rosenthal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject is non-notable local politician with two failed runs for office and some local scandal to his name. Dhartung | Talk 05:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. OK, so for this one it seems like there might actually be multiple sources. But with the references not being in-line and with such references as "review or articles from 1973-1977", it's tough to evaluate their merit. For this one, I'd suggest giving Billy Hathorn a chance to more clearly specifiy the references to allow for a more clear determination regarding notability. Given the track record, I am perhaps not optimistic that this will be done and actually establish notability, but just to be completely fair, I think the opportunity should be offered. If that doesn't happen, then delete. Mwelch 07:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep . 'Weak Keep' there are technically enough sources. "Review of the ..." apparently means that it was examined for those dates, and an item or two actually found. Only the items found, of course are sources. This is like saying one searched Google. Google isn't a source, what one finds there are sources. I've edited the article accordingly. DGG 00:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Thanks for the info. I'm still troubled by what's actually listed for references, but if there was something there, then that adds to the case for notability. If the author is reading this, perhaps he can specify those for the reader? Of what's left, there are two sources seem definitely non-trivial: the link to his lawsuit against Oubre (that link wasn't working last night when I tried to check it, so I didn't know what that was), and the newspaper article about his pleading guilty. Not sure what might have been in that prison report (once again in-line citations would certainly be nice). Might have been non-trivial. A couple of other links listed don't seem to be working right now (not sure if that's a temporary situation or not), but maybe some non-trivial info there too if those links become operational. A lot of maybes, but when combined with the two definites already there, I guess that makes for "multiple" non-trivial sources. Mwelch 02:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Very weak keep. At least a personal interview with Billy wasn's used as an interview this time. He seems to have enough regional notability. Realkyhick 03:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete He lost the race for mayor & legislature. I am an inclusionist about politicians, and think people losing races for national office are notable. Not state office. His crime also was nothing particularly dramatic.If kept, the article will of course be edited to an appropriate length and amount of detail. DGG 05:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Undecided I see I have !voted three different ways with 5 hours. I consider this to indicate not my carelessness, but rather the truly borderline nature of this subject. In borderline situations I think the general way of going is considered to be keep. as the article develops, or fails to develop, we can always discuss the article again. DGG 22:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I would appeal to the Wikipedia editors to not delete this biography. As one who utilizes Wikipedia for research in the field of history and politics (especially localized), I find these biographies to be not only interesting, but invaluable. It is nearly impossible to find such comprehensive information anywhere else online, short of having to go to a library or newspapers in the locality to which the individual is from. Is it not Wikipedia's mission to provide such information ? It would be highly shortsighted to remove these biographies.

D.J. Jones -- 30 March 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billy Hathorn (talk • contribs).

Actually, Billy, it is not WPs mission to produce articles about everybody interesting, or everything not covered by other online sources. A full encyclopedia of state politics might find a good home in Wikia. The standard is Notability to the reader. Some politicians are, some aren't. But you might find it easier to get articles or borderline figures like this guy accepted in WP if they were written more concisely. That isn't (at the moment) a specific guideline, but it's part of what is meant by being encyclopedic--an encyclopedia has articles whose length depends on the subjects' importance (and also of course of the amount of material, but this is never a problem with your articles). DGG 04:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 20:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Dojo, Oh No!/ Finding Hershel

Dojo, Oh No!/ Finding Hershel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am nominating this and all other articles at List of Yin Yang Yo! episodes. EVERY singles article consist of just "This is the --th episode of Yin Yang Yo!", even the descriptions on the List of episodes page is more informative. TJ Spyke 05:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

600 Channels of Doom!/ An Oldie But a Goodie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yin! Yang! Yuck!/ Beetlemania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Enter: The Ant/ Sweet Stench of Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Woo Foo Flu/ The Imagination Situation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Too Much Yangformation/ Aura . . . Or Not (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Falling Yin Love/ On Golden Pondscum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Old School/ A Toy's Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Trouble with Two-ni-corns / Scarf It Up! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Return of the Night Master (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My Stupid Sword/ Neat Freak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A Match Not Made in Heaven/ The High She-as (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Scary Scary Quite Contrary/ How the Cookie Crumbles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Yin of Yang/ Shopping Sprawl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wubble in Paradise/ Dictator of the Year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bad Nanny Jamma/ Pros and Cons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Doomed to Repeat It/ The Gig is Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Family Day/ The Hex of the Ex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Out on a Pledge/ Dojo Alone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Attack of the Lesson/ A Case of Evils (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Attack of the Vidiots/ Fit to be Tried (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Voyage to the Center of the Yo/ Sitting Shaggler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Shadows and Light/ The Truth Hurts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Who Knows What Evil Lurks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Yin Yang Yo! episode) Night Fall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Woofoogeddon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete, pages with no context or whatsoever. The articles are redundant and the list is enough for the episode, since this is somehow a duplicate of the list. If it has some info about the episode, then that's ok. Terence 05:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all the pages except Night Fall (right article listed?), which is a legit stub of a 2004 novel. All the others, however, have absolutely no context. SkierRMH 07:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I fixes the link. The episode is the same as the others though in terms of content. TJ Spyke 07:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep These articles may be stubs, with minimal content as of yet, however, the potential to add content is there, the same for almost every other episode of a television show. Articles don't suddenly become full of content over night, they need time to improve. Deleting these articles now will only discourage folks from working on that. If you're somehow bothered by these being stubs, then make them all redirects until further information is added. If you just object to the idea of including the episodes of a television show as Wikipedia articles, well, in that case, I think you need to establish some sort of policy consensus first. FrozenPurpleCube 14:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per FrozenPurpleCube. There is something of a precedent for individual episode articles for many television shows, and while WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good reason for inclusion, I don't think it applies here as the precedent is strong. Also agree that lack of content alone is not qualification for deletion, as it would be relatively easy for an interested author to expand these to the standard of other television show episode articles out there. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 19:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • WP requires that articles (even stubs) have some notability or reason they should be kept even when they are first created. I'm OK with redirecting them, and the creater of these articles can always restore them when if/when he is willing to actually put some effort into them. TJ Spyke 20:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yin Yang Yo is a nationally broadcast television program, therefore I accept that they do have some reason to be kept, as well, episodes of television shows are in general acceptable content on Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 23:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all The coverage at List of Yin Yang Yo! episodes is fine, there is no need for individual articles. Brianyoumans 21:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now These articles have only been around a few days. I have found that things like this tend to take a least a few weeks to fill out.Slavlin 02:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. The show is barely notable enough on its own, much less individual episode articles. I'm not a big fan of individual episode articles for any show, anyway, unless they're particularly notable or memorable on their own (last episode of M*A*S*H or Seinfeld, for instance). Realkyhick 03:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, sound action stations. Consensus is to improve, not delete (WP:EPISODE). Article establishes notability to me. Matthew 22:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, we have a consensus to improve television episode articles and not delete them. It takes a long time to finish every episode of a tv series, so you can redirect them for now if you like. - Peregrine Fisher 22:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, despite what Matthew and Peregrine Fisher claim, the consensus at WP:EPISODE seems to be to MERGE episode articles unless and until enough information can be provided about a particular episode to justify a separate article. Either merge back to the main article on the show, or, if there's too much info for that, merge to articles on the seasons of the show. Xtifr _tälk 03:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The articles contain nothing merge worthy (they just say "This was the --th episode of Yin Yang Yo". I could accept a redirect to List of Yin Yang Yo! episodes, which contains more info on every episode. TJ Spyke 03:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, gosh, that will make it really easy to implement my suggestion, then, won't it? :) Xtifr _tälk 21:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Cúchullain ^t/c 04:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Jack B. Harper

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

Subject was a highway contractor. Without further information it does not seem subject was notable. Dhartung | Talk 05:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note. Actually, he was the founder and CEO of that company. -- Mikeblas 05:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Yes. A "highway contractor" is a person, partnership, company or corporation authorized to contract with the state for highway construction. Each state has scores of such contractors, large and small. --Dhartung | Talk 07:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Appears to have coverage by multiple reliable sources [29] so I'd say keep for now and hopefully article can cite those sources eventually, instead of the current sources that don't all look very useful. --W.marsh 14:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I have removed 2 of the so-called references, which were trivial public notices of contracts awarded, and moved his company home page to an external link. But the real reason for deletion is that most of the article is a close paraphrase of the obituary notice. It would need complete rewriting, and would be about 1/3 the size if kept. Perhaps there should be a presumption that all bios which end by giving the time and place of the funeral are taken thoughtlessly from obituary notices, as that information certainly isn't encyclopedic. DGG 23:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Another in the "Hathorn Presents Non-Notable Biographies" series. If he had built something major, like the long Interstate 10 bridge in southern Louisiana, that would be different. But he didn't. Realkyhick 03:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Floyd H. Long

Floyd H. Long (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Just being a member of the Long family is not, by itself, notability. Dhartung | Talk 05:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:BIO criteria. Terence 06:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP is not a memorial. The article ends "the family requested memorials to the E. J. Ourso College of Business Administration, LSU, 3137-F, CEBA Building, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803 The assumption must be that most of the record is taken from an obituary, DGG 23:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment and warning. In looking at some recent bios, still being put in by the ed., and the rate of one every two minutes, the principal source seems to be the eds. unpublished master's thesis: "Billy Hathorn, The Republican Party in Louisiana, 1920-1980, Master's thesis (1980), Northwestern State University at Natchitoches," which probably does not count as a published RS, . It also raises the question of whether these articles in WP are being put in wholesale by downloading them indiscriminately. In any case I want to remind the ed. that the fact that someone has an obit. or a listing in a book is not proof of notability per se; if they have done notable things, then the source documents it, but if they have not done notable things, no amount of sources saying so make for notability. DGG 03:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. See my comment in the discussion immediately above this one; the same applies here. The Long family ties does make this a bit closer call, admittedly. The sad thing is that Billy actually does a pretty good job of writing most of these, but that doesn't make the subjects any more notable. Realkyhick 03:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

He certainly does a complete job of writing them; do we have formal guidelines for the amount of detail in an article? We may need some, since common sense cannot be counted on. But what I suggest, is that he be urged to turn his master's thesis into a book. People will always want another book about the Longs, who are endlessly fascinating even when not notable, and I'm not sure that any published source has the amount of information on the less important members of the family. (not satire, meant as praise) DGG 05:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)DGG 22:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought that it would be good to show that not all Longs, indeed most Longs, went into politics. Floyd Long seemed to be the most notable of the non-politician Longs. I think he meets the notability requirements, or I would not have done this little article.

Billy Hathorn 23:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Cúchullain ^t/c 04:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Cerro Gordo Freighting Company

Cerro Gordo Freighting Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP. Tagged {{notability}} since January 2007 with no change in content. Mikeblas 05:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• The company appears to have had a long history, see [30] (after "begin page 388" line), [31] (halfway in the section "Rami Nadeau and his roads"), and [32] ("The company quickly became the dominant power in transportation throughout Inyo County and remained so for nearly a decade..."). Not sure if these sources warrant a keep, though. Resurgent insurgent 06:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• weak delete If the company does have a long history, put it in the article & source; then we can reconsider.DGG 23:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. We have this article because of a mention on a "Welcome to Swansea" sign? And we aren't even sure if it still exists? C'mon, folks. Realkyhick 03:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep/Expand I thought it looked like a goof, but I did a little research & it was an important company in development of the American West. I've added a little bit & a link. I think it's worth building on. Ventifax 21:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Beup

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

Non-notable software. Mikeblas 06:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• "Known Issues: Beup will refuse to open downloaded avatars if their size isn't 96x96 pixels..." Yup, there's a big known issue with this article - it has no assertions of notability per WP:SOFTWARE. Delete. Resurgent insurgent 06:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The article is a buggy as the software. Not notable. Realkyhick 03:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom ZBrannigan 08:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Philip R. Odegard

Philip R. Odegard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is clearly a product of astroturfing, as indicated by the article's history. The subject is not notable and certainly does not merit an entry in Wikipedia. Adraeus 06:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No assertion of notability in the article is backed by an independent reliable source. The weird faux references in the article ([1], [4], [9], etc.) don't lead to anything. The biography link at the end is for Henry Clay and I have no idea why The Producers is cited. -SpuriousQ (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Poster's name (San Diego PR) says it all. Advert. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The refs seem to indicate that this was an excerpt from a longer article. I wonder where the rest of it is. DGG 23:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, advert for a client. Note to PR firms posting articles about clients: Don't be stupid enough to have a user name that tips off your origins. Realkyhick 03:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

L3MEDIA

L3MEDIA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article does not meet the primary inclusion criterion for notable companies: it has not been treated as a subject in reliable secondary sources. The claims in the article cannot be verified from reliable secondary sources, and removing the unverifiable claims would leave an article that would meet speedy deletion criterion A1: little or no context. Finally, the original author of the article, San Diego PR (talk · contribs), appears to be an astroturfing organization similar to MyWikiBiz; if true, this would violate the conflict of interest guideline. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete agree mostly with nom. There isn't even a clear assertion of notability here. -SpuriousQ (talk) 06:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and encourage an admin to look into the article's creator more closely. --Haemo 07:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Related to AfD: Philip R. Odegard. Adraeus 08:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Same reasons as for Philip Odegard article above. It's spam, even if it's a thin slice of it. Realkyhick 04:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yossarian Rustamova

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

• Delete. This article is another hoax, third about Azerbaijan in the last few days. I think it is time to investigate who is creating such articles. Grandmaster 06:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. hoax. Atabek 06:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. creator of these article trying to shame Rustamova with political lies. Page created without his approving first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artur Pashayev (talk • contribs)
• Delete as per Grandmaster and Atabek. Parishan 23:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Based on the edit history, he does exist and is notable, and therefore not an hoax. Grandmaster, the supporters and non-supporters above both say so. The discussion above is simply of question of what to include.DGG 03:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Rustamova isn't even a male surname, and there are certainly no "autonomous tribal groups" (and no tribal groups at all, for that matter) in any part of Azerbaijan. Parishan 05:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This person does not exist in real life, the article is a hoax. And "Artur Pashayev" is likely to be a sock account, I will ask for investigation of this. And as Parishan correctly noted, Rustamova is a female surname. This is a third hoax in a row, please check AfDs for the previous 2: [33] [34] It should be investigated who is creating hoaxes about Azerbaijan here. Grandmaster 05:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Content does not belong in encyclopedia--Zondi 03:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As above. I seriously doubt he would have a female surname. Artur Pashayev appears to be a vandal (see his talk history). I'm from Azerbaijan originally, I've never heard of Rustamova. Edit history does seem odd, perhaps not a hoax as such, but severely distorted - e.g. should not be categorized as politician, no indication of size of group - probably not notable.Humanproject 20:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. No such person as Yossarian Rustamova. Yossarian Rustamov is real but not notable - a controversial former warlord with less than 80 followers.Humanproject 21:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Khoikhoi 04:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per no google hits, also nothing in google books, news archive or scholar. Addhoc 18:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Balazsy

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

No evidence has been proffered for any claim made in the article other than claims made within the personal website, www.pbpix.com, of the subject of the article. The content of the article is not verifiable.

Incidentally, the sole contributor to the article of claims and other content has been User:Pbpix, whose user page identifies himself as P G Balazsy and all of whose activities within WP have been closely related to P G Balazsy. -- Hoary 06:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I cannot find any reliable secondary corroborating sources for subject's claim to fame, the so-called "Fuji transfer process". Please also co-nominate Fuji transfer. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't be surprised or upset by anybody else's nomination of that article (yours, for example), but I don't intend to nominate it myself quite yet. Let's see how this AfD goes first. -- Hoary 07:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Too more delete votes (one being mine admittedly) is enough, let us discuss his process at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watergraph. -- RHaworth 13:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails to meet WP:NOTE --Haemo 07:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Spam. -- RHaworth 13:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No RS, no notability, plenty of spam. Realkyhick 04:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. WjBscribe 21:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

List of comic strip villain debuts

List of comic strip villain debuts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem relevant enough to be in Wikipedia. It only has villains from one comic strip. Joiz ^A. Shmo 01:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I extracted this info from List of supervillain debuts, when it was nominated for AfD and kept, because there was so much of it. You could merge it back, but it there's so much of it, it should really have it's own page. Rename it list of Dick Tracy villain debuts if you like. No one cares about DT stuff anymore, but it was crazy notable back in the day. - Peregrine Fisher 01:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 06:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• If kept, either expand content or rename to reflect actual contents. No stance on deletion. -- saberwyn 08:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I moved it to List of Dick Tracy villain debuts to better reflect its contents. - Peregrine Fisher 15:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Since this page is now a redirect, I think this needs to be closed, and dealt with at Redirects for discussion instead. The content itself, namely the debut dates of Dick Tracy villains is more than sufficiently encyclopedic information. Or do you have some real problem with the subject of the article? FrozenPurpleCube 16:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Not encyclopaedic in nature. Fancruft.--Bryson 02:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Care to explain why the debut dates of characters in a major comic strip aren't encyclopedic in nature? Are you going to advocate the deletion of numerous similar articles? And please don't use the term fancruft, it's offensive. Thanks! FrozenPurpleCube 03:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Fancruft. Fancruft has become a regular term on Wikipedia, applying to any information that is relevant to fans, but not so much on its own. And, as is mentioned bellow, if the villains don't have their own articles, they probably don't need an entire article dedicated to their appearance dates. Joiz ^A. Shmo 15:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen that page. It's an essay, and I would prefer if the advise against using the term were written in much stronger language, and I wish that fewer people would slap that derogatory term around as if it were a convincing argument. And some of the villains do have their own articles. Should all of them? I don't know, that's another issue. Besides, there are many things which don't deserve their own article in the individual, but are more notable in the aggregate. FrozenPurpleCube 06:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment - Wikipedia:Fancruft I am saying the article is not notable.--Bryson 03:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Of course the article isn't notable, it's a single article on Wikipedia. Very few of them are notable. But what's wrong with the subject of the article? Do you think Dick Tracy isn't notable? Do you think that the villains of the strip aren't notable as a whole? Should the ones with individual articles be deleted? Should all dates of initial appearance be deleted from every article about comic characters? Sorry, but just saying "This isn't notable, it's fancruft" is not persuasive reasoning, it's just using a pejorative. Could you please try explaining in more detail exactly what you consider is not encyclopedic about this article's subject, without making use of that term? I would much appreciate it. FrozenPurpleCube 03:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I added some citations and references, to establish notability, and allow people to double check all the dates if they want. - Peregrine Fisher 05:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Dick Tracy is very notable, some/many of the villains are notable as well, but what is the point of an article that lists the date of their first appearance? The question is not if these villains are notable, but if the dates of their first appearance on its own is notable. This list says nothing but "there are a lot of villains, they were all created by the creator of the comic (duh) except one, seventeen years later, and ... well, that's about it". This list is furthermore redundant with List of recurring characters in Dick Tracy, which gives a lot more information (even though it needs a lot of work as well). Fram 11:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I would say that this list is incomplete, since obviously it stops relatively short of the modern era. Thus the various people who took over after Gould are unlisted. Incompleteness, note, is not a reason for deletion. If it were, we'd have to delete a lot more pages. It's just a reason for somebody to finish the article. I don't see how the dates of first appearance aren't notable though, since that information is included on pretty much every page about a comic book or strip character. So as a whole, I don't see that as a problem. And yes, I did notice that this page is somewhat redundant to List of recurring characters in Dick Tracy, but the more I think about it, the more I think something else besides deletion needs to be done. That page has a section describing first appearances, but it's much more poorly formatted than even this page. I think it might be worth splitting off the villains from that page, merging it with the information from this one instead. Deletion, however, seems needless. FrozenPurpleCube 14:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I wish this page was fancruft in a way, it would have more editors. Dick Tracy isn't a fan hotbed, it's a historically significant comic strip. Maybe 50 years ago it would have been fancruft, now it's just encyclopedic. - Peregrine Fisher 19:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into List of recurring characters in Dick Tracy. The content is valuable, but there's no reason these shouldn't be streamlined into the same article -- it would improve both of them. ~CS 21:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 21:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yvette Rosser

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

Contested Prod Prodded by admin candidate Jreferee. Deprodded by anon IP, possible sock of banned user. Bringing here to complete procedure.Hornplease 21:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Multiple published works, etc.Bakaman 23:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep Noted academic and author. ॐ Priyanath talk 02:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 06:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Bakaman. Resurgent insurgent 08:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Judging by the titles of the publications and where they appeared, I am not sure she qualifies for notability as an academic. But i think she does in the more general sense of a writer on political subjects. DGG 22:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Mild Keep crypto-academic lettvekter, but often quoted/cited by a vociferous lobby, so spectators might be curious. rudra 03:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

–Please excuse the lack of Wiki protocol, but I am the person being discussed on this page. I have had several previous discussions with the person known as Hornplease because he wrote lies about me on another page. I wrote to him and then complained to others, but nothing became of it. Since I am Y.Rosser and being on Wikipedia subjects me to untruths and propaganda about what I have done and believe, I would just as soon not have a Wikipedia page because many of the things that are attributed to me on Wikipedia I have not done or written. It is a very public place where a person like me can be flayed and lied about without any recourse. It's a place where anti-Hindus like Hornplease can create his own hyperbol Wiki-reality about someone like me.—RRani 08:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notable academic and author. Shyamsunder 10:06, 01 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as a non-notable biography and probable attack page. Mak (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Zolar

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

Article fails WP:ATT. No reliable independent secondary sources. Written like a resume or advertisement. Nv8200p Nv8200p talk 02:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom (sorry for violating WP:ATA). YechielMan 04:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Subject of article is already mentioned in Wack_Pack#Zolar. Only data worth merging appears to be DOB. Page appears to be solely for advertisement, only major article developments since tagged as resume appear to be addition and deletion of promotional images. Article may also satisfy speedy criteria as text closely resembles http://zolarcast.com/about/ all of which appear to have been introduced by single purpose author. Page also appears to be purely advertisement for sites in external links section. (Optigan13 05:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC))
• Delete although there's a notable "Zolar", the author of a number of fairly popular occult/astrology books in the 60s-present. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 06:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. All sources primary, parts of article written as jokes, notability not proven. Realkyhick 04:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Not an easy decision, but a review of the sources shows that several have little or nothing to do with John Machemehl. Much of the information can be sourced only to a genealogy, and most problematically, the claims of notability are not sourced or supported. The sources do provide evidence for the notability of relatives, such as Louis Machemehl, but this does not confer notability on John by association. While I dislike deletion of historical biographies, what's needed here is a reliable (preferably secondary) source backing up the claim that John was a leader in the migration or the subsequently-established community. If we were to remove the uncited claims, the claims not properly supported by their citations, and the material relating to descendants from the article, we would be left with a very sparse collection of family data, mainly consisting of dates of birth, marriage, and death. Regrettably, this is not enough to meet WP:BIO. Shimeru 15:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

John Machemehl

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

Non notable person, fails WP:BIO. No reliable, independent sources establishing notability, only genealogical sources or sources about his descendants. He may have many notable qualities, as claimed on the talk page, but these aren't recognized in any independent reputable sources, which makes this look a lot like original research. Article fails WP:ATT. Fram 07:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Second attempt

Fram has already attempted to delete this article once before. The article John Machemehl was shown to be a notable article as John Machemehl is a historical figure within the German-Texan historical context. Thanks. User:Bhaktivinode 28 March 2007

In addition, Fram fails to state why these sources are not independent and/or reputable. They are valid sources and Fram should show otherwise if it believes so. Thanks. User:Bhaktivinode 28 March 2007

Please read WP:ATT and WP:RS to see what are reliable, reputable sources per the Wikipedia definition. The main source, dericbownds.net, is the page of someone who has created his family tree. This is not independent, and certainly not a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense. The other sources are not clearly reliable either (austinoldies.com / wintermannlibrary.org (a copy of the former), rootsweb.com) or have at first sight nothing to do with John Machemehl (visiteaglelake.com, reflectionsofyesterday.net, texas-settlement.org, sportsillustrated). In fact, all info on John Machemehl except for him being the father of Paul, comes from one source, Dericbownds.net. Fram 08:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I can't find evidence of a previous AFD discussion, but Bak may be referring to this diff, where it was nominated for Speedy A7. -- saberwyn 07:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The article was tagged for speedy deletion (db-bio) by user Evb-wiki on March 21, and deleted by me the same day. It was recreated by Bhaktivinode on the 23rd (as is his right), and tagged by me for db-bio on the 27th. This was removed by FloNight, with the mention on the talk page that it could go to AfD. This seemed reasonable, and so I did just that. The article was not "shown to be a notable article" expect by these statements on Talk:John Machemehl by the creator of the article, Bhaktivinode. As I indicate in my response to Bhaktivinode above, his one main source is not a reliable (nor an independent) source per WP:ATT, and neither that one nor his other sources are indicating any notability for John Machemehl (I have e.g. no idea where Bhaktivinode gets the idea that John Machemehl is a "notable German"). Fram 08:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I believe Fram is only refering to the old version of John Machemehl. The new version explicitly establishes his notability first as the forester for Annaberg, Saxony. Then for leading a group of Forty-Eighters to Central Texas from Saxony. Another issue is his involvement with the German Texan community during the Civil War era. User:Bhaktivinode March 28, 2007

No, I'm referring to the current version. Besides, all the info was already in the article when I started this AfD notice, and even when I nominated it for speedy deletion[35]. Being a forester etcetera is interesting, but does not mean he is notable. And I can't find anything in your sources that indicate that he was "Leading the Voyage to Texas"? The genealogy says that "Sometime between 1845 and 1850 John Machemehl, his father Michael and very young son Paul came to Texas from Germany. Their coming to the U.S. was part of the sizeable German migration". It seems like he was just one of the many migrants, and that only in the next generations did the family become somewhat notable locally. I would like to urge everyone judging this AfD to go through the sources provided in the article, to determine for themselves their value and the notability they give to John Machemehl, per WP:ATT and WP:BIO. Fram 10:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Issues and Sources

It is issues such as these listed above - that makes the John Machemehl entry a notable one. in addition, sources such as The Eula and David Wintermann Library is a proper source. [36] & [37] User:Bhaktivinode March 28, 2007

Perhaps the Wintermannlibrary is a notable source (it is not directly clear), but it only gives some info on Paul Machemehl, none whatsoever on John Machemehl, so this source cannot be used to determine the notability of John Machemehl. And I don't agree that the "issues" listed above make him notable at all. Fram 10:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment That is not true.

The Wintermann Library says that around the time of the Civil War that, "John was discussing the hostility between the North and the South with Paul Machemehl of Bellville, Texas. Many Germans did not believe this was their fight and many joined Paul Machemehl and rode south to Mexico to sit out the war before returning."

This is just one source. Thanks. User:Bhaktivinode March 28, 2007

The "John" referenced there is Johann Struss, not John Machemehl. Nothing there suggests that it is about John Machemehl. Fram 05:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per reasons for nomination. What is verifiable through reliable sources may be merged to the more adequately sourced descendants. Genealogy homepages crowding the refs do not meet WP:ATT, nothing to verify "noted forrester" or "leader of men", and there is currently advertising posing as a reference. MURGH ^disc. 15:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I would like to add that there are many points to consider in debating the notability of the John Machemehl article. Being the forester for the city of Annaberg, or the size of the migration are just a few of these points.

Aside from these points above is the context of John Machemehl in German-Texan history. Here, what is historically significant, aside from the points above, is that John Machemehl led a group of Forty-Eighters from Germany to Texas, not to any normal destination for German Forty-Eighters. This in itself is an important and notable event in the context of German-Texan history. There are many points to be considered. They should be treated one at a time. Please. Thank you. User:Bhaktivinode March 28, 2007

• Keep There is no reason that the information in ths article should not be added to Wikipedia. It is valid historically information that can be categorized in a manner to make it available to people interested in this type of information. FloNight 16:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

* Keep Some early pioneers will be notable, if they were political or community leaders. DGG 03:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The article needs a little work, but the subject seems to be a notable historical figure on a regional basis. Realkyhick 04:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

And on what reliable source do you three base that assertion? We only have a genealogical site by a direct descendant as "evidence" for all this... Fram 05:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment In this situation that type of sourcing is adequate. We need not hold every type of subject content to identical standards. That is the reason that content is always decided on an individual basis, article by article, by groups of editors rather than rulings of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. If you carefully read our policies and guidelines related to content, you will note that sources written by individuals or groups can be used for articles about the individual or group if there is good reason to think that they are true and are in fact a good source for the information. If we did not take this approach, we would not be able to fulfill our mission of collecting free, encyclopedic information on all possible topics. Many topics would not be covered adequately. Historically some groups were not covered by what we consider reliable sources today. Pioneers, historical women, U.S. slaves and other minority groups are examples of groups that are not adequately covered by traditional sources for varying reasons. Therefore documents such as letters, other historical documents, and well documented oral histories can be used if the information is not contentious. I hope this explanation helps explain why I support the inclusion of this article. Take care, FloNight 14:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I agree with the above. Also, I would like to add an additional point to those listed above. The fact remains that this is a new article and both minor and major events have yet to be filled in historical gaps. An example would be that I only recently came across the birth, death, and cemetary records for both John Machemehl and Henrietta Borel Machemehl found at [38]. This is just one example. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. User:Bhaktivinode 29 March 2007

Thanks for replying, FloNight, but, well, I have a completely different understanding of our WP:ATT policy here, and I feel that this interpretation opens the door (or more precisley the floodgates) for almost every person willing to spend an hour writing something down to have an article on Wikipedia as long as they have a trustworthy looking source about themselves, no matter who writes or publishes it. The claim that we have no reliable sources for historical groups and figures and completely irrelevant and is plain wrong: we have no contemporary reliable sources, but there is no reason we can't have more recent reliable sources,and in fact we have such sources for every notable person (since that is exactly the definition of being notable of course. If those more recnt reliable sources are absent (as is the case here), then the person fails WP:BIO (which John Machemehl clearly does) and fails all but the most liberal interpretation of WP:ATT.Anyway, even accepting your interpretation of the use of self-published or questionable sources: this is the full extent of the sole source we have: Sometime between 1845 and 1850 John Machemehl, his father Michael and very young son Paul came to Texas from Germany. Their coming to the U.S. was part of the sizeable German migration which resulted from the unrest in the various German principalities in the revolutionary period of the 1830’s and 1840’s. John’s wife, Henrietta Borel, brought with them on the 10 week sailing voyage a china set which now is in storage at the Mohle Drive home of Helen and Marlin Bownds where my son Jonathan lives. John had a university education, was forester for the city of Annaberg in Saxony. His wife Henrietta, born in Switzerland, was a French Huguenot who was a governess for the family of a Russian prince of Courland whose estate was on the Baltic. She met John Machemehl in Saxony while traveling with the Russian Family. Henrietta died in Texas in 1850. John married two more times, had four more children, and died in 1880. Why would you want to have an article on this person, even if you would accept the source as good enough? What distinguishes him from thousands of other persons? The only thing that distinguishes him is that someone has put this info on his personal website... Fram 15:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Fram if you bring this back to a debate on what distinguishes John Machemehl, you are returning to our early debate for speedy deletion, which was denied. These reasons are:

• He was a notable member of the German community of Annaberg as he was the city's forester.
• He was a member of the Forty-Eighters.
• He was an early German-Texan settler.
• He provided leadership for the early German-Texan settlers.
• He was the central figure in an historical German-Texan family.
• He was the father of Paul Machemehl.

These were a few of the items which distinguishes him. Thank you for your reply. User:Bhaktivinode 29 March 2007

Comment. I completely agree with Fram. No matter how inadequately one may feel someone is covered by the chronicles, it doesn't expand licence to overlook Verifiability. WP as a tool to connect with reliable sources is diminished by accepting article material on this basis. How can this article get away with just claiming JM was the forrester of Annaberg, leader of men etc. A valid article will point me to trustworthy doccumentation of this. There's that, and additionally the genealogy flavour about this. MURGH ^disc. 16:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment This article does need work. This is for certain. It is only a few days old. There is still new information to be filled in. I have only been researching this for the past few days. Today I found a reliable record for the Machemehl Cemmetary. This link can be found at [39]. Also, I recently found that he recieved his American citizenship in 1856 at this site [40]. There is informatin concerning his father and sister at this link [41], and more on another sister here, [42]. Also for general archives conerning Johns involvement in the German Texan heritage of Bellville can be found at [43]. These links helps fill some more information about these early German Texas settlers. I will be adding more when I come across it - BUT, frankly I believe there is already enough information to substantiate and article entry. Thanks again for your comments and review. User:Bhaktivinode 29 March 2007

I am not bringing it back to a debate on notability, notability is just one of the aspects in this deletion debate. And an article that is not speedyable is by no means exempt from deletion through AfD: the requirements to delete something through speedy are much stricter, and it is enough that one editor (apart from the creator) disagrees to make the speedy impossible. For speedy, you need an article that does not assert notability. To survive AfD, you need to show that notability with verifiable, reputable, independent sources. I think this article fails on both accounts, since all the claims made are not enough to make someone notable (interesting, perhaps, but not notable), and those claims are not supported by verifiable, reputable, independent sources: all we can verify is that he lived and where and when he died: I have no trouble accepting that he was the father of Paul either. But I have seen no evidence that he "provided leadership" or was a "central figure" beyond being the father of one barely notable person and the grandfather of one notable person: notability is not transferable. Information on his family is irrelevant for this discussion: it may be interesting to add to the article if it is kept, but it plays no part in the decision to keep or delete it. Please check out WP:BIO and see for yourself how John Machemehl thoroughly fails this. Fram 19:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You start out saying you are not taking the debate back to notability, but your article above is centered on this question of yours alone. John Machemehl was an early German Texan settler. That is enough. He does not have to part any seas as Moses did. I have shown above that there are many sources. I strongly disagree with you and am confident that this is the beginnings of a sound article. User:Bhaktivinode 29 March 2007

comment I have edited the article on John Machemehl, added soucrces and primarily - I have tried to place the disagrements over sources within context. If others are willing to assist, I would be more than appreciative. Thanks for review the above. User:Bhaktivinode 29 March 2007

• Weak delete I think that being among the first European settlers in an area is potentially notable, depending on the historical circumstances, especially if the person is one of the leaders of the group. The problem is sources. The sources you are using are primary sources from which a biographical or genealogical account could be written. But if you were to do so--and it does look as if you are setting about it in a reasonable way--this would be the first time the material had ever been compiled, and would count as OR. I am not very restrictive about NOR--I think that assembling together obvious public sources into an article is legitimate. I believe that an article about a person based on a suitable secondary work but incorporating something from the primary public record is justifiable. But gathering a number of primary sources, checking the inscriptions of tombstones and on library collections of primary sources in unpublished genealogies and (in some other articles) prison records or social security records or deeds or immigration records, or the Sanford map series, --not here, but in other similar articles -- is OR, in the most basic sense. This is what local historians do. I'm not sure that there is yet as suitable wiki for the purpose, but there surely will be--and then we can discuss whether compilations there count as reliable secondary sources--I think it would depend on the standards of the Wiki. I might be prepared to accept such as site as the Wintermann library site as RS for the purpose if it gave sources (which it doesnt) --but not for this particular subject as he is only mentioned in a summary account of another family. So in conclusion, weak delete as probable OR. DGG 23:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

We have no indication that he was "among the first European settlers in the area" though. Among the first German ones perhaps... Fram 05:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Since information discerned from the Bownds Archives has at times been at the center of this debate, I have placed it, within the article, in sequence - as an afterthought. Please do judge the article in this new context, with a much reduced reliance upon this source. Thank you for considering these issues. User:Bhaktivinode 29 March 2007

I have added a series of edits to the article in order bring it into line with some of the criticisms leveled above. I now please ask for any responses concerning these recent edits, in this process, from people yet to be heard from, or those who have some constructive input. Thanks you for reviewing these comments. User:Bhaktivinode 29 March 2007

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Machemehl Family House. The person is generally notable for a few things but lacks attribution in places, such as being a forester; the article reaches too far at present. On the other hand, he and his father describe the beginning of the USA branch of the family tree in which contains Paul Machemehl, Louis A. Machemehl, Chuck Machemehl, and Charles W. Machemehl. As a result various facts about the historical roots of this family will become attributable over time, and the Machemehl Family House article is the best spot for them to land on wiki. John Vandenberg 07:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve I agree with the above but only in part. While I do think that the Machemehl Family House is a page that should mention John Machemehl, as a member of the Forty-Eighters who led his family and companions from Annaberg to Austin County - John Machemehl should have a page in his own right as such an early German Texan settler. Right now, the article does need to improve more, but it has improved over the past few days, and I suspect it will continue to improve quite more over time. Presently, I and am open to any and all constructive ideas. Thank you for reviewing the above. User:Bhaktivinode 30 March 2007
• Keep relevant to German Texas history.

User:Merknorton 1 April 2007

• • Comment This is the first contribution by user Merknorton. John Vandenberg 22:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Because this debate has gone on for five days and the above parties, who have either commented, voted to keep or delete, have made their case in the comments above. Should this debate be closed? Thanks you for reviewing the above. User:Bhaktivinode 2 April 2007

very weak keep On a site brimming with commercial junk & pop culture fan noise, it's good to see actual historical data. I would prefer a merge to a deletion, but I pick keep by a thin edge. Ventifax 22:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hallow

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

Article is a dictionary definition of a word, which according to 'what wikipedia is not' belongs on wiktionary. Sandpiper 07:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This is not a dictionary, and is probably speculation for Harry Potter 7.Olin 13:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Improve. The article seems to be more than a dictionary definition as it gives a history of the word. RockerballAustralia 09:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Improve as per RockerballAustralia. --Phill ^{talk Edits} 09:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - Editor Sandpiper, with all due respect, is incorrect. The Hallows article, while possibly constituting a stub that is under construction, already constitutes (after only 2 days of existence) far more than a simple "dictionary definition of a word", although it certainly contains definition material (cited to dictionary). The article also links to the existing Wiktionary entry on the word, for a "more proper" definition and derivation reference. There are well cited definitions and usage examples, regarding Halloween and Hallowmas, and a well cited reference to Hallows literature (Tolkien's use of Hallows in The Return of the King). The "Immediate Deletion" recommendation appears to be connected to the ongoing debate at the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows article on the Talk Page. Admittedly, the article was also created in response to the same debate. The reason to keep is this: As the seventh J. K. Rowling Harry Potter book comes closer to release, many many young people and adults will be looking for information on what Hallows might refer to, and it is the Wikipedia editors' duty to at the very least provide information on what the Hallows "currently are" (outside of the Potter books). That said, speculation about what Rowling's Deathly Hallows might be, should be at the very least restrained and controlled, if not banned. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 12:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Virtually all the material in the article was exported from the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows article, which is the sole reason for the creation of this article. All the material fits the definition of a dictionary entry as described in the relevant page from what wikipedia is not. The current wiktionary entry is a one line stub. This article as it stands is exactly what ought to be on the wiktionary page. Now, I have no objection to the material being reinserted into the page where it came from, where it served to explain the rather obscure title of the book. But by itself, it is only a definition, because the word has no other real-life usage. This article has become the centre of a debate on the 'Deathly Hallows' page. I would not have taken this to AfD so quickly if it was a simple stub, but the conclusion of the content debate on DH rather depends upon whether this is in itself a legitimate article. I contend that its sole reason for existing is to contain a definition of the word for the benefit of the parent article, and it would much better exist inside that parent. As a separate article it serves to confuse rather than inform readers, who would expect the information to be in 'Deathly Hallows'. There is no issue of excessive length in the parent articleSandpiper 21:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Move to wiktionary certinly a dictionary definition. ANHL 11:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Note - There is already an independant hallow entry at the wiktionary --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 12:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

which has a stub one sentence definition.Sandpiper 21:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, referenced and covers also usage and background in a way that a dictionary will never do. In addition, this appears to be a content dispute. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

actually, according to the 'Wiki is not a dictionary' page this extended definition is just exactly what a wiktionary entry ought to be. Sandpiper 21:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not exactly sure where this belongs, whether on the encyclopedia (it does provide more than a mere definition, which is not against WP:NOT) or on the dictionary (it is basically an elaborate definition, with uses), but I strongly support the keeping of this information somewhere on Wikipedia or its sister projects. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Change to Keep per below reasoning and my above statement. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Useful for the parent article which surely will be a top read article, it's too bad wikipedia doesn't have contactable sections, but it doesn't so making a new page is whats going to end up happening for now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Owlofcreamcheese (talk • contribs) 03:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
• Keep and improve Okay, right now the article is only a bit more than a definition, but it has improved, and I suspect it will continue to improve. This articles very existence has been helpful in reducing conflict about HP7 to this page. If the article can keep up a comprehensive list of non-speculation about HP7, but rather what Hallows are as used in various pieces of literature, I think it's worth keeping. Tuvas 16:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Quote from WP:WINAD referring to what a wikipedia article is.

Articles are about the people, concepts, places, events, and things that their titles denote. The article octopus is about the animal: its physiology, its use as food, its scientific classification, and so forth.

Hallow fits this description. It is an article about the concept of "Hallows". It talks about what hallows are considered in many contexts. Compare this to the same line for the wikitionary:

Articles are about the actual words or idioms in their title. The article octopus is about the word "octopus": its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth.

This article does not fit this criteria. It doesn't deal with it's part of speech, puralizations, usage, etc. It only deals with the concept of Hallows, which are mentioned in many works of fiction. Thus I conclude that the article fits far better the entry for wikipedia than wikitionary. Tuvas 17:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Super speedy keep, this article is far more than just a definition. Also, the existence of this article will partly solve the persistent debate which lasts over a month just circling around the "hallow" issue. Apple•_•w••o•_•r••m•_• 16:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Not sure what it looked like when this AfD appeared, but right now it looks like a well sourced and very informative encyclopedia article about several different historical and mythical items referred to as "Hallows", far more than a dictionary definition. --Maelwys 18:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep: I think we all know that Sandpiper has initiated this just to prove a point and to try to push speculations back into the HP article. This reason is already enough to debunk this deletion request. But we can also see that this article is absolutely not a "dictionary" entry since it contains a history of the word in the literary context (moreover, the fact that the Grail is a hallow, increases the value of this article in the perspective of a "arthurian legends" category). You see, hallows are not mere objects, they are a the very center of many, many myths, both christian and celtic, and that's precisely the focus of the article, to replace hallows in their literary context. Thus this article is extremely relevant, and certainly won't be deleted just because of some petty rivalries over speculations about a fantasy novel that has not much to do with the real focus of the article. Sandpiper seems to have forgotten that the word Hallow has existed way before HP, and that such an article is just an essential part of a bigger work here in Wikipedia, on english traditions, and always leading the discussion back to his own petty disputes about an ultra-minor aspect of Hallows, shows Sandpiper's unability to have a general view on things. Folken de Fanel 20:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil and assume good faith 01:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It is important that this matter be settled before any decision on the HP page is decided, rather than this page being deleted one month afterwards. Wouldn't want that to happen, would we? Note that the WINAD page says about articles which would not be appropriate for wikipedia:

note that dictionary and encyclopedia articles do not differ simply on grounds of length. A full dictionary article (as opposed to a stub dictionary article, which is simply where Wiktionary articles start from) will contain illustrative quotations for each listed meaning; etymologies; translations; inflections; links to related and derived terms; links to synonyms, antonyms, and homophones; a pronunciation guide in various dialects, including links to sound files; and usage notes; and can be very long indeed. Sandpiper

• Keep per above. Article meets WP:Good definitions Arfan 01:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have read the section, and for the life of me, I can't see whether this is an argument for inclusion or exclusion from wikipedia or wiktionary. It seems to be more an observation on what makes a good entry in either. Sandpiper

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

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

The result was Delete article suggested for merge already has the substantive information from this article including source. Gnangarra 06:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Prosper Nicholas Trebeck

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

His only stated claim to notability is having built the first structure in Winchelsea, Victoria, Australia. No proper citations, and one of the "Winchelsea" links is actually to Winchelsea in England. DoorsAjar 08:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• A bad link is something easily fixed. Editors are human and make mistakes. And I can't seem to find this bad link... -- saberwyn 08:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I was trying to point out improper use of citations--this was listed as source material, so the author should've read it. I take your point, though. The incorrect link is to winchelsea.net. DoorsAjar 08:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 08:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Winchelsea, Victoria where he is mentioned, possibly significant and worth note in a history/founding section. I can only find one brief book mention through google books and nothing of significant in any online archives. The town's historical association does not mention him. All that we have to write about is the fact of the hotel... not an article by it self - Peripitus (Talk) 10:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOR - excessive reliance on birth/death/marriage certificates. Trebeck hasn't been the source of multiple independant publications - he is mentioned in passing in History of X by local history assocaiations.Garrie 21:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Pioneers who are political leaders or community leaders can be notable, and the person to build th firt house in a community might well qualify.DGG 03:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as per Peripitus --Mattinbgn/ ^talk 04:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as per Peripitus John Vandenberg 10:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge as per Peripitus (bandwagon vote). Lankiveil 11:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

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

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

The result was Keep this AfD resembles a WP:POINT listing as it was referred in on AfD then listed here. The consensus here is that its not an "indiscriminate collection of information". Gnangarra 05:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

List of NBC slogans

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

Similar to list of Seven Network slogans, which is also on AfD, this is an indiscriminate collection of information. Resurgent insurgent 08:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Keep How is it an indiscriminate list? There is a list of things there not intended to be included (i.e., song lyrics, FAQs, instruction manuals, etc.), but how does this apply there? 207.62.231.2 21:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as clearly indiscriminate information for the sake of information. - Peripitus (Talk) 09:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - It has an article in Dutch. BlackBear 14:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article on the advertising/name branding of a major company? I can't imagine how it wouldn't qualify in some way as notable. Article could use some context and cleanup, might be merged back into the main article, but I see no need to delete. Here's three [44][45][46] articles which discuss the overall subject, and who knows, a more comprehensive search might reveal more about this stuff. FrozenPurpleCube 16:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And according to [47] there is a hall of fame for such slogans. It may be an industry group, but that they are doing it points to some validity of the subject on its own. FrozenPurpleCube 17:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I don't care how notable NBC is. It's an indiscriminate list. YechielMan 18:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • How so? This is not a FAQ, tour guide, phone directory or any of the other commonly described indiscriminate lists, but completely valid information that's no different than say, List of state mottos. I could be convinced that this article should be merged, but bold declarations without reasoning are not convincing. FrozenPurpleCube 19:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I'm also not sure how reliable the single reference is; I have no point of reference for opening or accessing a .ra file. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment BTW, looking at the page, it seems that several of the slogans have their own articles. Are they going to be proposed for deletion, or is there existence acceptable while a list of them is not? I still want to know how this is indiscriminate by the way. An actual articulation of it would help, since this is hardly the only list of slogans for a major company on Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 23:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep clearly not a indiscriminate list, clearly discriminates as to what can be on the list, there is only X many slogans and no more until they make a new one. Indiscriminate lists sprawl out forever and can always grow longer forever. Owlofcreamcheese 03:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, indiscriminate, non-encyclopædic list. What's next, "List of NBC programming changes"? There are only X many changes and no more until they make a new one. Lankiveil 11:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Well, one could look at a Category:Television_schedules and get that information, and I wouldn't mind a page tracking their programming history more directly. It's not like television programming isn't the subject of news articles. FrozenPurpleCube 14:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Are the individual pages going to be deleted? Hopefully not. WAVY 10 15:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, agreed with Owlofcreamcheese that it is far from indiscriminate. Contrary to Lankiveil's fear, creating a list of programming changes would be insane. Merge with main article, maybe, but this is an ill-advised nomination... Ranma9617 02:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all. - Mailer Diablo 15:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Mario Party 3 minigames

And also List of Mario Party 4 minigames, List of Mario Party 5 minigames, List of Mario Party 6 minigames, List of Mario Party 7 minigames, List of Mario Party 8 minigames

Previous nomination, which was withdrawn, can be found here.

Trivia. Not encyclopedic. Unsourced. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No actual improvement since previous AFD. >Radiant< 08:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: there is an emerging AfD standard for such articles. See recently closed List of Mario Party minigames at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party minigames and List of Mario Party Advance minigames at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mario Party Advance minigames. All these "List of Mario Party * minigames" are of comparable quality, so AfD decisions should be portable. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 08:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The List of Mario Party minigames decision was entirely opinionated.Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 17:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 08:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this belongs on GameFAQs or somewhere, not in an encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep or merge to main articles: Not trivia, I will source it very soon, this isn't an unencyclopedic list, passes WP:NOT as it isn't game guide material, the list just goes on .....Henchman 2000 10:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As these articles are linked to a major CvG sereis, a merge would also be appropriate. Henchman 2000 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge them all into a Table of Mario Party games. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - A prose section in the main article using a combination of secondary sources and the primary source is more appropriate an encyclopedia-like. As it is, this is not useful for people who already know about the games and not useful for people who don't. This is fairly analogous to a plot summary and I believe the reasoning behind articles not being plot summaries is applicable to this as well. No improvement since at last AFD too. Wickethewok 14:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC

Wikiproject:Nintendo's aims, is to provide a comprehensive and detailed guide to Nintendo, which is what this list does. Henchman 2000 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, how are these lists not useful for people who don't know the minigames? Henchman 2000 08:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all. A clear case of Wikipedia is not a game guide, as the other recent Mario Party AfDs have shown. Krimpet (talk/review) 14:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per precedent of the other Mario Party AfD's. I will reiterate my previous opinion that these are essentially unsourced game FAQs and do not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 15:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look, you will find that only the LMP3mgs is unsourced, so WP:ATT is no reason for deletion. Henchman 2000 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all, not acceptable encyclopedia content per WP:NOT. In addition to that, the "articles" are unsourced, thereby failing WP:ATT. Picaroon 17:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

See comment above. Henchman 2000 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep: In no way is this trivia. Mario Party is about minigames over anything else. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 17:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all per WP:NOT. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

THis doesn't fail WP:NOT, also, you must show why you think it *can't* pass WP:NOT. Henchman 2000 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, one could interpret this as failing either WP:NOT#DIR and/or WP:NOT#INFO. Note that there are no hard and fast definition of NOT given, just examples and a rough definition. The purpose then of the AfD debate is to establish consensus as to whether an article passes guidelines - if a user feels that it violates WP:NOT there is nothing in the guidelines or policy that says the user must show why the article cannot pass inclusion criteria. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 18:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want a strong argument, then yes, you must. Henchman 2000 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Mini-game lists lack any merit and fail WP:NOT for being game guides. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And how do they do that? Henchman 2000 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all Fails WP:NOT and for the most part [[WP:ATT]. Listcruft. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Cruft is no valid reason for deletion, and look carefully at almost every comment on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fancruft, there you will find that any delete vote of "cruft" of any description should be discounted and there is a consensus for this. Henchman 2000 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all per nomination. It's game guide content that is better suited for a gaming wiki. No list page for all of them is needed at Wikipedia either. RobJ1981 20:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. WP:NOT#IINFO seems very relevant here as noted by Radiant, Wikthewok, et al. The WP:ATT issue is subsidiary to this as better sourcing would not fix the core problem. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. These can never expand beyond basic gameplay descriptions or game guide material. I recommended redirecting at some of the other discussions, but upon further reflection that is not the best idea. --- RockMFR 20:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete All per all possible arguments. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 22:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per other debates. Axem Titanium 22:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. Yes, I know in the past I've said I'd prefer to keep these lists. However, I have changed my mind there, seeing that this is unsourced and fails WP:NOT#INFO, as the nom stated. My main concern with these lists is: How are they encyclopedic? "Mario Party is more about minigames than anything else." Sure. But how does a list of them benfit the encylopedia? From List of Mario Party 3 minigames: "Eye Sore- Circle around a Mr. I to shrink it away. Avoid Podoboos." Is that somehow not game guide material? Every other MP minigame list has this problem as well, except that they have a more encylopedic tone. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 23:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • These articles are sourced. Henchman 2000 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • They don't directly source the minigames in question. Also, please remember formatting here, with asterisks (*). — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 19:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all In what situation would this be of use to a user of an encyclopedia? That is how I read most of the WP:NOT guidelines. Slavlin 02:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

THis benefits those that are looking for precise information, and an encyclopedia is supposed to give precise information, isn't it? And this is not indiscriminate as it is linked to a notable sereis. Henchman 2000 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If these articles cannot be kept, put them on my userspace Henchman 2000 17:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest you download them onto your hard drive if you want to keep them, we are not a web hosting service. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Other users are allowed to put deleted articles on their userspace, so why shouldn't I? Henchman 2000 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Because the only purpose would be to recreate or to rehaul it, and neither would fly. People save content to improve the article over time (often to solve problems people have with the AfD). - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • If they were put into my userspace, I would give them a massive cleanup and hopefully solve these problems and make them acceptable for all, I would want to show these articles to editors like yourself so that you could advise me on how to improve them further, or tell me if you thought they were acceptable. That would fly. 14:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I would be really impressed if you managed to make the article both quality and not violations of WP:ATT and WP:NOT, considering doing so would entail destroying the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
          • I will manage to make it pass these articles and it won't destroy the articles, in fact, you could help if you wanted to. Henchman 2000 07:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. I think one page with a table of all the Mario Party mini-games from all the games should be kept. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Useight (talk • contribs).
• Merge all related articles into one A game guide explains how to play the game in detail, this isn't a game guide. Also not indiscriminate as they are clearly linked together by a notable game. If not merged into an article or list of its own, these could be cut down and merged into the game articles. At the very least there's some salvageable content in here. Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No. Notability is not defined by being associated with a notable thing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. One massive list of Mario Party games is better than 7+. MrMacMan 22:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Better, yes. Good enough, no. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Please don't imply that your opinion is somehow better than mine since you didn't actually rebut my point with an actual policy or guideline. MrMacMan 08:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • How about one violation of WP:ATT and WP:NOT is better than seven, but still not within our inclusion policy? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT an INDISCRIMINATE collection of info but this isn't indiscriminate as it is on a notable subject. f it was random crap I could understandbut it's not. Also, they are NOT GAME GUIDES because a game3 guide gives THROUGH instructions with hints and tips. Oh, and the articles ARE sourced. Have you seen the "References" section yet? Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 10:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the lot of them. WP:NOT a game guide works well here, as well as no claim whatsoever to any sort of notability. Game guides would be a trivial work here. Remember the standard is that it has to have been the subject of multiple non-trivial works before it can be considered notable. -M^ask 20:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand, can you please simplify what you're saying about notability and why these articles don't qualify. Henchman 2000 07:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete All The Mario Party series of games are indeed notable, but the individual games within Mario Party certainly are NOT. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 14:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. WjBscribe 21:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

List of city nicknames

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

The article fails to maintain a NPOV proclaiming many, many places as the x capital of the world without referencing. Todd661 08:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC) COMMENT Keep in mind

• indiscriminate information
• WP:OR.
• When something is so blantant is giving a POV we cannot wait for a reference to be included. If I was to put into the article that "George W. Bush is the best President the USA has ever had" it would be deleted straight away, and so it should be! Here, it is EXACTLY THE SAME. Todd661 08:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• keep - provided someone clears up the neutrality issues, I don't see any reason this article needs to be deleted. ZBrannigan 00:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as indiscriminate information. Probably able to be refererenced but still just purposeless information - Peripitus (Talk) 11:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - It's a real phenomenon, and certainly can be referenced. (There's a 1965 book "Nicknames of Cities and States of the United States" which could be cited here, and could at least double the length of the article.) But just because somebody got something into print once doesn't make the article any less an indiscriminate collection. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Here's the cite: Kane, Joseph Nathan and Alexander, Gerard L. "Nicknames of Cities and States of the U.S. New York and London, The Scarecrow Press 1965. LC 65-13550. 341pp. -- BPMullins | Talk 19:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• keep but clean up. Temporary NPOV problems are not a reason to delete an article... just needs some referencing and other work. --W.marsh 14:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. At first I was tempted to say keep, but I have to agree with the nominator in saying that the POV problems are pretty widespread and would require massive amounts of sourcing to counteract that. Even if someone were to do the footwork, compiling a list of nicknames that have effectively been used in some reputable publication is still an indiscriminate list. Besides, if I were interested in finding alternative nicknames for, say, Chicago, Illinois, I'd expect to find that information in the city's article rather than in a list. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 15:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; the sourcing problem can be easily remedied. Article deletion should be reserved for articles that are unredeemable, not merely bad in their current form. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 16:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Nicknames for each individual city should go into the article for that city, not in a big huge list. This list (and List of city nicknames in the United States in particular) is poorly sourced and vulnerable to people putting in their own definitions. Since when is Circle Pines, Minnesota the "Unsigned Rappers Capital", anyway? I thought it was just a quiet little suburb. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is somewhat of a WP:IAR vote. With a listing like, "Alfalfa capital of the world - Cozad, Nebraska", how can we not keep it? :) Unfortunately, it would take a monumental effort to find sources for all these claims, but the fundamental idea of having such a list is fine with me. YechielMan 18:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but remove all unsourced nicknames from the article. Finding sources for the currently unsourced contents would be an unreasonably huge task, but the article itself is not inherently POV. EALacey 18:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above arguments. Epbr123 00:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, so like lots of our articles, it's unsourced, go source it not delete it. Carlossuarez46 01:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The artilce was potentical. But needs work with sourcing.--Bryson 02:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Sourcing something of this size would be nearly impossible. Smacks of much OR. Realkyhick 04:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• comment - Sourcing something of this size is a large task, but impossible? Hardly. In fact, there are several sources to draw on that could act as citations for many of the entries. Once the vast majority of it is sourced, the unsourced entries could be deleted, to be re-added if someone finds a citation. After that, it's easy to tell if any given edit is reasonable on the basis of its sources. I'm actually planning to do something very much like this in a massive overhaul of List of tequila brands. -Harmil 16:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but please require sourcing for each and every item in the list. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above arguments. - Axver 05:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and continue to develop in proper encyclopedic fashion. — Athænara ✉ 20:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 11:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yellow Subs

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

No evidence that the club meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The only references provided are two external jumps, neither of which mentions the club; one provides contact details for the sports centre at which the club is based, and the other is a customer testimonial by one team member on an entirely unrelated site. A proposed deletion template expressing concerns about notability has been removed, as have Notability and Unreferenced templates, without any evidence of notability being provided. EALacey 08:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 09:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• What evidence would you like? Furthermore, what evidence do you have that it is untrue? It's not like theres video tapes of everything. What is it your wanting to allow this article to remain? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tal1988 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 28 March 2007.
  • Comment Nobody is claiming the article is untrue, but truth is not the sole requirement for an article existing. You need to add reliable sources to the article that prove that a) the club exists and b) the club meets notability requirements. Have a read of WP:ATT for further details ChrisTheDude 10:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. As described at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), to qualify as notable an organisation must have been the subject of independent reliable sources. The article provides no evidence that this has been the case. In fact, the references provided are insufficient to establish that the club even exists. Your request for evidence that the article is untrue is irrelevant; as described at Wikipedia:Attribution: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." In any case, establishing the accuracy of the current article would not demonstrate notability. EALacey 10:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• What evidence would you like? Furthermore, what evidence do you have that it is untrue? It's not like theres video tapes of everything. What is it your wanting to allow this article to remain? The both links serve a purpose to prove that both player and competition actually exist. Secondly, the player link also allows the reader to acknowledge the player's background, showing the type of lifestyle he lives. We could put up a team photo....a video....just because they dont have a website doesn't make it not credible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tal1988 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Neither link proves anything relating to this team. The first one proves that a particular sports centre exists, it doesn't say anything about this team playing there. The second link proves that someone with a name matching one of the players was very impressed with the services of some bank, that doesn't prove anything about this team, which is the subject of the article. If you read the policy I directed you to above, you will see that an article needs to show evidence of independent coverage in reliable sources of the actual subject of the article. If this isn't possible then the article doesn't meet WP guidelines. Hope this helps ChrisTheDude 10:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete does not operate at a sufficiently notable league level. MLA 10:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• I have spent time trying to find these sites to prove the existence and i have referenced them.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tal1988 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment You can't just delete the entire contents of an AfD page, that constitutes VANDALISM. Also none of the new links constitute a reliable source, especially not one with "cock n balls" in the URL. See WP:What kinds of sources are generally regarded as unreliable? ChrisTheDude 11:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - club seems non-notable, no evidence of notability provided. Qwghlm 11:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete obviously. It's an indoor soccer club, guys. No wonder there is no substantial external coverage in reliable sources! Does anyone other than its members even know of its existence? Probably not: User:Tal1988 is certainly the founder. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• There is actually quite a large fanbase. As we are in Melbourne's top division for free age Indoor soccer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tal1988 (talk • contribs)
  • .....unfortunately that doesn't seem to have translated into any form of independent coverage, which is required per WP:ATT ChrisTheDude 11:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Note that Tal1988 just vandalised my user page with a personal attack. Tal, I'm trying to be helpful here by directing you to policies the reading of which might be able to help get your article up to the required standard. I think you need to grow up a bit ChrisTheDude 12:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I appologize for my act of immaturity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tal1988 (talk • contribs)

• Delete Non notable. Tangerines 00:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No assertion of notability.--Bryson 02:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, and a red card to the author for vandalizing user pages. Realkyhick 04:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete a non-professional club for U students?! Matthew_hk tc 05:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• If we were to prove that we play, and that we do work as a team for the community, would that make the page valid? Danielrychter1 11:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Quoting from myself above, "an article needs to show evidence of independent coverage in reliable sources". If this evidence can be provided then the article meets WP guidelines, if not then it doesn't. Merely existing is not grounds for an article ChrisTheDude 12:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this club does not appear to be notable enough for wikipedia. Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 12:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. Absolutly no grounds for it to be kept, just because somthing can be proved to exist does not mean it is worthy of inclusion in an ENCYCLOPEDIA. It has to go.--Greatestrowerever 12:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Rightio, since you believe it can't be proven, then delete the article on wikipedia for "God". God cannot be proven to exist. So if something established, thats proven to exist, cannot be on the site, then how can something so unsubstantiated be included? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tal1988 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 31 March 2007.
  • The God article does not make any claim about God's existence, but merely reports what philosophers and theologians have said on the topic. In any case, as numerous editors have pointed out, existence does not equate to notability. Whether or not God exists, the topic of "God" has been the subject of non-trivial published works. That does not apply to Yellow Subs. EALacey 07:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Solemn

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

This article is essentially a dictionary definition. DoorsAjar 09:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Solemnly delete yes, a dictionary definition. Etymology is not notable or unusual enough to make it an encylopaedic topic. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WINAD. YechielMan 18:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• comment before deleting this, someone should transwiki the material to wiktionary. Blueaster 04:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikidictionary. WP:WINAD Realkyhick 04:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• wikt:solemn already exists. Guy (Help!) 13:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. Of the seven Keep commentors, four are accounts registered after this AfD and which have few edits except here. The other three are all three registered before this AfD, but only a short time before, and which have a reasonable number of edits outside this AfD, considering that they are new accounts. The first four have little or no standing, the standing of the other three is somewhat questionable. That leaves the nominator and one other commentor in full standing. Both suggested Delete. This is not really a quorum. But looking at the links,

• this seems not to refer to eDesk onine.
• this, maxine.com, is an online magazine. How popular it is I don't know, but purely online sources have a low entry cost.
• this, reviewcentre.com, is just a sort of formum for users to post reviews of products. And there is just one such review.
• this is not a review, just a note that that (small) website is now using eDesk online.
• The other four links are just sites that are using the software.

So... one legitimate link, its legitimacy low because it is online. Because of the very low publishing cost, online magazines are often closer to being blogs than they are to being real print magazines, although that's not necessarily true of maxine.com.

Therefore the Keep argument falls apart. Herostratus 20:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Edeskonline

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

Does not furfil Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), in particular no refs from suitable secondary sources, all links are from derived products. Only reference is from a public web based review site GameKeeper 09:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am working on adding reference links. I also paste below an extract of my comments on the talk page below:

I just spoke with the customer support guys at edesk online and asked them about reference links to newspaper/magazine articles about them. They have informed me that few magazines have already reviewed the site, and are expected to publish the same soon. Again I request everyone to help me in improving the content of this article and add any reference links they come across. Dhshah 09:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Not enough independent sources. Looks like an advert. Realkyhick 04:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It is definately a well written article: several links to this article from wiki pages have been appreciated. Eg List of Online Office Suites has a good comparision. Sanjiv swarup 06:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment There are no independent refs to establish WP:Verifiability against. Unless these can be provided, these other wiki links should be removed too. It looks like someone is trying to use wikipedia to advertise a non-notable product. GameKeeper 12:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

One more reference link of an independant organisation has been added. Dhshah 14:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Checked out the reference Ramesh debata 10:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• One more link to an article published in an independant magazine has been added. Dhshah 17:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete. - There are three independant secondary sources which establish notability. Kalivd (talk • contribs) 05:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

I have been able to locate a fourth reference Sanjiv swarup 16:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete. - I agree with Kalivd. Ramesh debata 15:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The article has been modified and independent refs to establish WP:Verifiability have been added. Dhshah 20:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The article now fulfills Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Dhshah 20:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The article has several good wiki references. Sanjiv swarup 04:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I have gone to the site of edesk which is of much benefit not from any particular country's point of view but from the point of view of the whole world. You need not carry any software just your login shall help you to operate from any corner of the world and it has got all features which a ordinary person having least income as well as a big shot having very high income is available. You can store anything you like. You are maintaining the accounts and any outsider cannot access to your accounts not even the tax people. How convinient it is. So I feel that the article should appear and rather it should be given wide publicity Ssunderagarwal 09:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ssunderagarwal 08:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete. - Since i have gone through the above comment I think there should be no reason for the page to be deleted. I visited the site myself and i find it has all tht has been described... This article should be published rather than deleting it.. Vijaykumartb 09:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - There are sufficient independant secondary reviews, including mine i dont think so this article should be deleted. Latha padm 11:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Миша13 18:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Big cove ymca

Big cove ymca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Somewhat spammy article on an unremarkable summer camp. Contested prod. MER-C 09:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Obvious delete as spam. YechielMan 18:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Spam, likely copy-paste. Realkyhick 04:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Your face/life is unremarkable.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, discussion regarding potential merge to Arunachal Pradesh can proceed on the talk page but the consensus is to keep the information. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 21:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

South Tibet

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

This is not a clearly defined geographical term in English, thus not notable. The article gives two conflicting definitions, without proper sources. —Babelfisch 08:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: found in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellow Subs. MER-C 09:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• KeepIt is the translation from chinese sources.I wish we keep up this article to represent the chinese view of this territories.Furthermore Arunachal Pradesh isn't neither a english definiton,It is of sanskrit.--Ksyrie 06:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep regardless of whether this is a currently defined geographical space. Appears to have a historical existence and could potentially be expanded with information about its history. A geographic or political region is notable. I'm no expert on this so happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. MLA 11:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

We have an article on Arunachal Pradesh and South Tibet is just a Chinese name for that piece of land. The region is disputed between India and China and it makes no sense to have 2 articles on the same topic. --Incman|वार्ता 23:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Arunachal Pradesh has no relevance to this is as it is a fully recognised state in India whereas South Tibet is not. Could this article not perhaps be merged with the main Tibet page? Tangerines 16:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

On what basis did you jump to that conclusion? The article itself says that "it roughly corresponds to the presently Indian-administered state of Arunachal Pradesh". Therefore, Arunachal Pradesh and South Tibet have the same history, geography, demographics and culture. --Incman|वार्ता 23:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Arunachal Pradesh. South Tibet is nothing but a Chinese term for Arunachal Pradesh. --Incman|वार्ता 23:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Don't Merge,The Arunachal Pradesh and South Tibet are not completely covering the same area,though somehow overlapping.The South Tibet is relatively smaller.Try to compare the two in the maps.--Ksyrie 04:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Having looked at various articles, I am convinced that this article merits inclusion. The problem is that it needs some one who can provide a WP:NPOV to it and Arunachal Pradesh making clear what the current de facto position is, based on the ceasefire line after the Indo-Chinese War. The maps provided do not make this clear to me. The arguments about the adoption of Christianity whether freely chosen (my guess) or forcably (as some apparently allege), which appear in the Arunachal Pradesh talk page clearly show that the whole issue is one on which there are some very strong feelings. Peterkingiron 21:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• We need an expert,the Arunachal Pradesh is clearly larger than South Tibet,but I cann't find more verifiable information about it.--Ksyrie 07:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment:The article as of now lacks references. The 3 URLs at the External links section are not really references/citations. --Ragib 08:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

comment,this article is composed based on various contents found in Arunachal Pradesh and Tsangyang Gyatso, 6th Dalai Lama.--Ksyrie 08:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - All relevant content belongs in Arunachal Pradesh.Bakaman 21:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge. Right now it seems that Arunachal Pradesh and South Tibet are just duplicates of each other; if they do start diverging in the future, they'll probably end up as POV forks. So I say merge unless we can find some way of splitting the scope of the two terms that would result in more NPOV not less, like we've done for ROC / Taiwan. I'm open to ideas as to how this split could be carried out. -- ran (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• CommentSouth Tibet may be a older name than the Arunachal Pradesh,moreover,the two regions are not completely the same.I strongly disencourage to merge or delete.--Ksyrie 06:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if "South Tibet" is older than "Arunachal Pradesh"; in fact my impression is that "South Tibet" is just a name invented recently by Chinese activists. The PRC government would probably refer to it simply as "disputed territories along the eastern section of the Sino-Indian border", or "Indian-occupied territory south of the illegal McMahon Line", etc. -- ran (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The name of Arunachal Pradesh wont exist before 1960s,for this regions,there should be one name to describe it.Arunachal Pradesh is a very very new name and nothing to do with the its tibetan connection.And your claim south tibet was a chinese fabrication was totally ungrounded.At least South Tibet emphasised the historic connection for this regions while Arunachal Pradesh is tthoroughy an alien imposed name for its people who lived in these regions.--Ksyrie 21:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 11:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Flinders soccer club

Flinders soccer club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:PROD by User:Mattinbgn was contested by the article's author, so I'm bringing it here. The club is not notable outside a small university and amateur league soccer circle. There are no secondary sources to create a verifiable article. cj | talk 09:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 10:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - club is just an amateur league one of no particular importance. Far too minor a league for teams to have articles here - Peripitus (Talk) 11:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. YechielMan 18:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete one step of social footy.Garrie 23:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete although may be worth a passing mention in the Flinders University article. As it plays in an amateur league and has so for its history, it is not worth an article in its own right. Capitalistroadster 03:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom, as the original WP:PROD proposer. --Mattinbgn/ ^talk 04:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete a club in Lower league of regional league system. Matthew_hk tc 05:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't seem to be much more than a NN amateur football club. Lankiveil 11:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
• Delete and agree with the above that perhaps the club could be included in the Flinders University article. Tangerines 13:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was MERGE to Virginia Tech.Herostratus 15:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was KEEP due to significant improvement. Cúchullain ^t/c 05:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Toronto Goth Scene

Toronto Goth Scene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy deletion. Reads as original research, no compelling evidence to support the assertion that this is materially different from the goth scene elsewhere, but not a speedy candidate. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - have to agree that this reads as original research. Cannot find anything that shows the goth scene has been talked about in the wider world as being significatly different to the Goth scene elsewhere. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per above ChaosAkita 20:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is so earnestly written it has a considerable comedy value, presumably unintended. Delete all the same, though. -- Hoary 11:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Delete, mainly on OR and POV grounds, though the article and the super-long argument for keeping by the author are enough to make my head spin. Realkyhick 04:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This looks like a write-up on how to get into the Toronto goth scene rather than actual, encyclopedic documentation on the subject. This doesn't quite sit as something that I'd really think belongs on Wikipedia - even with lots of data. --Dennisthe2 23:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Given consensus on the discussion below, I'm changing my vote to weak keep - which is actually what I was hoping for. =^_^= The list of clubs and whatnot don't sit well with me, still, as it makes it feel more like a social organization page - but I won't interfere with it. --Dennisthe2 15:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Epbr123 00:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Dennithe2 and Epbr123 both make unfair criticisms. I do not believe there are any instructions on how to do anything at all.

This document has no information presented in a how-to do something style.

• • It doesn't matter at the moment about the style of the article. All you need to do is provide a reliable independent source which talks about the Toronto goth scene. Epbr123 04:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • You think I'm being unfair? Change my mind. Make it into something that doesn't appear to have those qualities that I found in the article. I will be frank: if I wanted this kind of information in an encyclopedia, I'd locate it in the Seattle Weekly - which itself is everything except encyclopedic. --Dennisthe2 18:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Epbr123 and Dennisthe2: originally you stated it reads like a how-to article. I said I did not believe it read like a how-to, but that I would make certain changes. I said it was unfair to characterize it as a how to article because the data was historical information and therefore even if some statements seemed like they were instructiions, those were merely defects in the phrasing and not in the entire article itself. The article has since been ammended and presently you've both come back and seem to have dropped or did not continue the "how-to" criticism.
      • putting aside the new issues, are you now satisfied that the ammendments made to the article addressed the "how-to" issue to your satisfaction?

• • • • Epbr2: you state that all I need to do is provide reliable independent sources which talk about the toronto goth scene. I have provided sources which are both reliable and independant. They are not all independant of the city of toronto itself. The only self published source in the article heads up a ghost research historical society (something distinct but not utterly unrelated to goth), was never a goth himself, and is regular content contributor to a licensed commercial Toronto area radio show on the paranormal, he would not just make up historical facts on the origins of the goth scene. The rest of the sources are taken from third party secondary sources, or toronto mainstream culture reporting. Its fully cited and their statements are verifiable. If their vernacular is informal its because the are culture media. Where claims of reactions from the "goth community" are made, these media sources are making such claims and have indicated who they were getting such reactions from. I'm not putting in rumours or my personal anecdotes. references are provided for everything. And if the reader may object to a specific one, that is not a defect in the ENTIRE article. The facts given are from these sources and the information is presented in chronological sequence as is appropriate for such an article. Even 'OR' sounding claims such as the Ann Rice preponderance in the scene are merely claims as reported in those media sources (and the ann rice connection is repeatedly stated by seperate media). The claim about "fashion victims" was from an interview published by the authors of a published printed book called the Goth Bible, as part of his or her own seperate secondary research. One of his or her interviewees was from toronto. And that is what the interviewee said and I quoted it exactly as said as to show its nature. These are not a self published statements, however but published by a independant researchers. in any event this article contains no original research, even if it may seem to. References are provided.

• • • • Dennisthe2: you said "Make it into something that doesn't appear to have those qualities that I found in the article. " The only issue you raised was that it seems like a "how to". and you talk about not wanting a certain "kind" of information in an encyclopedia. if you are saying the history of major subcultures in a city of 3 million is not worthy of an encyclopedia, then there is nothing I can do to convince you because that is the topic of this article. But this is not a current events article. Its 30 years of history. history doesn't change. It is encyclopedic. If an article on Grunge speak """Grunge speak was a hoax created by Megan Jasper""" is appropriate for wiki, if there is an article on a commin book about the goth scene Johnny the Homicidal Maniac in wiki or on a so called goth/punk clothing store Hot Topic on wiki, what makes an article documenting the history of the transformation of a "freak" subculture tranforming into a specific form of goth subculture which in turn became pop-culture, and finally imploding in the aftermath of columbine over a 30 years period in the 5th largest city in North America inappropriate for wiki? Wiki is not a paper encyclopedia. And I think its unfair to call this a how-to or prohibit this kind of information in this specific case but allow even more trifling information about a hoax of a fake gruge slang or a comic book in wiki. TheDarknessVisible 01:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
        • But, there are a number of problems. First, the article still reads like...well, a Village Voice Media article about where to go to be part of the local goth culture and what to expect. Second, and much more importantly, the article doesn't tout why it's notable. What's so notable about the Toronto goths? Do they exclusively listen to Closed Caskets For The Living Impaired, right after listening to A Prairie Home Companion? Is there a larger concentration of $religion in this group? You get the idea - but of course, you'll also have to explain why those are significant! Every locality has its goth clubs/raves/cliques/whatever - you go to Los Angeles, Orange County, here in the greater Seattle area, you name it, you'll find it, and as near as I've seen, there is no more notability in each individual scene than in Toronto. So that's going to be the big one. If you can tell me why Toronto goths are more notable than goth at large, I'll compromise on the first pointer and change my !vote. But if you can't do that, then there's no way to hold it against WP's standards and make it stick. Reference here for notability standards, here for verifiability, and here for what are considered to be reliable sources. --Dennisthe2 16:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - There is a lot of self-research in the article. However, there does seem to be a decent amount of validity in keeping the article if it's overhauled (although I think someone other than TheDarknessVisible should step up to do so; I won't). Toronto is actually known for its goth scene. --Iriseyes 04:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

After seeing how excellent the article is now, I've changed my vote to strong keep. --Iriseyes 14:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • hauling in progress. TheDarknessVisible 22:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I was the editor who originally flagged this a speedy. However, this article has undergone worlds of improvement since being AfD-nominated, and is still in the process of being improved. Dozens of sources are being worked into the article, several relevant pictures have been added, and the situation is really looking up. I urge the closing nom to compare the state of the article before (when some of the above !votes were cast), to the current state. I read through it all, and I might go so far as to say this article is on the verge of B-class. --Czj 16:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • None of the stated sources on Toronto Goths are independent and reliable. Epbr123 17:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

notability: "A notable topic has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject."

The article does not need to tout why it is notable.

Toronto Star is independant. Eye Weekly is Independant. Now Magazine independant. Montreal Mirror is independant. The Vampire Book is published in MI and hailed by the independant Chicago Tribune as "the most comprehensive collection of vampire lore". Its notable and It is independant. doubledeckerbuses is independant. torontogoth might be the only source that is not independant of the goth scene, but it is cited specifically only to list goth bars.. and it is independant of those. The Gothic Bible is independant.

The Toronto Goth Scene has been the subject of multiple non-trivial or even substantial pubished works. That passes the notability requirement.

As for verifiable: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. "

the links are all there. any wiki reader can follow them and verify them.or go to amazon.com and buy them.

Dennisthe2:"Every locality has its goth clubs/raves/cliques/whatever - you go to Los Angeles, Orange County, here in the greater Seattle area, you name it, you'll find it, and as near as I've seen, there is no more notability in each individual scene than in Toronto. So that's going to be the big one. If you can tell me why Toronto goths are more notable than goth at large, I'll compromise on the first pointer and change my !vote. If you can tell me why Toronto goths are more notable than goth at large"

I believe you have misinterpretted the wiki rules. I don't see a wiki requirement that the subject be must more notable than other subjects. this is not a paper encyclopedia. TheDarknessVisible 01:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Perhaps you don't understand. What I am applying is a combination of rules and precedent. Each region in my explanation has its own goth scene, but each region has nothing particularly unique about it other than geographic center point that makes it notable, and even then, the geographic center point becomes little more than an identifier - a commonality for any subculture. That lack of notability keeps them off of here - and frankly, I have a few goth friends that dismiss claims of regional notability in general. Never said anything bad about Toronto, but that's an aside. (Just that it's a decent place.) Granted, too, that this is something more of a gauge, rather than a hard factor - but gauges can point to what is there. So now you're left with the fact that you now need to have the article tout its own notability - this is not only contrary to your claim above that it doesn't, but is in fact per the guideline found at WP:N. A history of the area's goth culture is great, but again, why is it notable? Hell, furry fandom is on here as notable - not because it has a history, but because of its pervasiveness on the 'net alone. I have a history, but I'm not notable. At any rate, until you can answer that question, my !vote stands. A suggestion: if you need more time, preserve and modify the article in your userspace, and bring it up in deletion review if you can get it up to snuff. --Dennisthe2 17:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GreenJoe 05:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Dennisthe2: I read the rules on notability (for the 20th time). I'll bring you attention to a few.

""""Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance".""""

Also: you've made a big deal of this particular view that you hold "as near as I've seen, there is no more notability in each individual scene than in Toronto. So that's going to be the big one." and also you say "I have a few goth friends that dismiss claims of regional notability in general." and yet:

""""Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this", "an interesting article", "topic deserves attention", "not famous enough", "very important issue", "popular", "I like it", "only of interest to [some group]", etc.

General notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. Thus, the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether "the world" has judged a topic to be notable. This is unrelated to whether a Wikipedia editor personally finds the subject remarkable or worthy.""""

You seemingly have conceded that Toronto Goth Scene is actually technically notable according to standard wiki rules. However now you've stated that you believe there is a wiki rule or "precedent" that is a standard wiki policy stating that subcultural topics must go BEYOND the standard wiki rules of notability, but actually must establish they are somehow MORE NOTABLE compared to other things that editors suspect fit in the same catagory.

The issue of a "history section" was merely to justify that this is NOT a "how-to" article, it has no bearing on the argument of notability which deals strictly and objectively with whether or not its been noted in independant publications.

can you please direct me to the wiki page describing this precedent you have referred to so that all the people who are voting are able to assess the comparative notability according to the wiki guidelines, if such a guideline actually exists.

the article actually does provide an independant music journal based out of Montreal (another city, and location of the later dawson college shooting) noting that toronto (which is the 5th most populous city in North America) had the highest concentration of goths anywhere in the WORLD and Toronto may as well be called "gotham city". no one EVER made such a claim for orange county.

But I am not going to argue that toronto is MORE notable than orange county or whatever your "baseline" is, unless there is an official wiki guideline.

on google if I search for "toronto goth" I get 15,900 hits, "orange county goth" gets 9,710 hits. "Seattle goth" gets 3,520 hits. "LA goth" gets 12,200 hits. "Los Angeles Goth" gets 599. "New York Goth" only gets 694. "New York City Goth" gets 3,460, "Chicago Goth" gets 821. "Mexico Goth" gets 670 hits. "San Fransisco Goth" gets 1,240. "Montreal Goth" 306

Perhaps you would like to see that in the actual wiki page, if you think the page is obligated to TOUT its notability.

It seems that more people talk about Toronto Goth than any other place in north america, that I can think of typing into google. of course this, like the opinion of you and your "goth" friends doesn't really matter unless there is in fact a rule about establishing something is MORE notable than another thing.

here is a reference specifically referring to "Vancouver's Goth Culture".. obviously someone distinguishes it from Toronto's goth subculture.

Here's a ref specifically saying "Toronto's Goth Culture"

there is a notable difference or people would not make note of it. and it is not for wiki editors to subjectively judge these things.

TheDarknessVisible 20:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Since we can't agree, it would be wise at this time to allow somebody else to make their call. As such, my !vote stands as is, but I'm stepping out of the debate. I have nothing more to say here. --Dennisthe2 20:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I only asked you to provide the wiki page which discusses the precedent you cited that Toronto Goth Scene must be *more notable* than other scenes. Why would you refuse to disclose that? You and some other 'delete', in fact MOST of you. seem to believe a topic must establish GREATER notability than others, and none will show the wiki policy page.TheDarknessVisible 23:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Distinction from goth subcultures elsewhere is gradually being backed up by reliable sources. The article is still not near where it should be but it will get there. Look at the diffs to previous versions over the past few days since creation and please acknowledge the genuine efforts made to comply with all policy. Toronto's goth culture may not be any more notable than ones elsewhere, but it is notable by being discussed in various sources (reliability of some is questionable, but I'm looking into it) and works in pop culture. It is not this article's fault that articles for other cities do not exist. At least some of this information is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia, but a merge into Culture in Toronto would make it excessively long and too heavily focused on one subject, which means it should be split per WP:SUMMARY. –Pomte 04:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep there is no wiki rule requiring "compelling evidence to support the assertion that this is materially different from the goth scene elsewhere". (and the history of no other goth scene whatsoever is actually documented in any detail anywhere on wiki) DennisThe2 can not back up his claims that this is a "how-to article" and has abandonned them, hoary said delete because he found an earlier style of narration humerous.. this is no longer the case. The article is extensively referenced and is not OR (or none remains), but rather a neutral summary of many independant sources reporting on the topic. The article advances no position. Otherwise as per Pomte.TheDarknessVisible 23:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This has turned into quite an impressively detailed and well referenced article. If only other subcultures were covered this well. - SimonP 20:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Its a shame none of the references are reliable and independent. Most of them don't even mention the Toronto goth scene. Epbr123 20:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Pardon, the bulk of the information seems to come from Eye Weekly and NOW, which are both prominent news magazines in Toronto and can certainly be considered reliable and independent. - SimonP 20:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Has anyone outside of Toronto ever written about it? Epbr123 20:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
        • They might not have, but widespread coverage in several local media sources is certainly enough to provide verifiability. - SimonP 00:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
        • The answer is yes in fact. several are outside of torontoTheDarknessVisible 08:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Which one's? Epbr123 08:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Goth Bible, Montreal Mirror, Mardust music and The Vampire Book were all written and published outside toronto. the first 2 from montreal, the next 2 from michigan. goth bible discusses at least 2 goth stores in toronto, how "gothic" fashion was brought from the UK to toronto by Groovella, and includes an interview with a St.Catherines (small city nearby toronto) DJ who discusses bands from toronto and how the lack of local bands has forced local goths to be more involved with what goes on overseas. Also the same author publishes some interview material with toronto goths. mardust has an article about toronto's goth scene called "Rennaisance City", and talks about how in 2003 the scene in Toronto was still hanging on unlike other cities. montreal mirror in 1998 talks about how there are so many goths in toronto and said toronto may as well be called "gotham city" and Mitch Kroll's opinion that toronto goths are shallow and pretentious and in fact are glam more than goth. vampire book talks about groovella and siren, the worlds oldest vampire/goth fashion store (closed since 2005). there are 4 non trivial publications talking specifically about the toronto goth scene, published and written outside of toronto. dont interpret this as me agreeing that newspapers inside Toronto can't be relied upon; they are independant of the goth scene. however you asked. there are also some other sources which talk about it, but their reliability in wiki terms is unknown right now so I am not mentioning them here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheDarknessVisible (talk • contribs) 18:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

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

References

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No assertion of notability or verifiability. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Nu Phi Psi

Nu Phi Psi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Obscure fraternity that fails WP:CORP. Created by single-article editor User:Nucahpo88. Tagged for notability 6 weeks ago when I didn't see any non-trivial Google results. Mereda 10:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 11:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no secondary sources per WP:CORP. Borders on WP:NFT. Get some more chapters, make the news and go for WP:N. Christopher Jost 16:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. No notability, seems to be a one-chapter organization. Realkyhick 04:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by JzG[48]. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 14:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Graffitixpert

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

Contested prod. This service/company fails corporate notability. They only have 76 google hits, and no online news articles. No notability I can find Peripitus (Talk) 10:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - incoherent spam. So tagged. MER-C 11:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep.--Wizardman 13:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Stephan Kinsella

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

Previously kept in 2005, I believe consensus on notability has moved on since then. Specifically, of the cited sources, four are from the subject (not independent) and those which are independent do not appear to include the name Kinsella. Does this person pass the primary notability criterion? If so, the article does not indicate it. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Sizeable, impressive resuume of publications that certainly demonstrate his importance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• That's a resume. Now add the independent sources about the individual. Please. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Nom doesn't even make sense given Wikipedia:Notability which clearly states that Notability is generally permanent. As the guideline states,

If there are multiple independent reliable published sources that have a topic as their subject, this is not changed by the frequency of coverage decreasing. Thus, if a topic once satisfied the primary notability criterion, it continues to satisfy it over time.

Here are multiple independent sources:

1. citation of Kinsella by Robert P. Murphy and Gene Callahan re: Hans-Hermann Hoppe's argumentation ethics
2. CV for Walter Block listing four articles coauthored with Kinsella and published in notable venues (Block even tests his Law & Economics students on Kinsella's IP views)
3. Notable debate about intellectual property with Kinsella and Ilana Mercer on one side and James DeLong on the other, from Insight Magazine. (linked article above is hosted on Kinsella's website, although not originally published there)
4. Google Scholar search for "Stephan Kinsella" that yields 232 results (including a lot of his patent work, his articles in various journals, and many, many citations in the work of other notable scholars, including Walter Block, Roderick Long, et al.)

I think it is abundantly clear that Kinsella is notable enough for inclusion. DickClarkMises 14:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, and as the initial author of the article (my first contributions to Wikipedia, I should add :), I think it is important to note that the nom is correct about the fact that the article needs improvement. I fully intend to expand the article using the sources I found above. Right now I am just a little busy. Others are obviously encouraged to expand the article if they have time. DickClarkMises 19:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dick, just slap them in as external links. That will fix a substantial part of the problem. Although come to think of it your username does rtaher suggest WP:COI... Guy (Help!) 22:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. If someone as academically insignificant as Tom Palmer has a Wiki, so should Kinsella, who (as the previous poster noted) has a huge CV with numerous impressive articles, referenced by various sources. Kinsella also has a well-acclaimed book on International Law that has been published, and is available on Amazon.com. Along with a 9-part treatise on the law of commerce. And a book on Online Contract Formation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.151.71.18 (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
• Keep. Seems to have plenty of non-trivial references. It sets a bad precedent to start reevaluating selected articles simply because elements of Wikipedia policy have been modified. Are we going to have to do this with all other biographical articles, or certainly this one once Wikipedia notability policy changes again in a year or two? 23skidoo 18:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletions. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 20:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletions. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 20:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per all. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per all. Consensus has moved on to a point where we see the wisdom of keeping a topic like this in this project. Prolific writer published by major publishers. --Oakshade 22:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I don't think the stricter policy would have affected this article. The subject is clearly notable as an author. The older articles whi ch might be more appropriately challenged are the ones without sources. DGG 03:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per all. --JayJasper 03:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but could use more independent sources. Realkyhick 04:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Author of an abundance of literature cited by scholars in his fields. Ikilled007 11:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

South Capitol Recordings

South Capitol Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non-notable record company, fails WP:CORP. Part of the never ending spam campaign by Profound Intent, see here, here, and here One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: No notable talent signed, no releases. May be notable in the future. Not notable now. --Durin 12:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe someday, but not notable today. Realkyhick 04:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by A Train. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Smiley Central

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

The article does not assert the notability of the subject per WP:WEB. Nv8200p talk 11:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as unremarkable web content. So tagged. MER-C 12:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Maximus (rapper)

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

The subject of the article does not meet the criteria for notability per the guidelines of WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 12:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, and I have questions about Jassi Sidhu and B21 also. YechielMan 18:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I agree with the proposal. I believe I once edited this article, that is why a bot notified me, but only did so because it was just called Maximus (a previous and present dab page), and all the previous content had been deleted. The Ogre 19:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per the nom; doesn't look notable. ♠PMC♠ 19:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete I am still new to Wikipedia and still learning the coding and style formats needed. I apologize for the mistakes in the profile and with help from other users who actually provide help to improve the article, i am correcting it as i learn. I also have permission to use certain images from the artists management, however i do not know how to source this. Help would be aprecieated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Enzo411 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
• Delete Any article that mentions GCSE results.... The globetrotter 15:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete Gnangarra 06:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Cabramatta black dragons

Cabramatta black dragons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Anon-removed Prod. I can't find any sources (reliable or otherwise) for a gang of this name, which is perhaps not surprising when dealing with street gangs in general. Obviously there are notable street gangs, but there's nothing that seems to demonstrate that this particular one is. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete If you're making a PR page for a gang, it's not notable.Cantras 15:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now; if you look at the article 5T, there are some references there that mention the Black Dragons. This is a new article, we should perhaps wait until the authors have finished work on the article before deciding that it has insufficient notability and sources. I'm at least convinced that it isn't a hoax, and that it is a real gang that has attracted the attention of the police and the community. Brianyoumans 21:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That is to say that of the externally-linked websites (the only thing I can access right at the moment), there's a grand total of one Sydney Morning Herald article saying that "Police are aware of another gang calling itself 'Black Dragon'". Nothing much more about what this particular gang does, and I doubt that's even a non-trivial mention. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No Google News Archives for "Cabramatta black dragons" see [49] nor does it currently have any articles on them. ABBSCO's Australia New Zealand database has nothing either. The SMH article that mentions them only contains a passing reference. The photos of the gang markings are pretty dreadful as well. Capitalistroadster 03:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Cantras. --Mattinbgn/ ^talk 03:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced and because Wikipedia is not a hosting provider of trophy pages. Also delete all of the photos by Special:Contributions/Count45. John Vandenberg 10:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable collection of petty thugs. Lankiveil 11:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
• Delete, does not meet any of the relevant content policies or guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 03:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Glossary of Water polo

Glossary of Water polo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Nv8200p talk 12:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Provides useful infomation in helping to understand the game. I'm not saying that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but I think this kind of article is expected. See List of cricket terms and Glossary of American football. -- Ben 15:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Simply put, it's a good article with necessary information. YechielMan 18:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The information, illustrations and terms in this article are unique and not accessible elsewhere in Wikipedia. Ryanjo 23:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I have no knowledge of Water polo terms and this list would make it clear to me if I needed the information. Suriel1981 23:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Current consensus on WP:LOCAL seems to be that proof of existence is sufficient notability for human settlements. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 21:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Gobabeb

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

The article does not assert notability of the subject per the guidelines of WP:LOCAL. Nv8200p talk 12:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I see 20,000 Google hits, which is enough for this kind of thing. I suggest moving to Gobabeb, Namibia if it's kept. YechielMan 18:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It's more like a town as its an isolated settlement that has more people living there than many other towns. For those that care about WP:N or WP:LOCAL, it has been the subject of several articles.[50] [51][52] --Oakshade 21:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep, bad-faith nomination. AfD is not for solving content disputes, as long as everybody agrees there should be an article on this topic. Which is pretty obvious in this case. If the nominator wants a clean rewrite, he can write one any time (but he'll be well advised to get consensus for that beforehand, difficult as it may be.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Dutch (ethnic group)

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

Unsalvageably inaccurate, POV fork of earlier 'Dutch people' article slanted to Greater Netherlands ideology, clean-up, cn and accuracy tags are constantly removed, no consensus after months of circular discussion and reverts, scrap this version and begin again with 'Dutch people' Paul111 12:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. The nominating editor has long tried to completely change the article. As anyone can see, the article has plenty of references. Currently there are 91 footnotes alone. No other article on an ethnic group, not even featured ones, have that many references. This user has accused contributors of hidden far-right agendas and repeatedly flooded the articles talkpage with supposed claims that were not even in the article. Because his version, or adaptations of the article were reverted by multiple users many times, this is just another attempt at disrupting the wikipedia process of writing a good article. To me personally this request for deletion just radiates the following thought: "If I can't have it my way, nobody will have it his/her/their way". I hope (but don't really doubt) others will follow and also oppose this request.Rex 13:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, as this is a content dispute (as admitted by the nominator: "..begin again with 'Dutch people'"). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, nominator tries to solve content dispution and edit war with AfD - unacceptable. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 13:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Nominator tries to solve content dispution with AfD, not acceptable. Arnoutf 13:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep.--Wizardman 13:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Shalom Dov Wolpo

Shalom Dov Wolpo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:BIO, his books seem to be self published, I don't think that he qualifies for an article yet. PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:BIO, his books seem to be self published, I don't think that he qualifies for an article yet. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC) As there were significant changes and additions of sources to this article, [53], I withdraw my delete vote. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please note that PinchasC is nominating this article for deletion because he is a Chabad anti-messianist, and he wants to keep all material about chabad messianists out of wikipeida. This guy is the originator of Chabad messianism which is why he (a) he is 100% notable and (b) PinchasC wants this article deleted.m Also note that his books have been discussed in numerous scholarly books and journals as they represented a paradigm shift in Chabad thinking. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 13:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The above is not true, I don't have the time to get into a petty argument now as to the conspiracy theories of why I nominated this article. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, so why have you nominated an article for deletion (part of a patern) which has numerous not-trivial sources, and when you know full well that the man is very very notable? David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 13:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 08:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The man is very very notable within the Haredi, and Israeli political world - indeed this article is largely a translation of the Israeli article on this man - which has much more material. He is regularly mentioned in the Hebrew press, and even the international press for example here, here, here,here, here, here, here and many many more. I think that amply demonstrated that this man is notable by any wikipedia standard. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 13:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO --Oskar 13:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Weak Keep Looking at it again, I change to Weak Keep. --Oskar 17:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 15:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep multiple verifiable sources. Catchpole 18:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If the article is factually correct (and there are sources cited), then the subject is notable. YechielMan 18:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. More than enough reliable sources presented to establish WP:V and meet WP:BIO. --Shirahadasha 20:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per everyone else. Acalamari 23:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per bountiful sources added that establish notability. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep While his sources are self- published, they are nevertheless the main sources of messianic Chabad, they are quoted by other, friends and foes of Chabad, as the primary texts on the topic.--Jayrav 17:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this notable Israeli Chabad rabbi (sorry, even a supposed meshichist can have his day in court.) IZAK 08:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Spouse killer

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

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC. Nv8200p talk 12:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless reliable sources found --W.marsh 14:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BAND/WP:MUSIC]. Probably could be speedied. --Haemo 01:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The 9/11 REcommission Report

The 9/11 REcommission Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Promotional; non-notable Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletions. -- Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No reliable sources quoted. If actually mentioned in some of the references (other than Alex Jones), might deserve a section in Groups and individuals challenging the official account of 9/11, but no sign of adequate notability for an article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete The only assertion of media coverage was from Alex Jones, a 9.11 conspiracy insider, and from a proposed event in Nov. 2007. With no outside coverage, it fails notability. By the way, if it's kept, put in a wikilink for Matthew Arnold (ha ha) :). YechielMan 18:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete seems to be nothing but spam --rogerd 19:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no WP:RS for WP:N or WP:A. Leuko 19:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above.--MONGO 00:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Haemo 01:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Spam.--Bryson 02:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Non-notable? This sentence in the article clearly shows notability: "The report has been placed in such media circles as the many websites, radio talk shows, and TV." Oh wait, nevermind...Delete. Pablothegreat85 04:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Groups and individuals challenging the official account of 9/11 Cloveoil 12:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice. Periodically we have to go through the 9/11-related articles and delete Alex Jones-promoted Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement such as this. Wikipedia should not be used to promote the sales of otherwise non-notable conspiracy theory propaganda.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 18:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no reliable sources, spam. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable spam advertisement for cruft. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 18:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per Morton and NuclearUmpf. --Tbeatty 00:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Pointless and no citations for anything it says. Just a few links to external sources none of which are actually cited in the article. I'm sure there are better things to occupy disk space in wikipedia that this. Besides every good Australian knows it was a Cardassian plot to discredit the Marquis.!!! Mobile 01^Talk 12:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 19:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Sammy Davis, Jr.

Cultural depictions of Sammy Davis, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

• Delete - article was previously nominated and closed with no consensus. There has been little improvement to the article in the intervening time. The article remains an indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture any time the words "Sammy Davis Jr" are mentioned in any film, song, TV show or podcast. Reasons offered for keeping last time boiled down to "there are other articles like it" which is not a good reason for keeping an article and a suggestion that the article be "cleaned up" and "verified," which did not happen. See similar AFDs for John Coltrane, The Who and Aerosmith. Otto4711 13:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Probably should be a section under Sammy Davis, Jr. if allowed per talk page. BlackBear 13:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• My opinion on that would be that the only part of it that might possibly be acceptable in the main article is a list of the people who played him. I can't see any need to clutter up the main article with such gems as how They Might Be Giants said his name once. Otto4711 13:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as indiscriminate information. Plasticbottle 02:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. As the editor who created Wikipedia's featured list called Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc I can see what this editor has been trying to do here. I've reorganized it a bit and removed the lone podcast. The other entries are notable and verifiable. Actual verification would help, as would a clearer inclusion criteria: depictions of Sammy Davis Jr. ought not to include instances where he acted or sang. Wikipedia has plenty of articles of this sort of varying quality. Slap a cleanup template on this rather than delete. Durova^Charge! 13:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• There is simply no comparison between the Joan of Arc list and this one. And as noted in the nomination, "Wikipedia has plenty of articles of this sort" is not really a good reason for keeping. Many of those articles, including the ones linked to in the nom and dozens more, have been deleted for the same reasons this one should be. Otto4711 14:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• No comparison? Have a look at the featured list's embryonic form as it was on October 26, 2005 (two days before I started editing).[54] Doesn't look promising, does it? Wikipedia has a large contingent of deletionists who probably would have jettisoned that material from the project. A similar wholesale deletion actually happened at Alexander the Great, but fortunately a deletionist was conscientious enough to repost the material to the talk page so that it could get rescued as a separate list. Where's the dividing line? The facts on this page are notable and verifiable - maybe not so highbrow by today's standards, but exactly the sort of information typically discarded as ephemera until it's nearly impossible for later generations of scholars to recover it. In the late twentieth century it took a doctoral dissertation to track down all occurrences of Joan of Arc in film. Many of the early prints no longer exist at all. Electrons are cheap - let's not repeat that destructive cycle. Durova^Charge! 03:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• "Electrons are cheap" is also not particularly compelling. We have policies and guidelines and articles that don't meet them are deleted regardless of how cheap electrons are. And no, there is no comparison between the JoA or the ATG lists and this one, which seeks to capture such vitally significant items as Adam Sandler's singing the name in a song, which is in no way notable. Otto4711 04:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sarcasm is not particularly compelling. Social historians read such data as evidence that this individual remains known to younger generations. One of the principal questions such people must address is whether a celebrity of the past is a forgotten name or an iconic figure. If one happens to be a biographer preparing a book proposal about Sammy Davis, Jr., the ability to cite recent references such as Adam Sandler's is quite meaningful. Durova^Charge! 00:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• I wasn't being sarcastic at all. Perhaps that word doesn't mean what you think it means. And may I also add, free of sarcasm, that if any writer proposing or publisher considering a book proposal about Sammy would even mention the Adam Sandler song in the course of the negotiations, let alone sell the book on it, I'll eat Sammy's glass eye. "Oh yeah, all the kids'll be running out to snap up the book based on their intense curiosity about Sammy that was ignited by Adam Sandler's throwaway line in a novelty song!" Otto4711 18:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• OK, maybe that was a little sarcastic. Otto4711 18:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete (yawn). or merge into his article. I agree with the non-comparison with Joan of Arc. --FateClub 21:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Durova. She had shown these list are inherently doomed and the suggesting to clean up and maintain the list is much better than to delete the text and see the references to jump back into the article. Those who disagree with this kind of articles have chance as anybody else to propose effective Wikipedia policy to deal with them (including 3RR & blocks). It would be much better than to move even more burden on maintainers of the main article. Pavel Vozenilek 09:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Basically you're arguing better in a separate article than in the main article because it's more convenient for the people who monitor the main article. That is a terrible argument. If the information is garbage, then it's garbage no matter what article it's in. All splitting it off does is shift the responsibility from one group of editors to another. Otto4711 15:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Mínus

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

Is this band really notable? There are various claims in the text, but the references are all YouTube links! Suggest that this article is either significantly improved, or else deleted. And yes, it is yet another vague band article... Robinson weijman 13:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if this is deleted then so should Hey Johnny!, Jesus Christ Bobby and Halldór Laxness (album). Robinson weijman 13:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep has a detailed AMG page [55], at least 2 albums on a real label, reviewed in several notable publications. Article needs improvement, but that's not a reason to delete. --W.marsh 14:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep seems notable enough, passes WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Not sure. If the article is deleted, the three albums in the "see also" section must also be subtracted (ha ha). YechielMan 18:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I do not understand the comment above, "Seems notable enough". Try Googling Mínus Iceland... almost nothing comes up. Robinson weijman 20:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Then it's a good thing we don't include topics based on how many google hits they get! --W.marsh 21:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed, but that is not an argument for notability. I noticed you have added an external reference to assert notability. Great - do you want to add that to the original article? And is that sufficient to assert notability (I'm not competent enough to judge this)? And may I politely request that people who state here that the band is notable back it up with a link (as W.marsh has done) rather than just state they are notable? Robinson weijman 07:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The band is notable, but I suggest cleaning the article up; especially the links. Acalamari 23:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Just because a band isn't hugely popular in the US doesn't mean it isn't notable. Ask any Icelander who is even a little in touch with the music scene and they'll have heard of Mínus. Maybe we aren't as large of a country as the US, but we have as much of a right to Wikipedia as Americans do, and plenty of us speak English. I agree that the article is in definite need of cleaning, but I always thought one of the beautiful parts of Wikipedia was that you could find obscure things on it that you can't find in normal encyclopedias. 207.75.39.11 02:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Sigurjón Leónarðsson 22:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wikipedia is not about rights ("our right to Wikipedia"), and that was not why I highlighted this item for deletion. In this case, the subject is notability. You say it is notable in Iceland. Great - add the proof to the article, for the benefit of those of us not resident in Iceland. Then the article won't be deleted. Robinson weijman 06:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Here are just a few sources I found with some brief research: http://www.tonlist.com/ViewArtist.aspx?AuthorID=3646 http://www.drownedinsound.com/articles/9903 http://www.icelandairwaves.com/artists.asp?pageID=&artistID=38 http://www.skratchmagazine.com/cd-reviews/CDreviewsAUG03.php http://www.metalhammer.co.uk/news/article/?id=41911 https://www.smekkleysa.net/news/?id=61&year=2007#news http://www.drownedinsound.com/event/view/1114 That's not to mention some online articles from the Icelandic cultural newspaper the Grapevine: http://www.grapevine.is/default.aspx?show=paper&part=fullstory&id=697 http://www.grapevine.is/default.aspx?show=paper&part=fullstory&id=593 http://www.grapevine.is/default.aspx?show=paper&part=fullstory&id=1624 http://www.grapevine.is/default.aspx?show=paper&part=fullstory&id=1405 I would quote some music charts, but I don't have the time to spend hours on the computer researching and writing articles (hence why I don't have a real account on Wikipedia), but I know they've hit the charts here in Iceland. Plus, they've toured America, and they are on a new, larger record label now, not to mention that Smekkleysa (a.k.a. BadTaste) is notable enough as they have released stuff by the Sugarcubes (they formed it after all), Björk, Sigur Rós, as well as some perhaps less famous, but still known abroad bands. They may not be the biggest band in the world, but at least we're not talking about Lárus Sigurðsson or something here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.75.39.152 (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

We Ain't

We Ain't (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No idea why this exists... not a single, no music video, no chart action. The article doesn't have any content - no infobox, no formatting, no anything. Looks like an Eminem fan creating articles for fun. - eo 14:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A1. Not enough context to judge whether this is anything at all; certainly not notable. YechielMan 18:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per YechielMan. Acalamari 23:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per YechielMan. Efil4tselaer 23:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 00:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Spend Some Time

Spend Some Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No idea why this exists... not a single, no music video, no chart action. The article doesn't have any content - no infobox, no formatting, no anything. Looks like an Eminem fan creating articles for fun. - eo 14:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - and possibly recopy into Eminem somewhere if necessary. ZBrannigan 08:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Only an individual rap. Could be added to entry on album if anyone really cared. Ventifax 22:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. ♠PMC♠ 17:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Puke(Song)

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

No idea why this exists... not a single, no music video, no chart action. The article doesn't have any content - no infobox, no formatting, no anything. Looks like an Eminem fan creating articles for fun. - eo 14:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedied: no context/content. ♠PMC♠ 17:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 00:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Evil Deeds

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

No idea why this exists... not a single, no music video, no chart action. The article doesn't have any content - no infobox, no formatting, no anything. Looks like an Eminem fan creating articles for fun. - eo 14:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• delete. Maybe if we had some information- including putting the singer in the article, that would help bunches. Cantras 15:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Cúchullain ^t/c 04:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Marco Caceres

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

Tagged for notability for a few months. Bio article for founder of a charity in Honduras but I see no sign of significant third-party coverage. Pascal.Tesson 14:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I find google hits for a Marco A. Caceres [56], but he is evidently a different person. I find nothing to indicate the subject of this biography qualifies as notable. John Carter 16:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Google may not be enough to rule out notability, given that his project is in a developing country where web presence may not indicate notability.

Further, consider these sources. The ProjectHonduras website (admittedly not an independent source) [57] - but it does show that that the Marco A. Caceres, that John Carter links above, Marco A. Caceres, the satellite engineer, the one with quotables established on a quotes website etc., is in fact the same person.

There is independent verification that he was a finalist for the Petersburg Prize, now called the Development Gateway Award

From the Petersburg Prize website, detailing the reasons for his nomination:

Marco Cáceres, Projecthonduras.com, Honduras: For outstanding use of the web to connect potential sources of aid to those in need. Mr. Cáceres created Projecthonduras.com, a website that has been notably successful in using the web to bring together organizations and individuals to form strategic alliances, publicize needs, and better coordinate aid and relief resources for one of the poorest countries in Latin America. Source: [58] - I will add this to the article.

I note that the 2006 winner of this prize is also a Nobel Prize winner, so it is probably a notable prize. Scarykitty 20:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all this. I'm tempted to reconsider, although it's still not so clear to me that we have enough sources to properly reference the content. Pascal.Tesson 20:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Even after the information found, I still think the subject fails notability guidelines (especially through independent sources). I am attempting to wikify the article, but if kept, it would probably still look like it needs a substantial rewrite. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 06:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Another "Who's Who" entry, which I don't really mind. But looks very much like self-promotion. Ventifax 22:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. Cúchullain ^t/c 05:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Dates in Harry Potter

Dates in Harry Potter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT for plot summaries, and has no reliable secondary sources for most of the statements (in fact, the article says that "Harry Potter fans have created a timeline..."). Furthermore, Wikipedia articles should be written from an out-of-universe perspective. The info in this article is the (perhaps correct) interpretation of events in the Harry Potter books, but is in no way needed to make the out-of-universe description of the subject (the books, the author, the characters) better understandable or more comprehensive. There are no outside reliable sources (like newspapers) discussing when the events in HP "really" happened, never mind when broomsticks were first used for transport. Fram 14:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Completely in-universe. Wikipedia is not for plot summaries. Leebo ^T/C 14:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as original research in the absence of outside sources for every date (especially the ones which are clearly deduction on the part of fans). Otto4711 15:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

the dates all come from the books, other publications by Rowling or have been endorsed by Warner bros on the film DVDs. This example merely illustrates a case where 'fans' have published something, which has then been confirmed by official sources. It rather illustrates that Warner do not share the poor view held by some wiki editors of fan sources. Sandpiper

• Wow! In-universe NOT-violating OR-synthesis unsourceable fanstuff! Delete! Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as OR. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is thoroughly linked through the rest of the Harry Potter sites, and it's interesting information that I had never heard before. -Rebent
• Delete per Rebent. "Interesting information that I never heard before" = original research. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• That would suggest that Rebent has not been reading around the subject, rather than that the article is full of OR. Articles are meant to be interesting, if possible. Michael Sanders 16:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This article has been around since 2005. How did it last this long? From what I've seen of the history, evens admins have edited the page. Acalamari 23:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment While I will agree that this article is not written from an out-of-universe perspective, it is not original research. The Harry Potter Lexicon has compiled this timeline; the Lexicon is a site which the series' author J. K. Rowling uses to fact-check information while without her books and writing; the films' producers also use the site almost every day for reference. As for the significance of the timeline, perhaps it would be better to merge all this information into appropriate articles, but it is appropriate somewhere. I know that articles, meant to be written from an out-of-universe perspective, would not include this information, but to mention this as a "within the series" sidenote is something I feel is okay. I don't have a strong vote for keep, nor for delete, but the information is what is important here, and I feel it belongs somewhere on Wikipedia. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 02:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Fancruft.--Bryson 02:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That is not a valid argument. Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Wikipedia:Fancruft I am saying the article is not notable.--Bryson 03:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Fancruft is "a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question." Now, correct me if I am wrong, but the amount of editing and input into that article - including from admins who, surprise, surprise, didn't view it as unimportant - would suggest that it is of importance to more than a few. Michael Sanders 16:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment - The fact that admins have edited the article doesn't mean much. Personally, I'll edit articles that probably should be on the chopping block, just 'cause I can't stand all the terrible grammar in some of these things. (Worst is when they write a multi-clause sentence and lose track of or ambiguate who the subject of the sentence is) Now, if you want to bring said admins into this discussion and have them explain why they think the article should stay, that would be different...Zaku kai 16:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Harry Potter is notable, but the "Harry Potter timeline" is not. Unless there are multiple non-trivial sources (excluding fan-related sites) that discuss the Harry Potter timeline. Plasticbottle 03:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Just a question – you are aware that, though this is what one would term a "fan site," it is supported and recommend by Rowling for research relating to her series? She has a close relationship with her fanbase and knows how to sort out the right from the wrong in terms of reliable sites. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, but you are absolutely and irrefutably wrong about that. This is not a fansite, it is an encyclopaedia. It doesn't matter what Rowling or her fans think it is, a fansite it is not. And I say this as both a Wikipedia admin and a Harry Potter fan, father of two sons both of whom are also Harry Potter fans. Guy (Help!) 13:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is an encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedias contain dates. This is an article outlining dates. Therefore, it belongs in an encyclopaedia. QED. Michael Sanders 13:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment My cat's birthday is a date, but creating an article to include that would be original research about a non-notable cat, so it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. Leebo ^T/C 16:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, but nobody cares about your cat. Or has it been the star of numerous tv programs, films, been the subject of a series of books which have sold in the millions, and been the subject of a media circus which gets thousands of google results? Michael Sanders 16:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• It shouldn't matter that nobody cares about my cat, a date is a date. Note: I'm saying if we can bend the no original research policy and guidelines for writing about fiction for these dates, it would make sense to bend notability guidelines for my cat. Obviously, neither apply. Leebo ^T/C 16:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• And I think you know that that argument is a thoroughly stupid and childish argument. The standard for inclusion in wikipedia is sources and notability. The article is sourced - not well, but since it all comes from the books or Rowling's site, it can be improved - and it is about a fantastically popular and widespread phenomenon. Whereas no-one googles to find your cat. Michael Sanders 17:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No rules are being bent. There is no Original Research in the article - the information all derives from the books or from Rowling herself. And whilst the style is slightly poor, it is hardly abysmal. On the other hand, there is no way - unless your cat has been the star of a few films and books - that an article on your cat (let alone its birthdate) would be at all notable. And such facetious arguments are hardly to your credit. Michael Sanders 18:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• I suppose I don't understand the meaning of your comment about dates in an encyclopedia then. The only reason for including an article with dates in it, in your comment, is that it encyclopedia's have dates. I'm saying that the presence of dates alone has no bearing on the article's status. Leebo ^T/C 18:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Clearly not. My comment was in answer to the claim that 'this is not a fansite, it is an encyclopaedia'. Right. It's an encyclopaedia. My point was that encyclopaedias contain dates, and since this is an article containing dates relating - and this is the part your cat will be disappointed to hear - to a notable subject. Its justification in being included in an article is jaw-droppingly obvious. Michael Sanders 18:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, that's what you didn't indicate - dates related to notable subjects. I don't disagree that Harry Potter is notable, and that my cat is not. I do think that it's in-universe original research though. That's why I think the fact that it being notable in-universe original research shouldn't override it. Leebo ^T/C 19:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, there isn't original research in it - all the information in there derives from Rowling. If you want, you can flag up what you believe to be OR on the article talk page. Michael Sanders 19:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think Fbv meant that the Harry Potter Lexicon, from which the article's information is drawn, is a fansite. Zaku kai

• Keep Since the series refers repeated to events taking place outside the span of the narrative, and since a recurrent theme is the reconsideration of the roles of the characters, a timeline is clearly relevant and notable. DGG 03:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. A couple of tiny -- and not entirely consistent -- reference points spun up into a giant original-research-o-rama. Kind of like cotton candy/candy floss, where a little bit of sugar is spun up into a giant fluffy cloud. --Calton | Talk 06:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

But not spun out by us, merely reported by us and sanctioned by Warner Bros who have adopted the result of this research into their official background information. Sandpiper

• Keep Gives the reader a greater understanding and grasp of events in the series Michael Sanders 08:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• KeepThe information all comes from the books, and as such is all sourced, or in principle could be, to the relevant reference to a book/chapter.(or comments by Rowling) A similar list was compiled and published by HP-Lexicon on their website. This list was adopted by warner bros, and included in the DVDs of the films which they have issued, so again the timeline itself has also been largely published separately and is accessible by anyone with a copy of the film DVD and a computer. To be more precise on this claim of authorship, Warner have acknowledged privateley assistance from HP-Lexicon in creating their films, but have not publically acknowledged where they got the info. However, Lexicon maintain their claim, which is published on their website, and also comment that a mistake in their original posted timeline was reproduced precisely in the one published by Warner. The information collected in this way is useful to any reader wanting to better understand the events of the books. It is not a plot summary, as it does not summarise the plot. Rather, it analyses the information and presents in a more useful way than simply re-telling the story. It is not OR, firstly because it is merely a tabulation of dates extracted wherever they occur, but secondly because it has been published elsewhere. As to e.g. when broomsticks were first used for transpot, I fancy this comes from the book by Rowling 'Quidditch through the ages', so is sourced. A lot of trivia about HP has been released by Rowling either in these ancillary books, or in her continuing posts on her website, e.g. 'wizard of the month'. As far as I am aware, being in- or out- universe is no criterion for deleting anything. It might argue for rewriting, but I'm not exactly sure how you would propose rewriting a list of events. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sandpiper (talk • contribs) 15:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

quick, that sometimes irritating bot Sandpiper 15:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction): Wikipedia is an out-of-universe source, and all articles about fiction and elements of fiction should take an overall out-of-universe perspective. (bolded and italicized in original). Furthermore, retelling plot events, no matter in what form, is to me a plot summary. That it is a widely distributed plot summary is irrelevant in that case. Finally, being WP:USEFUL is not an inclusion criterium. Fram 15:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Then the solution to that is to ask someone to rewrite it from an out of universe perspective. Not delete it.Michael Sanders 16:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, WP:USEFUL is an essay, not a policy. And there is a difference between making wikipedia a phonebook and providing information about a very popular book, which a lot of readers want to read about. Remember, we are here to serve the readers, not the opinions of those editors who dislike 'low-brow' articles. And there are plenty of readers who want to be able to find out information which is important to the novel. And it is better that we provide that information - since we can ensure that it is trustworthy and reliable - than allow readers to slope off to a website that may have wrong information. Is that not the point of wikipedia? Otherwise, why bother? Let the readers go to Britannica or Encarta for information on science and history, let them google for information on their favourite soaps and pop-stars! What is the point of wikipedia, if we do not write about everything that we are interested in - provided, of course, that it is notable enough, and is sourced. This article is on an extraordinarily notable subject, is part of a phenomenon. It is not well sourced, or well written; that can be improved. But if there is any purpose at all in wikipedia, it is to ensure that we provide as thorough articles and subjects as possible. Which this article goes towards fulfilling. We all know that wikipedia's strengths lie not in its accuracy, or writing style - how could it? - but in the breadth and depth of the subject matter. This attitude only destabilises that strength. Michael Sanders 16:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Please understand that the information is not OR nor NN, the article is just not in top form. It should be tagged as unreferenced and out-of-universe, but the content is important. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Breaking a style guideline about how to organise an article is not grounds for deletion. By word count about 50% of the article discusses how dating has been arrived at and is entirely real world , out of universe discussion of the books. As to the list of dates arrived at, I really don't see how this would be significantly different if in officially in-universe or out-universe style. Sandpiper

• Delete - OR fancruft. Probably NN too. - Crockspot 15:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Non-notable despite its appearance on the DVDs? And a pledge of support from J. K. Rowling? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikibooks and delete: This is a tough one. On the one hand, it is true that the page is in-universe and therefore doesn't comply with the fiction style guide, and that nothing on the page independent satisfies the notability guideline. On the other hand, failure to comply with a style guide is normally an issue for clean-up, not deletion, and there's a good argument that since Harry Potter as a whole is notable, this particular topic, if encyclopedic, would be appropriate for a sub article under the article series guideline. Ultimately, though, I think it's appropriate to delete for the following reasons:
  1. The list is unacceptable original research, because many of the dates are obtained through a series of deductions based on various references in the text.
  2. The list is, IMHO, overly detailed for Wikipedia, which is not an indiscriminate collection of information. However, the list probably is a good choice for Wikibooks, which has an excellent and detailed analysis of Harry Potter and would benefit from the addition of this list. Send the list to Wikibooks, where it will be more at home. TheronJ 20:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless multi million dollar films and the companies creating them are considedered unreliable sources of information, it is not OR. The description of how the dates were originally derived is accurate, but they have in any event been adopted as official. The article is one of maybe 300 in the HP series, and as such deals with the issue of relative dates for all the articles. It is a necessary part of the understanding the whole. Sandpiper

*Keep : simply NOT OR because all this was used in an official Warner Bros DVD that is JKR-sanctionned (thus it is false to say "has no reliable secondary sources"). Had WB not re-used this timeline in an official product, I would have agreed that despite obviously being correct it was still OR according to WP's criteria. But that's not the case, it's featured in an official product. Folken de Fanel 20:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: opinion changed after reflecting upon this. Article is non-notable on Wikipedia, it is enough to write the revelant dates in one single sentence in the relevant articles.Folken de Fanel 22:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If the whole timeline was published on a Warner Bros DVD, why is the Wiki page not a copyright violation? Did Warner Brothers credit Wikipedia, or did WB or some other author claim copyright? Thanks, TheronJ 20:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • For one, it appears WB took the information from the Lexicon without attributing claim to that page (see the section on that page called "The Official Timeline"). For another, it is not a word-for-word copy. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks. The original data, then, is copyrighted either by Warner Brothers or by the website that alleges that they copied its material; in either case, it's not public domain. If the page were attributed to the DVD, that would resolve OR problems, but, IMHO, raise copyright problems. Even with minor rewording, I don't think the page would avoid copyright issues. With major rewording, IMHO you would be back to an OR problem. TheronJ 21:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Surely anything from the Lexicon would be in the public domain (their issue with WB was crediting of derivation, rather than with demands for royalties)? Michael Sanders 21:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
          • The Lexicon website has a copyright notice "Original content (c) 2003-2007 The Harry Potter Lexicon", and they've disabled copy paste so that when you copy, you get a copyright notice instead of their site text, so I would say it's not public domain. More generally, if Wikipedia is copying Lexicon material, then it's just wrong for Rowling to be directing traffic to us; we should have a link to the Lexicon, and they should get the hits that their work has generated. TheronJ 21:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
      • er what? information is not copyright, only the particular form of words. Otherwise there would be nothing in any article here at all. Sandpiper 22:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I'm sorry, I don't follow either. Rowling is not directing traffic to Wikipedia, she has sanctioned the Lexicon. She has never acknowledged Wikipedia. And, as Sandpiper said, how can information be copyrighted? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Ugh. I'll give that some thought, but let me get this straight. (1) The dates on the Wikipedia page weren't calculated by Wikipedia editors, they were calculated by the authors of The Lexicon page. (2) Rowling has stated that she personally relies on The Lexicon. Is that right? Also, where has Rowling stated #2 and why isn't it sourced in the article? TheronJ 14:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
            • (1)I would say the majority of dates-events are simply extracted from the books or specific statements by Rowling. e.g, Minerva McGonagall is asked how long she has been teaching and says so. Therefore a trivial calcualtion says the date she started was that number of years before the year in which that book is set. The clues referred to in the introduction were used to determine the school year of one set of characters. From, this a number of other dates simply follow. Similarly, another set of clues defines the school years of a second set of characters and more dates therefore follow from the text. The assembly of these clues was originally done and first published as an argument for particular reference dates by Lexicon. The resulting dates were then effectively confirmed by their publication as official background information, by Warner bros. So while the Lexicon proposed one method of fixing dates, I am not sure precisely whether this is Warner confirming their method, or simply using authorial fiat to choose to make the official dates happen to agree with those suggested by Lexicon. No one has exactly confirmed that Lexicon's orignal arguments determining the reference dates were right or wrong, the dates have simply been adopted. In one sense, the reference dates may literally not have existed before lexicon's contribution. However, now they officially do exist as background information about the characters. So essentially the dates now exist on many websites simply as information extracted from the body of official information published in connection with the series. The dates on this page are a collection of such information, and a similar page (well, several and in more detail) exists on Lexicon. The now official dating therefore has many sources outside wiki or Lexicon. However, Lexicon lays claim to the method of dating and to an original contribution to the stories. This is, in its own right quite interesting. A website arguably altered the course of the books.
            • (2) is a bit easier. See Harry Potter Lexicon. Rowling stated that she is in the habit of working in cafes etc, and that she has been known to check a fact about her books on the Lexicon website, rather than go to a bookshop and buy a copy to check something. Sandpiper 21:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Unencyclopedic. More suited for fansites. Madhava 1947 (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Given the fact that the information was used in official DVD editions of Warner Bros, it is not OR, by any means. Arfan 10:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

True, but is a plot summary, which violates WP:NOT, and which was the first reason it was nominated. It is just a different method to present the stories, fundamentally in-universe, and is thus a plot summary. Ergo: it should be deleted. Fram 12:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as unencyclopedic and plot summary. How has this survived so long? Bartleby 13:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: My reasoning is different than the original nomination though. If this was published on the DVD's, it would be a copyright violation to reproduce it. If it were real life dates, then no one can copyright that, but this is not the case here. Slavlin 18:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article is plagued with constant Original Research and speculation. I can't see how sentences like "It is possible that Fudge could be referring to a more distant predecessor" is in any way relavant. There is not ONE singal source that states Rowlings world is meant to parrallel the real world. All other sources are fan sites trying to compare the Harry Potter universe to the real world and is completely original research, or where sourced, it is still unreliable sourcing (citing fan pages)... which don't have notibility. Thought of course this will end as no consesus because it is to popular... I gave up trying to remove OR from Harry Potter pages ages ago because the fandom is to strong. Even the timeline is a copy edit problem, stolen from the DVD, the rest of the article is just plain OR and fancruft.--Dacium 09:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - it all derives from the books, and from what Rowling has said. It matches the timeline from Lexicon and the DVD, yes, because they wrote it out from the same sources. I already asked those editors who believe there is OR in the article to demonstrate it on the article talk page. No one has done so. Michael Sanders 21:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You have it backwards. For Wikipedia, you have to show that it is NOT original research under guidelines in WP:OR. This includes Unpublished synthesis of published material. "The only way to demonstrate that material is not original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." Slavlin 21:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It comes from the books, Rowlings interviews and websites. And yes, it hasn't been sourced properly. But that can be done in time. However, there is nothing in the wikipedia rules to justify the deletion of an article if assured that it is not Original Research; rather, you point out questionable figures or claims. Michael Sanders 21:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I voted keep (mainly because the claims that the dates in themselves are OR is false), but I might change my opinion...It's true that if we remove all the OR in the article, there only remains the list.

So, what we have to know is what would be the use of such a list ? Knowing the age of the characters ? This can easily be mentionned in a single sentence in the relevant articles. Knowing when the books are supposed to happen ? Again, a mention in the relevant articles is enough.

Really, such list can only be interesting on fan websites, and since dates have never been of great importance within the story of HP (JKR didn't even bothered to mention precise years, except for one occasion, Nick's "deathday" -or whatever-) the notability on Wikipedia is probably close to zero...Folken de Fanel 22:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A description of the way the date references were originally derived by lexicon is not OR, in fact it is more by way of history now, since it is detailing how the relative dates in the originally published books became absolute dates confirmed by warner bros. But leaving aside why we might dismiss half the article from consideration, the dates are important. Firstly, the article serves to collect all the date information in one place where it can be referred to from all the articles rather than being repeated all over the place. Second, it helps to understand how events relate to each other, if there is a straightforward list which can be referred to. The article is one part of a rather large series. Sandpiper 00:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case we could argue that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, above all for such a trivial subject (dates in themselves are not important, otherwise JKR would have elaborated on them -but the events are important, of course). Then, WP is not a plot summary either, what's the point of summing up all the events in a chronological order, if it's already given in the books (with indications concerning the order) ? We would have to add analyses and all to avoid being exclusively in-universe. What could we say more ? POV statements that Warner stole lexicon's chronology, and OR to fill in the blanks between JKR's various inconsistencies (btw, would these exist if dates were so "important"? ) ?Folken de Fanel 00:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as original research. Show me a secondary or tertiary source documenting this and I'll gladly change my !vote. RFerreira 08:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per RFerreira, though I would want to see more than just a single source -- I think there are notability concerns as well as original research issues. `Mike Christie (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ponyhawk

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

Neologism. A contestant on American Idol did his hair up funny last night and now it's an entry on Wikipedia. Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This entry is completely acceptable and provides a full and accurate definition including a reference to popular culture. Deletion is not recommended. 28 March 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chartran (talk • contribs)

• • Comment - Please see WP:NEO. Can you provide some reference that says this term is older than one day. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Neologism and obviously unsuitable for Wikipedia. Gwernol 15:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism and does not belong on Wikipedia. I'll have no prejudice against recreation if it happens to have some articles written about it within the next month. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 15:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO. Wikipedia is not for things made up in barber school one day. Otto4711 15:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and salt. Rklawton 17:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as patent neologism until someone comes up with some references to the contrary. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 17:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO. If we can't seem to vote him off the show, at least we can vote his hair off of Wikipedia. Neier 00:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete and WP:PT as re-creation of deleted and salted article. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Graal (game)

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

No evidence this is a notable game. The article lacks any relable sources to show notability. Was Prod'ed but the prod notice was removed without explanation. The article currently could be speedy deleted under WP:CSD:A7 as it doesn't assert notability, but I have decided to give the author the benefit of the doubt and give them time to improve the article Gwernol 14:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Having heard of this before, I think it's possible to find verifiable sources. I know at one point Graal was called Zelda Online (as it started life as an online version of The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past), but was changed when Nintendo sent them a cease and desist letter. I'll take a look around and see if I can find anything. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 15:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete After some extensive searching, I've come up blank. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 15:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete This has gone through the AFD process and been deleted before. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 15:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and salt, repost of previously AfDed material. Article creator used edit summary "please stop deleting this page it has the same right as World of Warcraft to be on wikipedia and if you delete this than i will hate you" How mature. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, also see [59]. I've tried creating this article before, only to have it deleted without an explanation. Looked back and found the deletion logs, learned why. (As a side note, the article itself is non-NPOV with little information about the actual game) An•so•be 17:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was MERGE and DELETE. Looks like most of this is already covered at the other articles, but if its not let me know.Cúchullain ^t/c 05:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Pros of suicide

The Pros of suicide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is absolutely unsuitable for an encyclopedia. It is a collection of information that is irrelevant to the article. There is no reason why anyone would want such information as provided (the views of philosophers) and the links are all spammy. Some of it cannot possibly be sourced and is POV. Please remove -- we really don't want this -- Chris Lester ^talk 15:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into Suicide. There's some decent info in here, but articles about the "pros and cons" of things aren't encyclopedic, and the article isn't really about its title topic anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge anything sourced and useful into Suicide - or perhaps Philosophical views of suicide, since the information presented is almost strictly philosophical in nature - but no cut-and-pasting. The style here is too POV to be kept as-is. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 16:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Do something with it I'm not sure merging is the best solution but perhaps renaming and refocusing is not a bad idea. There's some decent info in there. There's also a bunch of junk and this should all be sorted out. In any case, the title is inappropriate: besides the capitalization and the obvious concerns about the "pros" of any kind of death, it's also not descriptive of the content which is centered about individuals and associations who have defended suicide as a valid option. (in itself, this may be a decent idea for an article) Pascal.Tesson 16:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The content is all from a single source that misrepresents the opinions of the thinkers named, especially Donne and Montesquieu, as "supporting" suicide, or more risibly, being concerned with capitalist coercion of laborers. Djcastel 17:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a POV fork. "The pros of anything" is not an encyclopedic topic. --Born2x 17:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as OR and because we have only the word of people talking about it from the wrong side. Absent credible support from those who have tried this option and found it to have given the advantages claimed, needs to eb deleted. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a definite POV fork. Maybe you could merge some of the past views on suicide into the Suicide article, but this shouldn't exist on an encyclopedia. bibliomaniac15 22:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• merge into suicide because the article contains both good information and support for an alternative POV. Ninja! 04:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• merge as it stands suicide seems to be remarkably POV given the fact that pro-suicide groups and books have more than a fringe minority status, they've been bestsellers and mentioned (usually in the negative context, but mentioned nevertheless) on numerous talk shows, ect. Some of this could certainly be incorporated into the 1/2 paragraph dedicated to 'debate on suidice' in the main article. Wintermut3 23:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Certainly a POV fork, although I agree with Wintermut3 that some parts of it could be added to the Suicide article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pure Oxygen (talk • contribs) 10:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
• Merge into Suicide. Excellent information, properly attributed, of interest to any reader who is researching this subject. Highly encyclopedic and valuable references for a topic too taboo for other encyclopedias. Edit out the junk and it will make a good addition to the suicide article. Jerry 21:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Horribly biased and contains original research. Mahanga^{Talk to me} 04:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge useful portions into Suicide and Philosophical views of suicide, eliminating the long, useless list and OR/POV material. -Aleta 03:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge parts into Philosophical views of suicide. I don't see much here that would go into Suicide once the useful philosophical bits are taken out. Mike Christie (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Aura healing

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

unsourced (update: yes, almost surely original research per Gwernol), how-to like, essay like, possibly made-up-in-school-one-day, possibly patent nonsense. Earlier {{prod}} tag removed Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete clearly original research. Gwernol 15:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as completely unsourced and obvious OR. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 17:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Unsourced how-to guide per pervasive statements such as, "After this, you will learn to heal the Aura just by using your thoughts..." ◄Zahakiel► 19:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with fire. Unsourced, POV, howto, and complete bollocks Guy (Help!) 22:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete with extreme prejudice, discrimination, or whatever. Don't let pseudoscience on Wikipedia! M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 23:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• merge/redirect to chakra. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy close. "Merge and delete" can't be done due to GFDL licencing issues, and no in this AfD seems to be asking this article to be deleted. Please discuss merge on the article talk page. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Internet Explorer 7

Internet Explorer 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

• Merge and Delete:First of all,besides that no other version specific internet explorer page exists,If there is a page for Internet explorer 7,why not Firefox 2 then,its as well known, and even more critically acclaimed Rodrigue 14:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Internet Explorer. The consensus on whether to merge is going on at Talk:Internet Explorer 7#Requested merge with Internet Explorer --soum^talk 14:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close, if you want something merged, then discuss it on the talk page. Don't start an AFD. Recury 15:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Well I realize there was a discussion on the talk page,but most of the people there werent voting on wether or not to merge it and just added a comment about it to the discussion,and the last comment was 4 days ago,even though it would seem like a major discussion.and anyway, deleting and merging are the same thing,an AFD is just a more official way of saying that it shouldn't be a seperate article than just discussing on the talk page Rodrigue 15:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: The voting was still on, and the previous votes were there as well. You could have (and still can) added your vote there. --soum^talk 18:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I see,well anyway this page is about deleting internet explorer,not this page itself.If people feel it shouldnt be listed as an AFD even though it may be deleted anyway,they can go to the talk page,but here is about deleting internet explorer 7. 64.229.203.92 18:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The page covers IE7 with content not duplicated on other IE pages, and is an important subject. Digita 00:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; ie7 is very different than previous versions. -Indolences 00:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Well if it wants to be explained further and as detailed as this one; a new firefox 2 article with deep research can be started as well. Since the version 2 is quite new, (then a 7th version as an example) someone hasn't written yet. Then all Photoshop versions should be united as one, and all Windows versions and then all Godfather series, Star Wars series etc.. Quite useless deletion and merge request IMHO. Nerval 04:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete - Plain silly to have an article about a specific version of a program with nothing special but a spiffy interface and some 'new' functions. --Nyp 19:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Internet Explorer and Redirect--GCFreak2 05:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Contains some valuable information but having a standalone article for each version number of a particular piece of software is silly. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 16:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Close No valid nomination reason given, nomination isn't even asking for an actual deletion. If you're having problems getting the discussion organized, try WP:PM. FrozenPurpleCube 16:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - IE7 represents a substantial change from previous versions of IE and there are sufficient reliable sources of information with which to write a good article about it. --Born2x 17:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with the main article unless similar articles are created on the other versions. 23skidoo 18:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Why? IE7 represents a paradigm shift. 5, 5.5, and 6 were relatively minor and could be characterized as "oh, I guess it's time for a version number". 4 and 7 were complete changes. There is plenty of information about both from which articles can be written. --Born2x 19:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge and Delete I have read the article along with the long list of new modifications, features and improvements. There are significant changes from the kernel interface point of view, but they do not change the program's purpose, or the goals of the Microsoft IE program.Raazer 20:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close. Afd is not for merge suggestions. "Merge and delete" is not a possible outcome. It doesn't even make sense to delete — this would be useful as a redirect whether or not their was a history under it. --- RockMFR 21:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• mer mer mer mer - oh bugger my IE 7 script box is broken. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Born2x. --Carioca 22:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close per above. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 23:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Doesn't deserve its own article. W1k13rh3nry 01:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• keep Merge is as much the loss of a separate article as a delete is, and in practice usually leads to a loss of much of the more specific information.DGG 03:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: per nom --Jer10 95 03:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. WjBscribe 22:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

List of city nicknames in the United States (2nd nomination)

List of city nicknames in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nominating this in line with a related AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of city nicknames. This article easily passed a previous deletion debate and as such I was reluctant to renominate it, but it seemed logical to do given the related AfD. I do have to say this article still suffers from having virtually NO sources or references whatsoever, and is still a list of trivial information. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 16:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete this one too -- see my comments in the previous AfD. Poorly sourced and vulnerable to people putting in their own comments about whatever city they want to promote or disparage. Is there a source that says Minneapolis is "The Present Day Underground Hip Hop Capital Of The World"? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: I went through the first couple dozen cities as a sample, and virtually every one had a readily available source to document the name. A little group effort and there's no reason that this article couldn't have several hundred sources. Ready to chip in? Alansohn 03:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Useful article that would benefit greatly from more thorough sourcing. Apply fact tags, as needed, to obtain additional sources. There was a clear (and near unanimous) consensus that this article was notable at the previous AfD, and there is no reason that this has changed since. Alansohn 17:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - as a case in point, since nominating this article 5 more unsourced nicknames for NYC have been added. As Elkman points out it's prone to people coming by and plopping their favorite nicknames down on this article without any regard for sourcing and verification - it's just a trivia repository. As for applying fact tags for this article, the veritable forest of {{fact}} tags that would be strewn across the article would overwhelm it, because the entire thing is sourceless. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 21:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Ridiculously strong keep. probably some sourcing needed, but this is a very interesting article. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 23:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Worthwhile list. Needs a little pruning but worthwhile. Fg2 01:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Encyclopedic. source it don't delete it. Carlossuarez46 02:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I know this has already been said, but looking at this list it's obvious this is a magnet for passing contributors to add any made-up nicknames to it. Most of the recent edits are from IP users. Plasticbottle 02:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but please require sourcing for each and every item in the list. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• I'd like to withrdaw this nomination in light of the work on sourcing now being done by Alansohn to give adequate time for further sourcing and work to be done on this article. The article should be reexamined after a sufficient amount of time, and I will have to renominate if it fails to meet standards, but if this work is indicative of future work for this article then there's no further reason to delete it. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 21:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 21:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Colonial Scrip

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

I can find no credible references that this actually existed. What I can find is numerous propaganda tracts which are clearly designed to promote a political agenda and not to inform. The page previously contained many fabricated quotes (now moved to talk) from important Revolution-era Americans which the author seems to admit were fabricated. Eliot 16:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Certainly the colonies issued money, some which could be referred to as scrip. See United States currency#History and the articles on the individual colonies' currency linked from there. This should either be a redirect or kept but with better coordination with the other existing articles on related topics, none of which are currently linked. Of course I agree that "propaganda tracts" should not be used as a source. Newyorkbrad 17:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Of course it existed. This is just an article needing expansion and sourcing. Encyclopedic topic. DGG 03:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This article needs to stay and it can indeed. It just needs improvement. It is a historical fact that Dr. Franklin helped devise this currency in 1723 and he went to London in 1764 and explained to the British Board of Trade the benefits of the paper currency. When Parliament shut it down he represented the Colonies and urged Parliament to allow the Colonial Scrip.

Franklin wrote in his autobiography “The utility of this currency became by time and experience so evident as never afterwards to be much disputed.”

Furthermore, here is an actual quote from Adam Smith regarding the Pennsylvanlia Currency, the best of the Colonial Currency experiments and the one that Franklin helped create. Here is what Adam Smith, the "Father of modern economics" said:

“The government of Pennsylvania, without amassing any [gold or silver], invented a method of lending, not money indeed, but what is equivalent to money to its subjects. [It advanced] to private people at interest, upon [land as collateral], paper bills of credit…made transferable from hand to hand like bank notes, and declared by act of assembly to be legal tender in all payments...[the system] went a considerable way toward defraying the annual expense…of that…government [low taxes].” “[Pennsylvania’s] paper currency…is said never to have sunk below the value of gold and silver which was current in the colony before the…issue of paper money.” -Adam Smith, the “Father of modern economics” as we are taught today, in his famed 1776 work The Wealth of Nations (I have provided the source in the main article)

Here is what David Ricardo said about the notion of Government-issued money:

“It appears that the commerce of the country would not be in the least impeded by depriving the [central bank] of the power of issuing paper money, provided an amount of such money, equal to the Bank circulation, was issued by the Government: and that the sole effect of depriving the Bank this privilege, would be to transfer the profit which accrues from the interest on the money so issued from the Bank to the Government.” -David Ricardo, British economist, free trade supporter, and member of Parliament in his book Plan for the Establishment of a National Bank, published posthumously in 1824.

“After Franklin gave explanations on the true cause of the prosperity of the Colonies, the Parliament exacted laws forbidding the use of this money in the payment of taxes. This decision brought so many drawbacks and so much poverty to the people that it was the main cause of the Revolution. The suppression of the Colonial money was a much more important reason for the general uprising than the Tea and Stamp Act.” -Peter Cooper, inventor, writer, founder of Cooper Union College, and US Presidential Candidate in 1876, his 1883 book Ideas for a Science of Good Government

This article deserves to stay because Colonial Scrip is a very important part of the history of economics and it must be remembered.

I have now updated the article with credible quotes that demonstrates the significance of this article. It should not be deleted.

• Keep It did indeed exist! Do one need further argument? Lord Metroid 11:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 21:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Manhattanization

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

Appears to be a neologism. I'm not sure, so I'm neutral. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong and speedy keep - A term known from some 40 years ago (and cited in the article) is no neologism. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep needs more sources but this is used in print from the 60s and 70s as noted above. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep per everyone else. Acalamari 23:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep term is clearly not a neologism. Maybe split up the section that I added into a new article. Skyscraper Phoenix 06:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Discard this is not wiktionary for invented words. "Jazm" is a word over 80 years old, yet it's still a neologism. Regardless, actual "research"-based content is one paragraph long. Then we have as many pictures as fit on the page, and six examples of original research. Even if Manhattanization were a concept sociologists had studied in detail and actually had linked the concept of social effects, the present content of this article wouldn't warrant keeping.

I could replace the whole article with, "Manhattanization is when a city goes through a period of high-rise building. What constitutes Manhattanization is completely arbitrary as there are no quantifiable characteristics that tell that a city is indeed undergoing Manhattanization."--Loodog 00:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Online Questionnaire Design

Online Questionnaire Design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is a how-to manual - not an encyclopedic article. Born2x 17:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as above. Clearly a "how-to" guide, which is unsuitable for Wikipedia as described at "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". I added a proposed deletion template to the article, which was removed by the creator. EALacey 17:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:NOT The Behnam 18:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:NOT and WP:OR. YechielMan 18:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Cantras 19:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• I disagree, this page is a brief overview of online questionnaire design. It is not simply a how-to guide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.37.182 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 28 March 2007
• Delete if not a howto then definitely original research. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 23:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• DONT DELETEHey guys, pls leave it on for another week? We are still working on this and will try to make it better. It's just for a school project and by the end of next week it still isnt better then go ahead and delete it. Just give us a week PLEASE!!. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.100.37.168 (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Comment. My objection to the article is not with its quality, but with its nature. It consists of statements about how an online questionnaire ought to be designed, which makes it simply unsuitable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia could include an article discussing principles which reliable sources had proposed for questionnaire design, with full attribution. However, an article based on principles devised by the authors fails Wikipedia:No original research. Have you considered writing your article on Wikibooks, which includes how-to guides? EALacey 19:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 22:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Jacking

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

Fails notability. Was nominated for CSD as being non-notable via avoid neologims. It was PROD'ed twice with a good faith explanation of the deletion process to give the article's creator time to improve the article to meet notability requirements. This explanation of the process occurred on the article's talkpage on January 28, 2007. Those attempts were rejected out of hand by another user after a detailed explanation. Were Wikipedia to include every fad or item conceived, it would run out of webspace. Wikipedia is not WP:PAPER. Ronbo76 17:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. First of all, WP:PAPER refers to the idea that we will not run out of webspace. In fact, it specifically says that "there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content" so on its own that's no reason to delete an article. People donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Wikimedia foundation every time we have a drive, to ensure that we have the hosting capacity we need to keep expanding. Secondly, I don't feel that this falls into "every fad or item conceived", at least any more than other dances mentioned in songs (like the Loco-Motion or the twist). Jacking was a pretty common (if stereotypical) dance style in the late 80s. I know Google hits aren't dependable, but with almost half a million it seems like there must be at least a couple of reliable sources out there. Looks like there are tons of dance sites out there that discuss the style. Kafziel ^Talk 18:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Kafziel was the administrator, who rejected the CSD, and removed the second PROD as a user. Ronbo76 18:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • So? Kafziel ^Talk 18:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's poorly referenced. From what I can find, it was prominient in Chicago for a while, but never caught on elsewhere. As a local phenomenon, I don't think it's notable enough. -- Mikeblas 18:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"Chicago house" is a musical style, like Delta blues. The name refers to the place of origin, not that it was only popular in that area. Kafziel ^Talk 18:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Kafziel, even though we run the risk of "running out of webspace"! Clearly the nom doesn't understand what "Wikipedia is not paper" means. Anyway potential references seem to include a book [60].. article just needs some better referencing, not deletion. The references do seem to exist. --W.marsh 18:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep [61] satisfies me that it's sourceable and notable enough for me. FrozenPurpleCube 19:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Kafziel. Splintercellguy 21:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No assertion of notability.--Bryson 03:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Huh? Claims include "popular in the late 1980s" and "many early house tracks used the word in their titles. Examples include..." What exactly were you expecting? --W.marsh 03:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:N. Morenooso 04:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Why? The mere assertion that it fails WP:N doesn't mean much without evidence, especially considering people have already pointed to appropriate sources that seem to meet WP:N. --W.marsh 17:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep WP:PAPER is not a warning about running out of webspace, it is the opposite in fact - this AFD and all its versions are going to consume more webspace than the subject article on its own, so that's a silly argument. The fact that Kafziel removed a CSD notice (this does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion!) and a prod tag is completely irrelevant. And aside from that, this is quite notable: as Mister Manticore has pointed out it is referenced in at least 3 reliable sources. --Canley 04:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - If the gentle reader will look at the title of WP:PAPER it includes the word "not". I also included "not" in my preamble making this a double negative. Since WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE is taking hits on the talkpage, my intent was that even though Wikipedia is believed not to be unlimited in web content or storage, there will come a level when non-notable articles like this will not be included. Ronbo76 06:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

We can worry about that if (and that's a big "if") that time ever comes.

As far as your use of WP:PAPER, at this point I think you should really just say, "oops, sorry," and let it go. "Wikipedia is not Wikipedia is not paper" (the supposed double negative you created) doesn't make any sense as a sentence. Even if it was shortened to "Wikipedia is not not paper", that's still nonsense, because Wikipedia is not paper. No amount of doublespeak is going to change that. It simply does not apply here, and the semantic arguments don't help this discussion. Kafziel ^Talk 16:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not speak for me. My nomination is clear and a good faith effort. You are aware of this because we discussed this fully on the talkpage. Ronbo76 16:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not speaking for you. I'm asking you to stop trying to rationalize your misguided use of WP:PAPER. I agree that the nomination was in good faith (well, mostly - if we discount your implication that my input is somehow invalidated by my removal of the prod tag), but the nomination is valid based on your doubts of notability, not WP:PAPER. You misused the policy, we called you on it, and there's no need for you to try to save face by acting like you meant something else. Everyone makes mistakes. At this point, it would be best just to admit your mistake and let it go. That's all I'm saying. Kafziel ^Talk 16:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Having danced some house dance at various schools and places I can assert that the jacking technique is often used and referred to. I've also heard the style being called new jack swing, but I'm not sure how it's related to the genre of music with that name. Many newer styles of hip hop dance also make use of jacking, which make it difficult to merge it with the house dance article. - Wintran ^(talk) 18:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Is this anything more than a dicdef? Xiner (talk, email) 19:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's short at the moment, but has the potential to be expanded. It's no more a dicdef than breakdancing or moshing. Kafziel ^Talk 20:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as a bit of pop culture referenced in music. Ventifax 23:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Mouldy Crouton

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

Delete - stub article on a non-notable two-word phrase from a song. There is no article on the song from which the phrase is drawn, no logical redirect target. Otto4711 17:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as original research. -- Mikeblas 18:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete makes no sense as an article. An entire article on two random syllable combinations from someone's song? M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 23:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Lakers 00:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. There are important reasons to maintain a distinction between the two people listed on this disambig page even though one does not have an article (See Brad Patrick's comment below). WjBscribe 22:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Les Balsiger (disambiguation)

Les Balsiger (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reason - Article exists solely to disambiguate Les Balsiger, a non-notable university administrator at a Catholic university, from Les Balsiger, a notable anti-Catholic activist. The article on Les Balsiger, the university administrator was deleted per this AFD discussion.

Per discussion on Talk:Les Balsiger (activist), Les Balsiger, the university administrator, objects to the possibility of people confusing him with Les Balsiger, the anti-Catholic activist.

I understand and sympathize with Les Balsiger, the administrator, but there really is little that we can do with the fact that people have the same name as other people. What if someone came along and objected to be confused with Charles Manson or another mass murderer or serial killer? Would we create disambig pages for them? Taken to an extreme, every biographical article would have to go through a disambig page. There might be people named George Bush who don't want to be confused with President George Bush or Prime Minister Tony Blair. And so on and so on.

Richard 18:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Turn it into a redirect. I'm not sure what the big fuss is all about. As a general rule, a disambiguation page that points to only one article should either be changed to a redirect, or else deleted under CSD G6. You can make that call; it does not require an AFD discussion. YechielMan 18:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  User:BradPatrick redirected Les Balsiger to Les Balsiger (disambiguation), the page that is the subject of this AFD. I subsequently redirected Les Balsiger to Les Balsiger (activist). The "right" move, IMHO, would be to delete Les Balsiger and move Les Balsiger (activist) back to Les Balsiger where it used to be.

  The reason that this does not qualify as a G6 speedy delete is that the deletion would certainly be controversial since at least one user (BradPatrick) would probably object. --Richard 18:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're looking for consensus, you'll hear no objection from me. YechielMan 02:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Object. I do object. In my view, the distinction between someone of such notability as the President, Manson, etc., and this situation is one of proportion. Wikipedia gives no information at all to differentiate between two people with a fairly rare name, and near zero notability in the first place, except here, one is an anti-Catholic activist and the other is a guy who desperately wishes not to be confused with him, given his profession and beliefs. And, despite the "tough" attitude I see above, we should be humane in dealing with people who are being hurt by the project. There is insufficient data to distinguish the subject of the article as no other Les Balsiger. There exists a likelihood of confusion that is completely impossible for Bush, Blair, etc. Oh, yeah, and he would very much like to sue the Foundation if nothing is done about it. So, leave this page. Please.--Brad Patrick 16:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Something should be done to distinguish. I would have kept the two pages with a disambig. Now, I would add a note to the Les Balsiger (activist) page that mentions the administrator. Particularly since "Les Balsiger" is not an exclusive trademark of either of them, & the administrator is willing to harass us over it. Sometimes, whether we like it or not, the reporter can't help becoming part of the story. Ventifax 23:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

John Dehlin

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

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:BIO Nv8200p talk 18:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - no sources except a blog and podcast, so no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. Delete unless sourced by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Walton ZBrannigan 08:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I like him as a person, but he's not notable enough for Wikipedia. --Kmsiever 12:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Haven't read applicable policies so Recuse myself from "voting" :^) (Googled Salt Lake Tribune/Deseret News with new media John Dehlin/Mormon Stories with no results but note his podcasts are cited in various LDS-themed "new media." --Justmeherenow 13:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Rebtel

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

Procedural listing. An anon user, 158.143.215.204 (talk · contribs) has been posting messages on this page suggesting it may be primarily intended to promote this company, and from a cursory examination, it may fail notability guidelines. Listing here to get a broader consensus. —dgies^t_c 18:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - reads like advertising. Also, most of the links are to sites affiliated with the company, so no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to establish notability per WP:CORP. Delete unless appropriate sources are added by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Could use some more information, but it has been mentioned by USA Today and Reuters UK. flod logic 18:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete In spite of the USA today article. This is the attempt of an individual company to hijack VOIP and its derivatives, a much more general technology, discussed in dozens of articles, by calling it be its own name. I see no evidence of more general use. DGG 03:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Logitech MX revolution, which already mentions this. Guy (Help!) 10:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Logitech VX revolution

Logitech VX revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable product. Just another mouse -- another one that seems just as amazing is only a few months away. Mikeblas 18:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep notable means sources exist, which seems to be the case here [62], [63], [64] et cetera. Maybe you aren't interested in computer mouse developments, I know I'm not... but that doesn't matter. Thankfully we don't delete stuff just because random people at AfD aren't interested in the topic. --W.marsh 18:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Notable does not mean that sources exist. I can verify that I exist, but not that I am notable. Corvus cornix 18:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That's a tired argument, and an incorrect one since notability is commonly held on AfD to mean that reliable sources exist. Your word on a wiki is not a reliable, published source we could cite on an article about you... whereas a CNet review is something we could cite. See WP:N and WP:A. --W.marsh 19:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • If the sources are reliable, that's a different argument. Just the fact that something exists, as you claimed, is just as "tired". Corvus cornix 19:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Notable means a lot more than sources exist. I'm holding that this subject (and some of the references you've provided) fall short. -- Mikeblas 20:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Falls short of what, your subjective idea of what we can include? Inclusion isn't about what we like and don't like, or at least, we're trying to get away from that. Inclusion is about what we can write a good, neutral article on. --W.marsh 20:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • The references fall short on establishing the notability criteria. The cited articles are reviews; they're not substantial. They're about the use of the product, and touch on the way a consumer perceives its design. They're not about its design, its history, its innovations, or any of the things that would make usable references for an interesting article. Some of the references have dubious editorial integrity, written by amateur journalists, using dubious testing methods and having little experience in the field. The review sites are hardly independent; they almost always receive sample goods from the manufacturer or from vendors in exchange for advertising or editorial promotion. Meanwhile, please refrain from personalizing the issue; this isn't about what I like and don't like. -- Mikeblas 00:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
        • This is an extreme interpretation of WP:N, and not really shared by a lot of people. I personally would not have us only write about a piece of hardware when the New York Times profiles it, and frankly I'd care more about what Anandtech has to say since they specialize in this kind of stuff. You say the sources aren't enough, I say they are. Anyway that's all I feel like saying on this issue... I find your comments and edit summaries to be more frustration than I want to deal with at this point. --W.marsh 01:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
        • It's not clear that Mikeblas has actually read the sources. The article at Anandtech most certainly does cover the design, history, and innovations of the new mouse in exhaustive detail. The consumer perception and editorializing is reserved for the last few hundred words. He is also apparently not familiar with Anandtech, an extremely well-regarded review site. Irene Ringworm 03:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm very familiar with Anandtech -- enough to know that it's not universally well-regarded. There's no link to an Anandtech review of the VX in this AfD, or in the article in question. I can't find one; they review the MX, mentioning that the VX will be reviewed some time in the "near future", but I don't find such a review when searching their site. (As such, I baffled at how my familiarity with a site that is involved neither in this AfD nor in the article it discusses is relevant.) The MX review[65] includes what the reviewer thought of the design of the mouse, but that's editorial opinion, really. (Which is yet another reason why reviews aren't good primary sources.) What I'm thinking about are references about the design from the design team itself. Truly notable products will result in interest in the process that created them. The design team might write books, do a "making of" documentary, or be interviewed in magazines. That kind of material provides an authorotative reference about the design and development of the product. What Anandtech has written (again, for the MX, since I don't see the VX article) is about their observations of the physical product, and is quite shallow. -- Mikeblas 17:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Like this article [66] about the flywheel design for the scroll wheel? Irene Ringworm 18:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup, and merge with Logitech MX revolution, an identical product for desktops. External coverage is pretty much limited to product reviews but the depth of coverage (Anandtech writes over ten thousand words), suggests that this is more than "just another mouse". That being said, the current article reads like marketing material. Agree with Mithent that the new article should focus on the unique features. Irene Ringworm 19:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. The depth of coverage suggests only that the Anandtech editors don't know when to stop. After all, their motivation is to generate ad revenues. The more pages, the more page impressions. -- Mikeblas 00:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Irene Ringworm; the mice are (apparently) identical, except that the VX is smaller and is for laptop use. I may be wrong, however :-/ M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 23:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Your close enough to right KjtheDj 00:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Individual types of mice are notable; individual companies leading in the field are notable; individual models are not. DGG 03:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment FYI (and not to justify notability) there are pages already for other mice, such as the Apple Mighty Mouse and Apple Pro Mouse. The articles describe mice which represent significant design innovations (multi-button mouse for mac) or industry-changing placements (optical mouse as standard hardware). The question is whether this particular mouse represents a similarly significant innovation or whether it is "just another product release". Irene Ringworm 16:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The other article, Logitech MX revolution has been edited to a good point. Maybe we should work on this article too to get it better. As the creator, I may be a little bias, though. It may want to be merged with Logitech MX revolution KjtheDj 19:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge, whatever. WP is not marketing vehicle for every brand name Logitech created on a regular basis. Pavel Vozenilek 09:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 00:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Descendents of Isaac Allerton

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

Wikipedia is not a genealogy website. There is no indication that any of these people are notable. Corvus cornix 18:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletions. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 19:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. This sort of thing is explicitly mentioned under WP:NOT#DIR as something Wikipedia is not. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 23:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: The first thing to do when creating a new article in Wikipedia anymore is to cite WHY you feel it is notable. I don't know why editors can't seem to grasp that. Slavlin 18:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Sources do not have to be in English. It should also be noted that there has been an article on the subject at German Wikipedia (i.e. the language the sources are in) since June 2005, which is far more detailed and may be of assistance in improving the coverage here. WjBscribe 00:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

GayRomeo

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

This article has been here for almost a year, it is still a stub, possibly doesn't meet web notability requirements, has no english language sources beyond the commercial website of the subject of the article and the article itself reads more like a guide/lightly-worded advertisement for the site more than being encyclopedic. Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 17:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not appear to be notable. --- RockMFR 21:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Withdrawing my opinion. I'd prefer if I could actually read a translation of the German articles linked in this article (rather than bad machine translations), but overall I'm not too picky about foreign-language sources here. However, if this comes up at afd again, it really needs to have English sources. --- RockMFR 20:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: Clearly notable, by far the largest gay online community in the German-speaking countries (where Gaydar (website) is really, really small fish and communities like OUTeverywhere are virtually unheard of). Hard to give exact figures because this service is free and the others are commercial (i.e. one would have to pay just to find out how many people are actually there), but just to give an example: right now, at this moment, about 700 people online at OUTeverywhere, compared to 22300 online at Gayromeo. Total number of registered Gayromeo users, worldwide: over 450000 (and they do automatically delete users that haven't been online for 5 or 6 months). — ^PDD 22:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: It would help the case of this article if there were secondary sources (preferrably in english since this is the english wikipedia) that establish its notability. Also aside from that, the content of the article is severely lacking and amounts to an advertisement. Unless it can be fixed up and expanded so it is a full encyclopedic reference in the near future, it should probably be deleted, notable or not. It can be recreated once there is enough content to at least justify a stub. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 22:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Totally agreed, the article isn't good. I just tried to give some information to show that non-notability doesn't apply, but of course information like that should be in the article and not on the AfD page. — ^PDD 22:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No assertion of notability.--Bryson 03:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep The leading gay chat portal in the German-speaking world, it has been the subject of "multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." The articles about this chat portal in Spiegel and tageszeitung are linked and satisfy the notability criteria. Therefore the allegations of non-notability are false and the call for deletion is unfounded.--Bhuck 07:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ZBrannigan 08:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As far as I see, the site clearly matches Notability criteria #1 as it has been written about in many newspapers. Moreover, Gayromeo has become an important communication resource for gay people in the German speaking parts of Europe, and I know from my personal use that it's rapidly growing in the neigbour countries.--DrMurx 13:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It meets notability requirements - at least in German-speaking regions. We can not expect that everything Spiegel article will be translated into English. The site has tried sprading outside of the German-speaking region, and is doing so, albeit slowly. samwaltz 17:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Another Comment. As I've stated, I agree that this site may be notable, but the article doesn't support that well and needs to be massively expanded/fundamentally rewritten. If there are no english language sources, then so be it. But if this article is to remain, there need to be people willing to put some work into it to improve it. It has been sitting around as a stub that looks more like an advertisement/brochure than anything else for a year. Simply being notable is not enough. The article needs to properly assert this notability and provide encyclopedic content. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 18:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete as lacking sources. I will be happy to provide the author a userfied copy upon request, if she intends to work to add sources to the article; it could then be moved back to the main article space. Shimeru 16:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Brian masterson

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

I can find no mentions whatsoever of this individual online. This is very suspicious, considering how famous he supposedly is:

• "Brian Masterson" AND (potholing OR caving) does not result in anything relevant;
• "Brian Masterson" AND Henry AND Stanley likewise comes up empty, although he's supposed to have taken the most regocnized portrait of the explorer;
• "Robert Ishmael Masters" results in 0 Ghits;
• No record of a Bolshevik War Memorial in Sebastopol;
• No evidence of any plaque in Ros Galliv;
• And – although I could be completely wrong on this – was "Brian" even a given name in 1875? ... discospinster _talk 19:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak deleteStrong delete- A lot of work went into this one. Hopefully somebody can come up with some sources.--Ng.j 06:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't find anything either through my own use of Google. It is suspicious that this is the only article the author edited.--Ng.j 06:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A lot of your comments are definitely valid. Yes, this is my only edit/created page. You could also say that this is my FIRST edited or created page. Everybody has to start somewhere. As to Why I started here, well, you will notice that I have the same name as his mother. Coincidence? No, because I am a relation. A relation who is working on my thesis about Brian Masterson. So, excuse me if I have highlighted a person who I have an affinity to - I didn't know that wasn't allowed.

As for sources/links/documents etc - again very true, I haven't provided any. Even the photo that I have (or rather, the scan of the photo that I have) hasn't been included. Apologies again, but I was only going to update this as and when I had the time. I don't seriously believe that this article will be the most searched on Wikipedia. And yes, some of it is informed speculation - I can't prove that he is the same Marconi radio operator, but I made that quite clear in the article. I've left it up to the reader to make the final decision.

If I put my hand on my heart I will admit that he was a minor character, and that no doubt his work doesn't rank up there with the great early photographers. But that doesn't mean that it's okay to blank him. Why not include him? He may not have done the greatest of deeds, but he led a far more interesting life than mine and was close to great things.

And may I just say one final thing - we mightn't all be high and mighty Wikipedia editors, but maybe some of the critique-ing of this document should be done with somewhat less of a sneer. Thanks.

• Delete. Without proper attribution of reliable sources, there is no way to distinguish this between something real and a hoax. Burntsauce 21:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Move to user page I love these kinds of pages. But I think they work better as independent sites away from wiki. Wikipedia is NOT a good place to write your thesis; not because we're too good for your original research, but because the site is not good enough for original research. We're not set up to effectively catch vandalism. Ventifax 23:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep - bad faith nomination. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Rocky road ice cream

Rocky road ice cream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable, this is just an advert, blah blah blah, delete this junk. Freestylefrappe 19:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, probably aren't many ice cream flavors that are notable enough for an article, but I think this is one (maybe Neapolitan ice cream too...). Not seeing how this is an advert either. Recury 19:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Metal Combat PC

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

This doesn't even pretend to be an article. It's an advertisement for the game, plain and simple. --Carnildo 19:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete complete spam, just a website cut-and-paste. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Spam, non-notable game. I've gone ahead and reverted the copyvio added by 65.2.112.144. --- RockMFR 21:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as blatant advertising with no acceptable version in the history. I would tag it for speedy deletion, but if I understand WP:CSD#G11 correctly, having an opposed prod disqualifies it from that. EALacey 12:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:SPAM Suriel1981 23:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep - bad faith nom by banned editor. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Batfink

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

Stupid nonsense piece, not notable, a student's joke piece. Freestylefrappe 19:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep This is not a nonsense piece and it IS notable. This is a famous cartoon, still rerun almost weekly on the BBC. Just Google it. Robinson weijman 19:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by Mike 7 (talk · contribs). -- Scientizzle 20:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Onslow: What they don't want people to really know...

Onslow: What they don't want people to really know... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy, originally tagged as "no context". The author has expanded it, but it's still borderline for speedy deletion under CSD G10 (as an attack against the school). Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as an attack. Otherwise, delete because Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Scientizzle 19:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Allan Smith

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

Non-notable, does not appear to pass WP:BIO. Leuko 19:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Epbr123 00:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable. Lakers 00:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Wincest

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

I think this article does not belong on Wikipedia. The article just talks about what the article name is, and does not talk about much else, so it should be considered a neologism. Also, pairings as a whole do not belong at Wikipedia at all. ChaosAkita 20:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Scientizzle 20:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice. Looks like a protologism, undoubtedly would be rejected by Wiktionary if we tried to transwiki. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Lakers 00:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of reliable sources. No Google News hits, no relevant Google News Archive hits, no relevant Google Groups hits. Fan fiction topics need legitimate sources before they can warrant a Wikipedia article. Note, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kigo (Kim Possible) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim shego in which two articles about the same character pairing were deleted. --Metropolitan90 03:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I have no emotional attachment to the subject and expect to be overruled by the large number of delete votes already posted. There does seem to be an anti-slash bias. The article was presented originally as a description of what appears to me to have become one of the more significant pairings in one of the more significant fandoms. Ringbark 18:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • comment I <3 Sandcest in all of its forms in the Naruto fandom, but I would NEVER think of creating an wikipedia entry for it. It's generally un-encyclopedia. Pairings as a whole do not belong on wikpedia, at all, thank you. (P.S. Don't go assuming I have an anti-slash bias. Look here ChaosAkita 21:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • • comment Oh sorry, I was careless. I thought you said "I have emotional attachment to the subject". But please keep in mind of what else I have said. ^^ ChaosAkita 21:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus, defaulting to keep. Shimeru 16:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Peter Griffin's jobs

List of Peter Griffin's jobs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Lacks multiple secondary sources covering the subject of "Peter Griffin's jobs" (see Wikipedia:Notability). This is not a recommendation or a suggestion to merge — this is a recommendation to delete; this information would not be of value in a featured article, so it there is no need to delay the inevitable. --- RockMFR 20:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There will be three secondary sources, four if I get lucky. For something so recent, that's a lot. Another Slappywag Among Petorians 23:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete original research, sub-trivial fancruft, vastly in excess of the level of detail that can be justified by the objective importance of either the character or the plot device. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete At most it deserves a small subsection in the Peter Griffin article. TJ Spyke 22:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Reserving judgment, but noting the existence of List of Homer Simpson's jobs. Not that one article's existence validates another's but it's not like it's unprecedented to list off the jobs of a fictional character. Otto4711 22:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The reason the Homer's jobs page exists is because the Homer Simpson page was way too long with the jobs, so it was split off into its own page. Plus, the article is considerably longer than this one. -- Scorpion 22:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Length of an article, if its content is otherwise encyclopedic, is irrelevant. Unless you're suggesting we delete all of our stubs. Otto4711 23:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, it is relevent. Homer Simpson has had a LOT more jobs than Peter Griffin, which is why it is too long for main article. Peter Griffin has only had a few, most of which were one-off jokes as opposed to being major plot points, which many (not all) of Homer's jobs have been. -- Scorpion 01:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually, that doesn't matter at all, not even one little itty bit. Doesn't matter in the slightest how many jobs each of them has had or how many they've had in comparison to each other or whether Peter's jobs are one-off jokes or more important to the plot. Your suggesting that they are is nothing more than imposition of your own POV on the material. Otto4711 04:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per Otto's analogy to Homer Simpson's jobs. Not "original research": there are at least two sources besides the episodes themselves. Another Slappywag Among Petorians 23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sources aren't good enough. One of them is just an episode guide - not every bit of every episode needs its own article - you would agree to that, right? And the other source is another episode guide. --- RockMFR 01:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Let the record show that RockMFR is working very hard to discredit every argument he disagrees with. ShutterBugTrekker 23:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• God, this is a hard one. I hate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but do not feel that applies to cases that are significantly similar AND discussion has taken place - that amounts to precedent, not a flawed argument, and generally speaking I tend to acquiesce to established precedent. That stated, the AfD discussion List of Homer Simpson's jobs was a no consensus closure, so I am not convinced of any precedent to hang on to these kinds of articles. I am also unconvinced that either this article or that one are encyclopedic, and this one at least lacks any reliable secondary sources to satisfy WP:ATT. I guess I will !vote weak delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arkyan (talk • contribs) 23:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
• Keep Its long enough and interesting enough to stay. Epbr123 00:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but these are not reasons to keep an article. --- RockMFR 01:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Let the record show that RockMFR is working very hard to discredit every argument he disagrees with. ShutterBugTrekker 23:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• May we take it from this comment that you agree that an article's being short is not a reason for deleting, as has been suggested elsewhere in this nomination? Otto4711 05:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep As an American Everyman, it is notable that Peter has had as many jobs as he has. Robert Happelberg 02:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• As I explained in my nomination, it is not notable. The definition of notability is not what you think it might be. --- RockMFR 21:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Let the record show that RockMFR is working very hard to discredit every argument he disagrees with. ShutterBugTrekker 23:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as indiscriminate information. --Metropolitan90 02:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep in the absence of any compelling or even legitimate reason for deletion. Otto4711 04:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep lack of definitive policy on the matter as other lists have been kept. MrMacMan 06:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• The existence of another similar article is not reason to keep this article, and keep in mind that this is actually a discussion — we should be examining this article, not examining previous decisions. --- RockMFR 21:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mine lack of a definitive policy in this matter does not guide me to vote for deletion. I believe that this article can be properly sourced in time. (BTW did you reply to every pro keep view in this AfD?) MrMacMan 00:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nowhere near close to notable. MLA 11:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, if someone wants to go into this much detail about this, I'm sure there are plenty of fan sites that would appreciate this. Recury 14:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As fashionable as it is to poo-poo Family Guy continuity, the fact is that the job Peter had for most of the first three seasons, and his lack of job stability in the post-cancellation seasons is an important and notable aspect to scholarly critique of the show, with implications and commentary on shifting American labor relations in real life. The "indiscriminate information" argument only barely begins to apply to the one section on "jobs in throwaway gags"; the other sections are on "long term jobs held" and "jobs held for a significant portion of a single episode." Anton Mravcek 17:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• You are suggesting we engage in original research. No sources have been provided which provided a scholarly examination of the jobs of Peter Griffin. --- RockMFR 21:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Also let the record show that just because someone says I'm suggesting something doesn't mean that I actually suggested it.

It's one thing to put 'original research' in articles. It's quite another to use it in deletion debates. Anton Mravcek 22:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Let the record show that RockMFR is working very hard to discredit every argument he disagrees with. ShutterBugTrekker 23:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep For reasons stated above. --Bishop2 18:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep But maybe compress list of jobs in throwaway gags to a paragraph discussing the overall impression they create. Per Anton and Bishop, the continuity-supported jobs are worth listing. Donnabella 19:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep We wouldn't be having this discussion about a list of Odysseus's Cretan lies. ShutterBugTrekker 23:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per reasons stated above. --myselfalso 00:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The anti-Family Guy conspiracy lobby hopes to win deletion debates at this level so then they can go after the articles on Peter, Lois, Chris, Meg, Stewie and Brian. If they get those deleted, they will next gun for the article on Family Guy. But it's a mathematical certainty that they wouldn't be able to get the article on Peter deleted. They would then have to settle for the next best thing, which is aggressive pruning. I do recognize the need to occasionally prune the article about Peter. The infobox could get very long in the "occupation" field, the main body also can get unwieldy when people add jobs that he only had for one episode, or worse, a throwaway gag not entered into continuity. If I remove it from the Peter article to move it to this list article (which btw is nicely paragraphy for the continuity-relevant jobs and not all "indiscriminate info") then I achieve the pruning without looking like a deletionist meanie bastard. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Just because the nominator immediately answered to a vote he disagreed with one should not assume that that automatically debunks anything. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as subtrivial material (fancruft), no secondary or tertiary sources exist to support this. Yamaguchi先生 03:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As notable as the salesman's job in Arthur Miller's play, or Al Bundy as the shoe salesman. CompositeFan 17:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Encyclopedic material of great relevance to the study of the show, but too large to keep at the main article on Peter Griffin, much less the Family Guy article. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 19:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia is not paper, this is encyclopedic, free Tibet and all that. ミシガンおたく Michiganotaku 22:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Epbr123, Otto4711, Michiganotaku, CompositeFan, etc. Plinth molecular gathered 23:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails noteability standards. Jtrainor 11:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Passes notability standards. Jindřichův Smith 20:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral Unclear as to whether it passes notability standards (sources borderline reliable and semi-independent, and the existence of a more substantial source is unknown!) –Pomte 07:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Ryanjunk 15:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Troy Gentry

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

Non-notable country musician that doesn't pass BIO or Notability requirements... - Denny 21:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - He's won ACM awards for Duo of the Year with Montgomery Gentry along with selling millions of albums. The incident with the bear was in dozens of newspapers. The article needs more work, but he definitely does not fail BIO or Notability requirements. Hatch68 21:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I added more information and references to the article that establish notability. Hatch68 15:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or merge into Montgomery Gentry. Notable enough, passes WP:MUSIC easily. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable. Lakers 00:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• delete per nomOo7565 21:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 21:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Pamparomas

Pamparomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article provides almost no content other than that it is a village in Peru. BlackBear 21:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I say you should give sometime, maybe in a couple of months if it still has no new info...delete it. But do not just delete it because it has little to no info. In fact if it weren't for this article I wouldn't have even known about the place. I think you should give this article sometime. Some of these articles probably started out like this.

rgoodermote 17:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that I probably wouldn't have known about the place, but people really should publish the article with information instead of changing it while they go. I could just db-empty it right now, and it would be gone. BlackBear 21:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I agree some what but I never said the person who made was going to come back. If you feel though that it is a bad thing then you go ahead and think that. But I believe that this should not be deleted....probably already has been....this article if completed could be a good thing. I am not a good editor so it would not be wise for me to do any of the editing. But I think that if other editors were to find out about this they would contribute to it. Give it time, why not remove the delete proposal and wait. If in a few months nothing happens...I will eat my words and propose the deletion myself.

P.S. Please do space out these messages instead of having them hug mine, thank you

rgoodermote 17:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No information. No claim of notability. Userify? -- Ben 23:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Past precedent has determined that all named population centers are notable. A quick google search shows plenty of sources. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it has been consistently held here, and stated inall discussions of guidelines, that individual named settlements are notable, regardless of size, or country, as long as there are sources to give it a name and location. It can remain a stub until somebody adds to it. DGG 03:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I say: keep. Originally put up as an article to be able to disambiguate between district and city with the same name. Now extended by adding infobox, location information and external link to official website. More is likely to follow as with all other villages/towns/cities in the PeruProject. Just by being there lowers the threshold to add information by other people than the creator of the article. -- Ericbronder 20:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I wasn't aware of the precedent. Thanks, guys. -- Ben 20:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Ericbronder. Suriel1981 23:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, obviously, as with Chris Dooley Dodge below. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Chris Dodge

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

Nonsense/Vandalism Mmcknight4 21:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete (or Speedy Delete) as nonsense. JavaTenor 21:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Should have been marked db:bio in my opinion. --Renrenren 21:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as attack page. -- nae'blis 21:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Chris Dooley Dodge

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

Nonsense/Vandalism Mmcknight4 21:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to hair removal. Shimeru 16:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Manscaping

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

The article is about a neologism and thus should not be included in Wikipedia. Please read WP:NEO. The article Manscaping is definitely a neologism, and admits to being so when it states in "Manscaping is a neologism that was brought into American homes in the early 2000's..." The article does not cite its sources, and merely attempts to "track the emergence and use of the term". Agha Nader 21:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader Agha Nader 21:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete self-admitted neologism, unencyclopaedic tone. Wrong content, wrong title, get it gone please. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - noting references including this (which itself offers another reference from the LA Times), this, this and this on health risks associated with the practice. The term has acheived the sort of mainstream penetration that allows for an article. But that godawful pop culture section has got to go. Otto4711 23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately you did not address the main problem, which is: "The article is about a neologism". Do not you accept "Manscaping" is a neologism? How can you refute WP:NEO? Agha Nader 00:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

To respond to the links you provide, the first states "This new word 'manscaping' appears to date from Hollywood, 2006." Further proving the term is a neologism. The third USA Today link says "Or 'manscaping,' as Queer Eye for the Straight Guy's Fab Five call it." Which is more evidence of it being a neologism. There may be many news stories that use the term manscaping, but that does not mean there should be an article on it. Agha Nader 00:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

I can elaborate as to why we should not have an article on a neologism on Wikipedia, but I recommend you first read WP:NEO. Agha Nader 00:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

I have read WP:NEO thanks, I don't need to be condescendingly told to. As for your specific objections, I can only assume that while you were busy re-reading WP:NEO you failed to actually read the articles themselves, which are, in order, about: 1) the international emergence of manscaping as a trend called "manscaping," along with a reference to an additional source; 2) the results of a search for the best manscaping in New York City; 3) the lowering of resistance to manscaping and other forms of hair removal among men; and 4) the health risks associated with manscaping. Here's another source from Los Angeles, possible the additional source mentioned in the Australia article. I never suggested the word isn't new. Just because a word is new does not mean that it automatically runs afoul of WP:NEO and the sources exist to support this article. Indeed, we have entire categories dedicated to neologisms. Otto4711 04:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Note WP:NEO states "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." None of the sources you proved were about the term, they just used it. Agha Nader 00:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

• Merge to Hair removal. This term is in use but does not warrant an article of its own. The article is really about trends in the removal or non-removal of male body hair, not so much about the term itself, and thus the content should be covered at the general article for this topic. --Metropolitan90 02:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note that the article has now been substantially re-written. While presumably nothing short of an OED cite from 1608 will assuage the nominator's concerns over WP:NEO, please take a look at the revised article (with sources and everything). Otto4711 06:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the so-called revised article did not have "sources and everything". In fact some of the new material that user Otto4711 added is OR. Furthermore user Otto4711 removed important information. For example, the fact that it is a neologism was removed. Even though there are sources that say it is a neologism. Agha Nader 23:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Thank god you called attention to the so-called fact that there was an unsourced sentence! Good thing you just took it out instead of either asking for a so-called source or taking four seconds to find a source through so-called google yourself. Added back with source. But I took out the bit about its being a neologism because it wasn't sourced. Source for the goose being source for the gander after all. Otto4711 00:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:A, it states "Any unsourced material may be removed". I am a bit amazed that you re-added the sentence and added a source that has nothing to do with the sentence. I will assume good faith, and I assume this was a mistake. I hope you did not intentionally add a reference that has nothing to do with the sentence. If it was not a mistake please paste the part of your "source" that you think pertains to the sentence "The word is a portmanteau of "man" and "landscaping." here. Agha Nader 02:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Man, you must've had a really bad waxing experience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Please read WP:CIV WP:EQ. It states "Argue facts, not personalities." User Otto4711 has ignored several of my questions, which is in violation of the Wikipedia Etiquette: "Don't ignore questions." Agha Nader 02:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

• Merge to Hair removal per Metropolitan90. Manscaping as a term is nn but the trend probably is and should be in the main article about hair removal. Chevinki 18:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The sourcing is sufficient for articles on this sort of topic. DGG 23:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no sourcing in the article. The article cites web pages that use the term, not pages that are about the term. Agha Nader 20:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

• Merge to Hair removal. Manscaping is merely hair removal when done on a bloke. The term is obviously meant to be comical; should depilation of females be called wenchscaping? Froggo Zijgeb 03:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia themes

Wikipedia themes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm really not sure what to think about this article, so that's why I posted it here. Also, the topic is covered at Wikipedia:Skins. BlackBear 21:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Wrong namespace. -- RHaworth 22:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per RHaworth. Can we make this a redirect? M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 23:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Closed Discussion: Redirected to Wikipedia:Skin—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BlackBear (talk • contribs).

• Reopen and delete (I removed BlackBear's other "closed discussion tag from the top) Cross-namespace redirects generally should be deleted, and this will inevitably end up at WP:RFD where it will likely be deleted. Let's just nip it in the bud now. -- Scientizzle 00:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. Herostratus 04:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

MA5B

MA5B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I created this page a while back last year and it got deleted... so I don't think there is any reason this should stay. Also, if you create an article like this, mind as well create one for each weapon in Halo. Nominated for deletion. The93owner 22:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy? Recreation of deleted content? -- Ben 22:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you have a link for the earlier deletion discussion? -- Ben 22:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy and merge to Halo main article, as recreation of deleted content (G4, if I'm not mistaken) M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 23:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking we could make a page for all weapons in Halo 1 and a separate one for Halo 2, but I don't think that's necessary. Ideas? The93owner 00:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 04:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Parras Middle School

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

A directory entry with no external sources. Merge to the school district or whatever. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It's just a directory, there is nothing worth merging. TJ Spyke 22:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Very very weak keep It is a National Distinguished School. If that doesn't mean anything, however, the article should be deleted. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 23:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Epbr123 00:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Lakers 00:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 00:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete pending WP:A of the asserted award showing sufficient WP:N. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Masterpedia 02:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge with school district. Gateman1997 08:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as a nationally distinguished school there is a hint of notability, but it may be best to just merge this with Redondo Beach, California until it can be expanded out enough to warrant a separate article. The nominator should also take note that a merge does not require a deletion discussion as it is an editorial decision. Burntsauce 20:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep its a Blue Ribbon school (see here) which sets it above most other schools, if the article can be expanded to include this and some other information on the school then it may pass. Though it may be better to merge it into the district article? --Xarr 08:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - In many school districts, especially affluent ones, over half of the schools are Blue Ribbon schools. This may not be enough of a criterion by itself to distinguish a middle or elementary school. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as notability is conveyed, but a merge with the appropriate locality would be acceptable as well in line with WP:LOCAL guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 03:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Blue Ribbon schools are around the top 4% and are notable as the best schools in the US. I have sourced it. TerriersFan 02:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the comments above, Blue Ribbon schools are notable. RFerreira 08:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all schools... particularly those awarded the blue ribbon are notable.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Sourcing concerns not addressed. Shimeru 16:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Libertarian Party (Sweden)

Libertarian Party (Sweden) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Swedish political party. A google search reveals that while the party has indeed been mentioned in a lot of blogs, there are no credible sources discussing the party to establish its notability. If you look for yourselves, don't be fooled by http://www2.unt.se/harkiv/li/liberala_partiet/ - it lists only articles related to the Liberal Party of Canada and to the Liberal People's Party (Sweden). Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Epbr123 00:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No assertion of notability. Even the article its self says the Party is hardly known.--Bryson 03:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There are many articles on various parties on wikipedia that is even less known. Why would this article be any more special and deserve a deletion? This article has at least more information presented than many other minor parties have. Lord Metroid 23:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Two wrongs don't make a right. Epbr123 23:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Still why would one want to delete legitimate information from a place which Wales expresses the goal to be to consolidate all the world's knowledge in one place. Lord Metroid 08:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Because of WP:N... Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment From the first lines paragraph of WP:N: All topics should meet a minimum threshold of notability for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance"., there is no doubt that the party lacks fame or even widely known except for the very political interested and active people. Yet, it is worthy of being noted because it is an official party that did participate in the election of 2006. Lord Metroid 14:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Why is no-one talking about it then? Epbr123 15:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Even if it is worthy of being noted (I don't think so), claiming it is without attribution to a reliable source would be original research. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
              • Original research for arguments whether to keep or not? Come'on! Are you serious? Do I need to reference my arguments now? Isn't it enough with referencing articles anymore? but fine... Referencing them being a party in the election and getting votes: val.se, official homepage and media exposure: Klassiska Liberala Partiet ad aired on TV3 Lord Metroid 12:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
                • An official website and a party political broadcast are not independent resources. Epbr123 13:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
                  • Did you even read a) WP:N and b) what I said? I did not ask for confirmation that the party existed, I asked for confirmation that it was notable. There is a slight difference. In the liberal democracy of Sweden, anyone - including yours truly - can start a political party, throw up a website, and put a propaganda film on youtube. The funny thing is that your link to val.se doesn't link to the section of val.se where the registered parties are, but rather to the list of election results. The Libertarian Party has not yet collected the 1,500 signatures that are needed to officially stand in elections, 202 persons just voted on them anyways. So. Read the "general notability criterion" of WP:N again: "A notable topic has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." Has the Libertarian Party? No. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There seems to be enough information to write an article. I do not see how WP can fairly decide on the significance of political parties-- anymore than it can on religions an nationalist movements. The only practice free of POV is to give an article for any such organization possessing a verifiable identity and some source of information. It can generally be presumed that arguments about the N of the subject are o some extent arguments about the politics (or religion or whatever involved. We can't arbitrate that sort of question.The threshold in these cases has to be low. DGG 23:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No, you're wrong. Including every single movement or organisation that claims to have an opinion, verifiable identity and some source of information, would require us to include every single political splinter group and joke party ever. That's crap. The "general notability criterion" of WP:N (as people apparently haven't read it themselves I must cite it) reads "A notable topic has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject" and is perfectly applicable to any organisation, political, religious, philosophical or whatever. It has nothing to do with WP:NPOV. Read WP:NPOV again. Perhaps you're thinking of WP:BIAS, though that is hardly applicable to this case either. In the very unlikely case either of you (LordMetroid or DGG) would contest that the Libertarian Party does not meet WP:N, one might continue to WP:A - yes, LordMetroid attempted to reference three sites; but in this case the own website is a self-published source (published by the subject of the article and as thus WP:COI and POV), youtube is a self-published source (anyone can upload a video to YouTube...) and val.se just lists election results and would hardly be used to legitimate an article on VIKINGAPARTIET-VALVARUHUSET 53 PARTIER. I think I'm done now, thank you. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • comment They video on youtube was published on TV3's Insider about the minority parties. Quite a comedy as they had like 25 minor parties in the studio at the same time but none-the less. It is a serious topic and notable although not famous. Lord Metroid 18:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Ok, ok. But that's still just one source (and I guess it passes as "reliable" although I doubt that...) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I can't help to notice the lack of strong arguments for deletion. It is a small party yes, however it's a serious organisation and is the only party for that specific ideologi in Sweden. It is most noteworthy information for someone interested the libertarian movment around the world. Also I can't help to notice that the person arguing for deletion is himself/herself an anarchist who; I quote "contribute to a wide variety of articles, although primarily on articles related to the Swedish left". So it's not that surprising that he/she wants to delete an article about the Swedish right. Xincon 23:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The article has no secondary sources, therefore the subject is not notable and therefore doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter whether its a serious organisation or interesting to libertarians. Epbr123 00:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Although I was expecting LordMetroid to make that point, I was just waiting for it. Your argument is a logical fallacy: that I am anarchist that contributes to left-wing articles does not mean I am a left-wing anarchist. You have no idea whether I am from the socialist camp of anarchism, or from the capitalist. In any case that is just a userbox, compared to an image covering 1/4 of the userpage at first glance. Another point I however would like to raise is that Xincon has made exactly ONE edit: when he wrote the above.
    But, leaving the editors and focusing on the article, that it is a serious organisation does not merit it's inclusion in Wikipedia. There is no article on Alternativa politikerveckan, although it's got press coverage in several nation-wide media several years in a row. As an encyclopedia, it is our duty to filter out information that is encyclopedic and noteworthy - because we care about the reader, we choose to leave parties that gain ~200 votes and never got any media attention out. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    • "You have no idea whether I am from the socialist camp of anarchism, or from the capitalist." I quote from your userpage; "Furthermore. I am an anarchist. The primary reason behind me being a drug-free anarchist is not that I have the right to do what the fuck I want to and I want to stay clean, but rather that I believe drugs - including alcohol - are merely a capitalist method of passivisation. You are not participating in the struggle if you are home beating wife and kids. You are not participating in the struggle if you are lying on a sidewalk, puking after a night of heavy partying. You are not participating in the struggle if you are watching soccer and having a beer with your friends. It pacifies you. It turns you into a drone, a working drone - slave of the capital." Oh, I'm sorry. That was rude of me. No, I really don't have any idea at all if you are a left- or rightside anarchist. None. Really, it's a mystery. Xincon 17:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Then again, that was in one of my talkpage archives, wasn't it? And you didn't read that until I pointed out the logical fallacy, did you? So, either you are some sort of wiki-stalker (reading my archives just because you're meeting me in an AfD discussion), or you made the claims first and checked the facts later. Either way, let's focus on the (perceived?) lack of notability instead, shall we? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I did read that before I made my first edit, otherwise my statement would be quite bold, but the reason I didn't include it is that I never thought you would deny something so easy to check. And I do belive that you still lead the stalker-league with your Alkanen-welcome. Xincon 19:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Haha! Good point there. But that was not out of stalking. Most Swedish bloggers are well aware of Wikipedia, and it would be foolish to assume that a founder of a new party wouldn't have a look at the Wikipedia article at least sometimes. If I started a party, I'd defend it in AfDs too. WP:COI is perfectly natural. That, coupled with my experiences of another liberal, namely Leo Pierini, let me to assume alkanen would drop by. Correctly, apparently. ;) Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I didn't bring it up because I assume good intention. Although I have to admit I have been quite frustrated about your deletionism on more than on one occasion. But that is irrelevant! Lord Metroid 11:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
      • You are more than welcome to raise those points over at Wikipedia:Editor review/Jobjörn, though! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As Xincon said, this is the only political party in Sweden with this ideology. In fact, it is the only party in Sweden without any socialist ideas. As for Jobjörn's argument that the article should be deleted because it got roughly 200 votes, why don't you target Unika partiet? /Daniel Lindsäth 16:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Hello there, Alkanen! I was waiting for your arrival. Regarding your concern about the Unique Party - I sure would like to delete it because it's the one of the most stupid party to date (I'd rather vote for your party any day), but media doesn't agree: [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76]
    Soooehhh.... Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Here's more! [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi. Nice of you to think of me =) I hope you understood that my comment wasn't meant to imply that their page should be deleted, not matter how stupid I think that party is (and I do think it's stupid). Naturally Swedish media was all over their party, they had a pseudo celebrity bimbo as their party leader. Do you really think that such a thing is more noteworthy and a party with a completely unique – for Sweden that is – political platform? Will it help if I find the two news paper articles about our party? I don't know if there are any online versions of them (but I think there's a pdf of at least one), but I believe I have paper copies somewhere. /Daniel Lindsäth 16:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Don't assume that changing my mind is your goal here - I am not Wikipedia policy. However, I would consider the party notable according to Wikipedia guidelines and policies if you could cite two reliable sources that deal with the party. While I personally would consider the Libertarian Party way more important and notable than the Unique Party, the views of individual editors are of no importance - we look to the world to see what it says. And the world, that is the media, whether one likes it or not. And sadly, media likes stupid things. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment regarding political parties it is kind of a catch 22. Because the parties doesn't get any publication from the press before a party is famous. But it is the massmedia who makes them famous and they will not write anything until the party is famous and even if and when a party is famous but not a a sitting parlimamentary party the media discriminate relentlessly. Lord Metroid 20:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Somewhat true, but that's democracy. Luckily for the parliamentarian western democracies, there are exceptions: Unique Party, Pirate Party, Junilistan, Feminist Initiative (Sweden), Health Care Party... they all got plenty of media attention. If they can, so can Klassiskt Liberala Partiet. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Comment Those parties are quite special, Unique Party, Junilistan and Feminist Initiative (Sweden) all have front figures celebrities, the Health Care Party have existed for a very long time and like the Pirate Party had the event of civil catastrophies behind their ideologies. The Health Care Party had the closing of hospitals in Norrland which is somewhat catastrophic for the population up in Norrland and hence became popular and the Pirate Party had The Pirate Bay raid event which gave the Pirate Party an event of juridical catastrophy to associate their issue with and hence rode the wave on that. This party is against the society of Sweden in general from bottom to top and hence have a hard time becomming famous because the concept of libertarianism is so unkown almost no one Swede even grasps the possibility of such an ideology's existence. I sure didn't understand it before I thurally studied American history. Lord Metroid 21:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
              • Perhaps. What you are saying that circumstances beyond the control of these parties made them notable - which is true, and there is no problem with it. You are further saying that the party isn't notable in Sweden because noone grasps the concept - perhaps also true. In any case it isn't notable, and it isn't notable on an international scale either - it's really really REALLY small! Perhaps you (are you also a member of the party by the way?) should consider notifying some American scholar of your existence and perhaps s/he will write about "Libertarianism in Sweden" mentioning you. That would be one hell of a third party reliable source. Try it out. As of now, though, noone has written about the party and as thus it does not meet Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Notability. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
                • Comment No, not a member and don't want to be a member for a number of reasons. Lord Metroid 23:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
                • So you seriously believe that being ignored by the media is the same as not being notable? Curious idea... Anyways, regarding contacting american scholars and similar, we were mentioned on a Free Talk Live episode (viz. 2006-05-11). Good enough for you? /Daniel Lindsäth 05:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
                  • Have you read WP:N? Epbr123 08:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
                  • Comment That would make two reliable sources, this radio broadcast and TV3's broadcast. Lord Metroid 07:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There have already been a discussion about it on the Swedish version of the page and the decision was to keep it./Wolfenstein 12:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The Swedish afd (sv:Wikipedia:Sidor som bör raderas/Liberala Partiet (Sverige)) was never closed, but if one should look at the vote count (sv-wiki apparently practices voting in AfDs...), 18 people voted in favor of deletion and 11 against. There was also apparently some vote stacking by users registered after the beginning of the vote; one of them by sv:Användare:Wolfenstein. In any case, this is not the Swedish Wikipedia, and the results of Swedish AfDs have nothing to do with English AfDs. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    • But my vote here still counts./Wolfenstein 17:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    • And by the way check the date of creation on my user page.Wolfenstein 17:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
      • It's not a vote. Polling is evil. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

New Glasgow Junior High School

New Glasgow Junior High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article about a middle school that makes no assertion of notability or significat difference from anyother middle school. Speedy tag removed by anon. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No assertion of notabilty. Only 1,120 ghits. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 22:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Epbr123 00:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 00:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep created today, put up for deletion today. It is a waste of our time to be considering this so soon. WP:GIVETHECREATORTIMETOACTUALLYCREATETHEDAMNARTICLE. Noroton 01:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The article hasn't been listed for speedy deletion, so you still have 4 days before the discussion closes. If you post info. about notability, and address the other concerns before then, you can certainly include that here. ◄Zahakiel► 19:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Articles are supposed to conform to WP policies from the time they are first posted. If somebody needs 15 minutes to expand and hit 'save' a couple of times, that's one thing. But without any WP:A to show the subject is WP:N, the article never should have been created in the first place. That's what notepad.exe and /sandboxes are for. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Agree w/Butseriouslyfolks. No notabilty asserted, article is a trumped up .doc --Masterpedia 02:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:N and WP:A and I can't find anything that would help it pass --Xarr 08:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It might pass WP:N, but it definitely does not meet WP:A as no sources, primary or otherwise, are provided. Yamaguchi先生 03:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Cúchullain ^t/c 04:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Socialist Struggle

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

Seems to be a nonnotable organisation Tewfik^Talk 23:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Tewfik moved the article from Maavak Sozialisti minutes before nominating it for deletion. I have moved the article back to its original location. Maavak Sozialistit is the largest, most active and most notable Trotskyist organization in Israel. There are sufficient references from Israeli RS such as Haaretz and walla and other sources to establish notability: e.g. [84] [85], in addition there are many references to them (including criticism) from sites covering the left internationally ابو علي (Abu Ali) 17:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I moved it because this is English Wikipedia, and that is the English name given on their website. I then nominated it because I couldn't find notable references for either name. Is there a reason that you moved it back to a Hebrew transliteration? Tewfik^Talk 03:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Because like the Knesset, Likud and the Histadruth, the organisation is known by its Hebrew name (even amnongs Engish speakers). ابو علي (Abu Ali) 08:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know which name it is known by, but convention usually uses the name (transliterated, translated, or otherwise) provided by the organisation, in this case "Socialist Struggle". The transliterated maavak sozialisti would be a redirect, and there would be no problems. Tewfik^Talk 17:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • On their website, they state that "Ma`avak Sotsyalisti is an organization of workers, unemployed, students, youth and pensioners. . . Ma`avak Sotsyalisti is part of the Committee for a Workers' International (CWI)", and in the leaflets and press statements on the site they regularly refer to themselves as Maavak Sozialisti, in a variety of transliterations. So this IS "the name provided by the organisation", and by which they usually refer to themselves. So it is clearly the name we should use. RolandR 17:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Their logo in the upper left of all of their pages reads "Socialist Struggle", the same logo on the He version reads מאבק סוציאליסטי and in Ar اشتراكي. This isn't really relevant here though, I was only responding to Abu ali's comments on my actions. If notability is established, we can discuss the proper name on the article's Talk. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 18:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree that we should focus on notability here. Now Tewfiq, could you tell me whether this article [86] ] from Haaretz, which interviews their leader is sufficient to establish notability in your opinion. Thanks ابو علي (Abu Ali) 18:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Re: your message, I thought that I had left word on all the proper places that by notability I meant WP:ORG. Just in case I wasn't clear, there need to be multiple nontrivial sources. The Haaretz piece you found is a good sign, but you'll need at least one more nontrivial source. Look at this as an opportunity to improve the article. Tewfik^Talk 02:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Well we now have the Walla source as well as the Haarezt interview. So this does qualify as multiple sources. And we can find more (for instance they were on Israeli TV news in February). I agree that the article needs improving, but I don't want to put too much work in if the article will be deleted anyway. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 08:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Maavak Sozialisti is one of several small but active anti-Zionist socialist groups in Israel, all of which should have their own article. The article requires more work, but should remain as a stub and be improved. RolandR 00:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment my concern is that the only sourcing I saw are references to its own site or its parent organisation Committee for a Workers' International (CWI). Abu ali now included this Hebrew language article which mentions them exactly once in 11 paragraphs: The initiative was joined by the life sciences student union, activists from the left wing group "Socialist Struggle", and residents of Rehovot. At the moment, they are only borderline in terms of establishing notability. Tewfik^Talk 03:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair point. Googling "Maavak Sozialisti gives 2600 matches [87] in English and 800 in Hebrew [88] This in itself does not show notability, but these search results probably contain enough WP:RS to establish notability. For instance [89] contains an article in Haaretz which interviews the editor of Maavak Sozialisti's newspaper about the organisation. I will try to go though some of the other results. But as my hebrew is very basic, some help from fluent Hebrew speakers would be useful. Any volunteers? ابو علي (Abu Ali) 08:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Not today, but by the weekend I will have a proper look at these. RolandR 10:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how you found 800 references in Hebrew Google, Abu Ali. I tried several times, and found only 60 [90]. Following your link, there are 59. Most of these are probably not accepted as reliable sources -- their own website, various blogs, Hebrew Wikipedia (which has no other sources). There is a polemic between a supporter and an opponent of the group at the Israeli left discussion board HaGad HaSmalit (The Left Bank)[91]; but I don't really want to translate this. The group is also discussed briefly, alongside Balad, Hadash, Meretz and others in the same site's listing of left parties in Israel [92]. MSN News mentions that they work together with Hadash, the Women's Coalition and others in the new Progressive Socialist Unity group within the Labour Party. [93] This seems a bit confused, since Hadash is obviously not inside the Labour Party; but that's what the site says. There is more about the PSU group on the Labour Party website at [94]. This does not mention Maavak Sozialisti, though since they are probably operating as entrists within the party that is not really surprising. Most of the other references are listings, or contributions in the name of Maavak Sozialisti to online discussions and forums. There is also an article in Arabic on the site of the Eqraa Association [95]; you will have to read that and assess it for yourself.

Although not a huge amount of material, it seems to me enough to establish that the group exists, is active, and is known in Israel. Surely this should be enough to establish notability? RolandR 15:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! The reason you only got 59 sources is that you searched www.google.com whereas I searched in www.google.co.il. If you click on this link [96] you should get my results. The Eqraa article is about a demonstration on the Har Hozvim campus in the Hebrew University in Jerusalem which Maavak Sozialisti participated two years ago... ابو علي (Abu Ali) 16:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Clicking on your new link still gives only 62 results. And they are from Google.co.il, not Google.com or Google.co.uk (my default). Even if I go directly to Google.co.il, and type in "מאבק סוציאליסטי", I only get 62. Does Google filter results according to IP location?

The University campus is at Mount Scopus; usual transcription into English Har Ha-Tzofim. "Har Hozvim" is clearly the result of transcribing into English an Arabic transcription of a Hebrew original. I've seen some very odd names of Israeli places and people after that process! RolandR 17:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

hmm, make sure you have "Search for pages written in any language" selected in google preferences. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 21:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do. This is the results page for Google.co.uk: [97] and for Google.co.il [98]. Are you sure you searched for "מאבק סוציאליסטי", with quotation marks, and not מאבק סוציאליסטי, which will find all documents with both words, though not necessarily as a phrase? Though, as I said, even clicking on your link only gives me 62 documents. Maybe someone else can try, and see what they get. (I just tried without the quotes, and got 14,000 hits, so that's obviously not the problem). RolandR 23:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So with all the Googling, were you able to find a second nontrivial source? It seems that a number of CWI and Socialist Party sites have been added, but there is still only the one Hebrew article and the security Guard blurb with the one line mention. Tewfik^Talk 04:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Haaretz interview [99] qualifies as a second non trivial source. As you know hebrew, perhaps you can translate the relevant paragraphs for us. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 06:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep There seems to be enough information to write an article. In addition to the ones listed, the illustration refers to an Israeli television broadcast, and it should be possible to give a more specific reference. If it is the subject of part of a national TV broadcast and also an unrelated newspaper, it meets the technical requirements I do not see how WP can fairly decide on the significance of political parties-- anymore than it can on religions an nationalist movements. The only practice free of POV is to give an article for any such organization possessing a verifiable identity and some source of information. It can generally be presumed that arguments about the N of the subject are o some extent arguments about the politics (or religion or whatever involved. We can't arbitrate that sort of question. if it meets the technical requirements for sourcing, that is sufficient. The number of ghits is irrelevant for these situations. DGG 23:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The TV screen shot is not a source, since we have no way of knowing what is actually in it or whether even if there were Maavak people present, they were actually mentioned. A transcript of the report would be far more useful. The technical requirements call for at least two non-trivial independent sources. So far there is one nontrivial and one "trivial" independent source, respectively. Tewfik^Talk 04:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well we can assume that Maavak Sozialisti Members were present as some of the people in the demonstration are wearing red shirts with which say Maavak Sozialisti on them [100]. Anyway by my arithmetic we have more than one source: [101] [102] [103]. There is other Hebrew stuff which I have not had time to decipher: [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] And this does not include many English language refs, including articles from various left wing organisations accusing Maavak Sozialisti of "capitulating to Zionism" ابو علي (Abu Ali) 06:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Shimeru 16:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No. 51 Line

No. 51 Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't believe a bus route is inherently notable. Every city has dozens if not hundreds. Delete exolon 23:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• You may also want to look at the Maryland Transit Administration parent article - it has links to many many bus routes - all of which are possibly not notable and should possibly be considered for deletion at the same time.exolon 23:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Can you make a mass deletion nomination for all that? 132.205.44.134 00:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Epbr123 00:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Hornandsoccer^Talk 01:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It depends on how many people take the line. If there are over a million trips per year on the line that would make it important to quite a few people. The article could be easily expanded to include a list of notable attractions along the route, with corresponding links back to No. 51 Line. One could therefore become a vitual passenger tourist. This has been quite succesful for several city pages.--Ng.j 06:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Only sources cited are from the Maryland Transit Administration, and it seems unlikely that a single route would acquire significant independent coverage. The route's significance in the overhaul that attracted "public outcry" is better treated at Greater Baltimore Bus Initiative (GBBI). EALacey 11:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Bus routes, phone booths, mail boxes and lamp posts are not inherently notable. If one such whether real or fictional had multiple independent reliable sources with non-trivial coverage about it exploring its history, its significance, and its special features, then it might satisfy WP:N , WP:ATT , and WP:AI. This one does not. It is however a very well written article giving the history of the route and what one might see while riding on it, and is far more than a mere stub. Edison 14:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not familiar with the area so I could be wrong but I believe this was a streetcar line prior to becoming a bus route. Most rail lines have been deemed worthy of an article. I think if the history of the route is included, it is a worthy article. --Polaron | Talk 23:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete why is Baltimore the primary topic of #51? I would think TORONTO would be a much better city to base a #51 bus line on. 132.205.44.134 23:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• That is a reason to disambiguate the article, not delete it. --Polaron | Talk 23:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Then shouldn't your vote be to move the article to Baltimore No. 51 Line? 132.205.44.134 00:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep and disambiguate, though I'd prefer that it be merged into a list like SEPTA City Transit Division surface routes or list of bus routes in Manhattan. It was never a streetcar line, but it has a decent history, having been started in 1948. --NE2 12:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Admittedly "tooting my own horn", I believe this is how a good article about a bus route should look. --NE2 10:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge or Listify As mentioned, this information would make more sense as either a list of as a section of an article. Even from the point of clarity, the information is easier to visualize when groups.DGG 23:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Here are the rest of the lines. They were prodded by 132.205.44.134 with reason "Maryland is not the center of the world." Contested by 172.163.18.175 with reason "removed prod; reason is POV. Take to AfD."

No. 1 Line • No. 2 Line • No. 3 Line • No. 4 Line • No. 5 Line • No. 6 Line • No. 7 Line • No. 8 Line • No. 9 Line • No. 10 Line • No. 11 Line • No. 12 Line • No. 13 Line • No. 14 Line • No. 15 Line • No. 16 Line • No. 17 Line • No. 18 Line • No. 19 Line • No. 20 Line • No. 21 Line • No. 22 Line • No. 23 Line • No. 24 Line • No. 26 Line • No. 27 Line • No. 29 Line • No. 30 Line • No. 33 Line • No. 35 Line • No. 36 Line • No. 40 Line • No. 43 Line • No. 44 Line • No. 50 Line • No. 55 Line • No. 50 Line • No. 51 Line • No. 55 Line • No. 61 Line • No. 64 Line • No. 68 Line • No. 77 Line • No. 91 Line • No. 97 Line • No. 98 Line • No. M-1 Line • No. M-2 Line • No. M-3 Line • No. M-6 Line • No. M-8 Line • No. M-9 Line • No. M-10 Line • No. M-12 line • No. M-15 line • No. M-16 Line • No. M-17 Line

This is not a bundle nomination yet. If there is a wish to make it a bundle nomination, we could start over or make everyone voice their opinions on all of them again. –Pomte 13:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is the wrong site for this. I would love to see the whole World Wide Web & all human endeavors integrated in Wiki, but we don't have the power to tax the planet, so we don't have the power to be a site for Maryland public transportation. Ventifax 23:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Whether Maryland is the centre of the universe or not is not of great relevance here, but it is not valid grounds for deletion. Whether the subject is worthy of a wiki article or not depends not on its importance, but notability. The absence of any independent, reliable sources which have written about them suggests to me it is not notable. At present, the article fails WP:A, as none of the sources are independent of the subject, but are from the operator. Ohconfucius 02:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT indiscriminant collection of information / not a travelogue. 70.55.201.210 03:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC) — 70.55.201.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep pending a bundled renomination or, more preferably, discussion at a WikiProject or article talk page. I do not find any argument based in the inherent notability or non-notability of objects or events to be convincing. Some routes may be notable; others may not be. I believe the best course of action to be the following: investigate the issue, discuss it on some talk page, and come to a consensus decision: merge/listify all, keep some/delete some, redirect all, keep all, or delete all. -- Black Falcon 04:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Maryland Transit Administration would be appropriate for such discussion, though it is not particularly active. See Talk:No. 51 Line and Talk:No. 4 Line (MTA) for the creator's comments. –Pomte 06:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sims Productions

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

Non-notable company/fan group that has thus far produced fanfiction and an unfinished computer game. Sean Curtin 00:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No assertion of notability. No sources given. --Richard 00:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Lakers 00:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Tnomad 13:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:ATT - fanmade games that don't appear to have received any media. Wickethewok 01:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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