Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 28 March 30 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Date with a Vampire[edit]

My Date with a Vampire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

the whole article just looks like a bunch of spoliers mashed together Gladdoubt 16:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Needs a clean-up, but deletion for a popular series is a poor option. Also, welcome, newcomer... how did you find the correct AfD procedure with your first edit? RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 16:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: great, so nom thinks it looks like a bunch of spoilers mashed together. Are there any actual grounds for deletion more founded in policy than WP:ITANNOYSME? RGTraynor 17:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is not valid grounds for deletion. --Bishop2 18:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Gladdoubt, spoilers really would not make this something to be deleted. A good scrub of the info might be in order. You might want to ask WikiProject Novels to take a look at it. Slavlin 19:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom and per WP:NOT#IINFO.--Bryson 19:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A badly-written article is grounds for a rewrite, not a deletion (given that the subject merits an article in the first place). Though, since WP:NOT#IINFO (as Bryson109 pointed out), I am tempted to erase the entire "plot" and "cast" section. --JianLi 20:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just did. Not a dog 22:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --JianLi 23:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, just in need of clean up. - Denny 21:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above. Notable but needs to be cleaned up. Just because it needs to be cleaned up is not a reason to delete. --James, La gloria è a dio 22:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs some work but it's notable. Congrats on completing an AFD in your first 3 edits.--Paloma Walker 23:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. cleanup.--ZayZayEM 05:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Wrestling Coalition[edit]

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

Non Notible local wrestling promotion Butttown 00:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Definitely not notable. Realkyhick 01:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with y'all. The information is all from "in house". YechielMan 04:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable wrestling fed. TJ Spyke 04:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable promotion. CattleGirl talk | sign! 08:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Chevinki 08:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 10:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Meno25 13:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DTD(speak)
  • Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 18:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the above, simply not notable enough. - Denny 21:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While this particular promotion may or may not be notable, despite appearances by several major professional wrestlers from both the World Wrestling Federation and World Championship Wrestling, there are several well known promotions which also use the name including NWA Championship Wrestling from Virginia as well as both the Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York-based World Wrestling Coalition, the latter featured in Gary Will's Wrestling Title Histories (4th ed). If the article is deleted, there should be at least a disambiguation page pointing to these certainly notable promotions. MadMax 21:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough. --James, La gloria è a dio 22:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'll also make the point that the internal linking on the roster section is diabolical with only one link correct. That link is up for deletion as well because this company doesn't have any notable employees either.— Suriel1981 02:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Vanity project/spam. Edit summary for Jake Ashworth reveals that the creator of that and this article is a/the WWC promoter/owner, thus this article is purely for self-promotional reasons. Suriel1981 02:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails notability criteria. Most ghits are for the company's own webpages or for people closely related to it. I couldn't find any independent and reliable sources. - Mtmelendez (TALK|UB|HOME) 15:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Consider consolidating the following dicussions with this discussionper WP:BUNDLE:
Thanks. - Mtmelendez (TALK|UB|HOME) 16:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Computer Technology Awards[edit]

British Computer Technology Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Somebody called this a hoax on the article's page. Checking it out I find no references to show this award exists. The web page looks like a email harvesting operation and the same user User: Andy Webster has only this edit and the addition of links to BCTA on other computer related articles. I think he is also the anon IP that has added similar links. I'm new and don't know how to track all this down, but it smells like bad fish to me. If I'm wrong I'll take my lashes. killing sparrows 00:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete very fishy, to say the least. No information on its own website, and only 14 unique Google hits. Hmm. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Is it spam if its actaully a hoax? Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yup, looks like is just some kind of spam/hoax. --- RockMFR 01:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly spam HornandsoccerTalk 01:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spam, hoax or otherwise undesirable. Realkyhick 01:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's a hoax--$UIT 01:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Per Nom. Slavlin 02:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also checked Google and looked around, looks like a hoax. I see that some work has been put in wikilinking it Special:Whatlinkshere/British_Computer_Technology_Awards so I am going to go unwikilink them. Jeepday 02:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator. I saw the creator's (and , I think, two other IP's) edit hx showing links added to other articles. Does someone automatically chase these down? I've seen the same thing on spam that I've Afd'd or Speedy'd and wondered how that gets dealt with. --killing sparrows 03:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors that close AfD's also clean up the mess. I personally always (try to) take responsibility for cleaning up if the result is delete. I figure that if you don't clean up the red links someone is going to feel obligated to write the article and again, then we have to AfD again, then... Signed Jeepday 03:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Stallings (model)[edit]

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

Article on a male model previously nominated for deletion and deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Stallings (model). Deletion was challenged at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 23 where the result was relist for further disussion. Please read both discussions before opining. The question appears to be one of sources - which are reliable and are there enough. This is a technical nomination, I have no opinion. GRBerry 00:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No sources shown which assert sufficient notability. Realkyhick 01:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No proof of notability. ZBrannigan 01:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' Ghits are low, and it appears that most of the reference and such are related to the show The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency or attempts to sell the show. I don't see where he meets WP:BIO by himself. He might be worth a paragraph on the article The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency and a redirect there. Jeepday 03:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No assertion of notability. --Bryson 03:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Fails WP:N. Morenooso 04:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Manhunt (2004 TV series)#John Stallings I have created a section on that page and copied relevant text and links. It is much better to salvage data and improve an existing page rather than just deleting it. If I can get some support I will change to a redirect. --Ng.j 04:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - WP:BIO states that an entertainer is notable if they are a television personality who has "appeared in well-known films, stage plays, television, and other productions." Stallings has been a featured cast member on Manhunt and has appeared in almost every episode of two seasons of The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency (the highest rated premiere its network has ever had [1]) and the holiday special Christmas with the Dickinsons. WP:NOTE states that "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." The sources ( [2] and [3] ) are linked in his article and the only reasons offered for rejecting them was that they were interviews and that one had popups. I would like to see where in WP:RS it states that interviews are not acceptable sources or that popups compromise a source's reliability. The subject passes WP:BIO. The subject passes WP:NOTE. Otto4711 04:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am being bold and redirecting the page to Manhunt (2004 TV series)#John Stallings. Since consensus is to delete, I don't think this will be a problem.--Ng.j 05:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have boldly reverted your redirect. In future I suggest you wait longer than 4 1/2 hours before doing something similar. Otto4711 05:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I was thinking that you would revert it if you had a problem, something that is easier than undeleting an page. Something that should be pointed out though is that you are a significant contributor to the article in question, as well as the pages that link to it. Not implying anything, I just thought it should be noted for consideration.--Ng.j 05:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not implying anything, then why bring it up in big bold letters? If no conclusions are to be drawn from my contributing to the various pages then mentioning it here has no relevance. Nor does my contributing to the articles in question have any bearing on my opinion (put Nathan Fields up for deletion and I'll vote for it) or on the fact that the subject passes both WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. Otto4711 05:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should have stated the conflict of interest and refrained from voting. --Ng.j 06:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So much for not implying anything. My opinion would be the same whether I had ever touched this article or not. Otto4711 13:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Manhunt (2004 TV series)#John Stallings is pretty much the same as John Stallings (model).--Ng.j 08:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because you copied the information over. Which, I suppose, qualifies you as having a conflict of interest. Otto4711 13:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Losing game show contestant. -- Mikeblas 05:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have all sorts of articles for "losing game show contestants." His win or loss on Manhunt does not take into account his appearances on the popular JDMA program. Otto4711 05:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per User:Otto4711 --Silas Snider (talk) 06:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In my opinion, this article is far too small to justify keeping it if it barely meets any guidelines or policies on Wikipedia, no matter how ridiculously we stretch them to fit this article in =) ZBrannigan 08:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How exactly is it a ridiculous stretch of guidelines to include articles for people who pass the guidelines? If he doesn't pass BIO and NOTE, explain exactly how he doesn't. Otto4711 12:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The assertion of notability lies in his appearances on multiple well-known television series. Otto4711 12:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you're ignoring the guideline of WP:BIO and the multiple independent sources why exactly? Otto4711 13:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jeepday's comment. Definately a redirect, but, contrary to Jeepday's comment, there are a good number of Ghits, abotu 250,000 (if you include the word "model"). See [4]. DTD(speak)
  • Delete per the other deleters. Acalamari 18:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as just not notable enough yet. Judgment call but without a bit more acclaim or exposure I don't think he meets the notability criteria yet. Ronnymexico 20:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP articles need to stand on independent secondary sources. Two interviews ≠ independent secondary sources. ~ trialsanderrors 20:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails our notability guidlines. James, La gloria è a dio 22:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Does JDMA play on UK telly? I've never heard of it, nor what I presume is the spin-off, 'Christmas with' etc. Is this a reason to delete? Perhaps a redirect to a more suitable Wikithing would be in order.--dick 22:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No real assertion of notability. Ford MF 07:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Wizardman 14:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abdirahman Is'mail Al Jaberti[edit]

Abdirahman Is'mail Al Jaberti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is entirely unreferenced, and has remained in this state since its creation on February 8, 2007. A web search for this person revealed very few results, no reliable sources, and primarily copies of this article on Wikipedia mirrors. Based on this information, it is probable that no reliable sources can be obtained for this article. Per Wikipedia:Attribution, "If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." John254 01:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No reliable sources, plus his nickname is "NAYNASS." That's gotta violate some policy somewhere. :-) Realkyhick 01:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks atttribution ZBrannigan 02:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Nom. Slavlin 02:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per policy burden of evidence is on posting editor. No references and has been challenged. References meeting WP:ATT and Notability would change my vote. Jeepday 03:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, article is mainly a list of his sons- lacks content. CattleGirl talk | sign! 08:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. CattleGirl's comment is important, it does lack content, so, I am inferring that it lacks importance and meaning. DTD(speak)
  • Delete per nom. --JianLi 20:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per lack of sourcing, and ATT. - Denny 21:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above:) James, La gloria è a dio 22:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--dick 22:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ford MF 07:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  10:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not notable--Sefringle 01:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Road to the 76th Academy Awards[edit]

Road to the 76th Academy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list is simply a list of films and film industry people who have won awards for the same year. It appears to be nothing but an indiscriminate collection of data. Slavlin 02:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is "Road to the 76th Academy Awards" some sort of official list of awards shows, or is it just a title and compilation random Wikipedians came up with? If it's the latter, probably we should delete this for various obvious reasons. --W.marsh 02:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also lists of awards won prior to the Academy Awards:

Road to the 79th Academy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Road to the 78th Academy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Road to the 77th Academy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Road to the 76th Academy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are MANY other Road to the... that I would nominate if my fingers could take it, but I cannot see how the list of awards won in the same year as the Academy Award is a useful or encyclopedic article. At best, the info should be included on each movie/director/actor page. Slavlin 02:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure. Normally when I'm not sure I don't comment, but this time I really see both sides of the argument. I would imagine that these records matter to film junkies the way that regular-season standings matter to baseball fans. We do have articles on regular-season standings, but I don't know enough about film to judge the true relevance of these data. Without solid ground for deletion, I would submit a vote to keep by default. YechielMan 02:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: The above is a poor analogy, actually. Sports regular seasons have occurrences and information in of themselves. This, however, is a compilation of awards won elsewhere. Like others, I question the rationale for including some of those awards. They're potentially useful and informative lists, as such things go, but without some acceptable criteria for deciding which awards to include, this is a WP:NOR violation. Beyond that, what's this "Road to the Xth Academy Awards" nonsense? Is there a particular source for that term, or any reason to believe that the worldwide perception of each and every one of these awards is as minor-league trophies en route to the Oscars? I'd think much kindlier on List of 2006 major film awards etc. "These award presentations all lead to the 79th Academy Awards ceremony on February 25, 2007." Says who, exactly? RGTraynor 17:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. This is not an official compilation; there is no consensus among film fans about which critics' awards are worth paying attention to and which are not. I understand what the article creators meant by "Road to the ... Awards" but that is not a commonly used name for what this is about. I could understand listing awards won under the film or person's entry, or listing the winners given for a particular year in the article about the particular award, but this article is indiscriminate information. --Metropolitan90 02:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename if this is a list of every significant film awards from each year. But I'm not sure what the criteria is for these awards to be listed here, so if it's not based on anything other than the editor's choice, then delete. Croxley 05:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as a list of data not really suited to an encyclopedia. Information should be split and put on the relevant talk page of the movie/directors/actors/other relevant pages. Also, there's no way to make sure data should/shouldn't be put on the page- authors choice, as Croxley said? Or another sort of criteria? Really, it could be anything- CattleGirl talk | sign! 08:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. This is already covered in each of the movie's page. DTD(speak)
  • Delete all, totally unnecessary. If this kind of series articles continues, Wikipedia will be overloaded with a bunch of "Road to..." ones. Apple••w••o••r••m•• 17:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. This appears to be nothing more than a compilation of awards with similar names given out by otherwise unrelated entities. The title is also somewhat misleading as the claim that various and sundry filmography awards handed out during the year constitue a "path" to the Academy Awards is POV. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All per arkyan. --JianLi 20:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Academy Awards. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 22:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge or listify. I believe these are encyclopedic. They help explain the degree of consensus for the awards in a given year and are informative. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 01:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All per arkyan et al. Ford MF 07:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as blatant advertising (CSD G11). WjBscribe 04:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Majin Sharingan Presents Core[edit]

Majin Sharingan Presents Core (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Spam. It has a whopping 3 google hits other than Wikipedia and its mirrors. YechielMan 02:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I would have done a {{db-spam| and not even well done spam}} Jeepday 03:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - so tagged. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maki Te Ju-Jitsu[edit]

Maki Te Ju-Jitsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It doesn't seem to be notable. It was an orphaned, dead-end page when I looked at it, and I found 30 google hits - just enough to prove that it exists. YechielMan 02:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails to assert notability and fails the attribution policy. NeoFreak 06:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a notable form of Ju-Jitsu. MLA 10:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DTD(speak)
  • Delete: fails WP:ATT, WP:N, WP:NOR and by asserting that there's a genuine martial arts technique for fighting guns, WP:BULLSHIT. A Google search indicates that this is taught in a school up Seattle way, is word-for-word from the website, is the only Wikipedia activity of the creator. Just another bullshido studio, is my informed opinion. RGTraynor 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Acalamari 19:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King of Extreme[edit]

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

Non Notible local pro wrestling event Butttown 02:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Ashworth[edit]

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

Non notable pro wrestler, not on TV or on national level. Article contains zero sources. Butttown 08:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No assertion of notability. Fails WP:LIVING. One of the references is a My Space.com link.--Bryson 14:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -Although such person does exist (Google hits:11,900), it needs more citations. Could put some kind of a tag on it...? DTD(speak)
  • Delete per nom. Err ... what did you use for a Google search, exactly? "Jake Ashworth" + "wrestling" turns up exactly 29 hits [6], most of which are for a rodeo steer wrestler, in fact. Even without "wrestling" I only see 97 hits. RGTraynor 17:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ashworth is part of the World Wrestling Coalition, a non-notable wrestling group up for deletion for being non-notable. BlackBear 20:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:LIVING. James, La gloria è a dio 22:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't meet WP:LIVING.--Paloma Walker 00:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity article/spam. The edit summary reveals this page was created by the subject's boss because he is one of their top names. Suriel1981 02:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity article. Ford MF 07:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RGtraynor. —Ocatecir Talk 07:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails notability criteria. Only independent and reliable source for the article is a short mentioning about his hearing impairment as part of a University's hearing technologies. And this fact isn't even mentioned in the article. Most ghits point to his webpages or to those of the company he works for. - Mtmelendez (TALK|UB|HOME) 16:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This fails WP:BLP (LIVING) as well as WP:A which states that all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. As with 99.9% of all other pro wrestling articles, there are not sources referenced here. Please refer to the WP:AN#Does WP:BLP apply to professional wrestlers? thread for details on this problem. Burntsauce 20:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete -- Bubba hotep 19:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Mao[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO; non-notable; only claim to significance is that he was once a record-holder in Rubik-cube solving, which is surely insufficient for a Wikipedia article. Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 20:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Native American Influence on the Environment[edit]

Native American Influence on the Environment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

While the article appears to be sourced, it is really an essay or actually something like Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. While I don't doubt that an interesting article could be made bearing this title, this version of it is so far removed from what we'd want to construct that we might as well delete it. Pascal.Tesson 02:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reading this article, I was struck that it reads more more like an original paper than an encyclopedia article. Both are similar (citations, relatively neutral and professional tone) and there's that line that's crossed when you're taking various sources and using them to make some kind of an original argument not found in those sources alone. The argument here just seems to be implied, but it's such a blatantly obvious implication that it's hard to say it isn't there. That was just the gist that I got... it's hard to classify this as definently being original research, because whoever created this seems to have been pretty careful, but I would lean towards saying it is. Funny comment on the article's talk page, by the way. Or at least I thought so. --W.marsh 02:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that comment was priceless although it felt kind of weird citing it in my deletion rationale. But still, the fact that an anonymous reader bothered to leave it is pretty indicative that the article makes Wikipedia look foolish. Pascal.Tesson 03:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article could stand some rewritting, and I am sure someone will place the appropriate tag on it soon. I did a quick reference check and found this Whether or not prehistoric Native Americans were a significant ecological factor has been the subject of intense debate among generations of ecologists. During the latter half of the twentieth century, the pendulum of opinion has swung from the belief that American Indians had no influence on the composition and structure of plant and animal communities to the assertion that they were responsible for destruction of native habitats through over-exploitation of natural resources and widespread use of fire. Prehistoric Native Americans and Ecological Change it is part of a book for $99.00 (American) on the Cambridge Catalog. I would say that shows notability of the concept. I also listed this as a reference on the page, and placed an unsigned note on the talk page entry. Jeepday 03:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I can imagine an interesting article with this title and this is not realy the issue. However, the present article would need such a fundamental rewrite that I'm not sure I see a better option than starting over. Pascal.Tesson 03:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article now does read like someone's school paper, and suffers from vagueness and conclusory opinions in places. The subject seems eminently worthy, though, and the text now there is far from worthless; it's a good start that surely could be improved on. I'd expect a fuller treatment to include such things as the apparent collapse of the Clovis culture and its possible relationship to late Pleistocene extinctions, to the use of Native Americans as symbols to promote ecological views in the 1960s and 1970s. - Smerdis of Tlön 03:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an original research essay that is in clear violation of WP:SYN. I'm not saying that the position is wrong or that it lacks in quality but wikipedia in not the place to host these things. NeoFreak 06:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reread the article, I did find that the last paragraph Post European Conolization and Beyond... appeared to be have issues with WP:NOT#CRYSTAL (and WP:SYN} so I removed it. The rest of the article appears to be expansion of the published train of thought I found and posted above and has references through out. We have established that the concept is published and that the article is referenced. I think at this point to make an argument for WP:OR or WP:SYN you would have have something showing a conflict between the references and article(where is the policy for challenging references?). Per WP:V (and ignoring the whole WP:ATT combo thing) The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" and material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Jeepday 12:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regrettable Delete - Good article. But fails WP:OR and reads like a term paper. --Bryson 14:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NOR. For pity's sake, it doesn't matter how well written it is or how "worthy" the subject matter, it's original research and an essay, pure and simple, and that's the 800-lb elephant making any vote to Keep inconceivable. There are many, many places where such an essay would be welcome and pertinent; Wikipedia is not one of them. RGTraynor 17:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nicely written and perhaps an interesting subject but that does not alleviate the WP:OR concerns. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak delete It's the kind of thing there really should be an article on, but at the moment it seems to either be uncited or original research - this is the kind of thing I'd normally try to tidy up myself but in this case I know nothing on the subject. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* There is indeed something to this subject [7]. This article, however, is WP:OR and WP:SYN to the Nth degree. Delete- CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nobody is really questionning the topic's value but how are we supposed to rewrite this exactly? It requires such a fundamental rewrite that we might as well delete the whole thing.Pascal.Tesson 11:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - It doesn't seem to need so fundamental of a rewrite. A new lead and some OR/SYN stuff removed, maybe, but it seems workable. I'm not sure about the title, though (besides non-standard capitalization). Smmurphy(Talk) 03:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously, not a good article, but this is not OR.Biophys 03:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lytle and Lamb[edit]

Lytle and Lamb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a local radio show. I found about 50 google hits, which do not establish notability outside of Springfield, Illinois. YechielMan 02:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natural History of South Asia mailing list (3rd nomination)[edit]

Natural History of South Asia mailing list (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Long and nasty history, this being the third AfD in as many weeks. First was closed as a delete, and later overturned at DRV. The second was closed as a no consensus, with the following comment:

On the one hand ... there are claims of importance made, presented neutrally, and attributed.

The references provided to support these claims were subjected to some basic scrutiny (not particularly rigorous), and failed to stand up. Most were trivial, and did not support the statements they were being cited for; one was circular, and was effectively citing the list itself for a contentious statement; one cited a "special thanks" note to the list's founder for something entirely unrelated to the list itself; one turned out to be demonstrably false. Many of these references were added by User:Atulsnischal, who has a confirmed WP:COI with the subject. The article as of the time of this nomination is here. With the exception of the two statements tagged {{fact}}, the content of this version does stand up to cursory checking.

In case the bogus references should be reinserted, I urge all participants tempted to simply glance at the article and say "Keep, well-referenced" to check the references against the invalid references listed on the talk page before committing. Chris cheese whine 02:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong Delete: Non-notable mailing list. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (web). The only mentions to the mailing list are all trivial single sentence references to it, which, according to notability guidelines, is NOT a proof of notability. There are thousands of mailing lists out there which have similar trivial mentions in newspapers or other sources, but that does not make them notable and encyclopedic. Neither is this one. --Ragib 02:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. My first reaction when I saw the title was, "How on earth did this survive two AFDs?" Now I know. I just can't see how any mailing list can be notable unless some of its participants are extraordinarily famous. (Maybe I need my glasses checked.) YechielMan 02:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have been here before. Major institutions of world-wide stature do not make indiscriminate lists of resources, The selectivity involved in adding this to their lists is an endorsement of its usefulness. the references deleted were examples of this use--the battle to delete this list has been carried out on several fronts. I think most of the major researchers in the subject do use the list. There are many academic fields where the mailing lists are the main information sources--of course this requires a moderated list with significant editorial control. This is now the way the academic world--or at least large parts of it--now work. I would certainly have been here saying this without the least need of canvassing, by the way--I think it is not wise to do so, for it does arouse suspicion. I can thus understand perfectly well the reason why some might vote to delete. DGG 04:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correction to above comment - the "major institution of world-wide stature" you refer to would be the American Museum of Natural History, which happens to be the one reference that was most dubious of all, what with it not actually being at the AMNH itself. Appearing in a link list is no big deal, regardless of who compiles the list - it is still a trivial mention for the purposes of WP:N. Chris cheese whine 04:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • DGG, again, you are not taking into account the difference between trivial, and non trivial mention. Does ANY notable institution give it more that a "that too" type mention? Do you see the real AMNH mention this in a non-trivial manner? Even a single paragraph of text focusing on how useful this list is not there. All we have is simple one line mentions. Other references are forged.
    • Also, you need to take into account "Trivial mentions". For example, research papers often have an acknowledgment section where there are similar one-sentence "Thank you" notes on various persons, that by itself does not make those persons "cited". As for the "Battle", no WP is not a battle ground, but we need to keep the random crap away, as WP IS an encyclopedia and NOT a fanblog. Until we learn to clean out fancruft and triviality, WP will simply degenerate into a spamblog. --Ragib 04:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Now that it's clear we don't have reliable sources that really justify the importance of this mailing list, I think it fails WP:WEB. Mangojuicetalk 04:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If we're scrounging through faxes and trivial lists of links, I think its pretty clear there are reliable sources at this point. No sources - even if a notable museum links to another website, it does not make that website notable. That is pretty much the definition of a trivial listing, regardless of who is performing it. Even if we granted the faulty assumption that being in a list of links makes it notable, there's no secondary information on which to base an article. Wickethewok 04:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for an Example let me point out the fact that Scientists and Researchers from world famous Natural History and Conservation Institutions are members of this network and communicate with it in official manner representing their Institutions:

Here are just two examples out of several, Staff of following are members of this list in an official capacity representing their Institutions, you can search in the Archives and see their communication:

Search for American Museum of Natural History in Archives of the List to see their posts

Atulsnischal 05:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Several other examples abound in the Archives, thousands of posts from this notable network
    • These are just 2 examples I took all top NGOs from the region are members as well and communicate to this important network.
    • Any email sent to this Network signed in an official capacity, with the seal of the company / Institution (Name and Address) is a communication in official capacity. Thankyou Atulsnischal 05:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you reword the above sentence such that it makes sense, please? "Signed in an official capacity"? "Seal"? Just because my email client forcibly adds a company-assigned signature to outgoing email does not make those in any "official capacity". Chris cheese whine 05:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet again, your references do not stand up to scrutiny. Nothing in those results suggests that they are acting in an official capacity. Chris cheese whine 05:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, so what? My university's departmental mailing lists contain Nobel laureates as well. Does this make those tens of newsgroups, mailing lists notable? No. Neither does the presence of any number of professors make a list they subscribe to notable. --Ragib 05:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: This article is about something more then a mailing list, it is often referred to as the "NATURAL HISTORY NETWORK" of India or South Asia, it also serves as WILDERNESS TELEGRAM SYSTEM of sorts, the subject of this article has become an NGO in itself helping its members many of whom are grassroots workers in the fields of Nature & Wildlife Conservation, students, scientists, prominent members of other NGOs, many "News Makers" in these field report directly to the NETWORK, simultaneously or before commercial news channels report on the matter, discoveries, poaching, habitat encroachments, proposed government protected area notifications and the unfortunate de-notifications, illegal wildlife trade observed, wildlife trade seizures, Endangered Tiger & Panther etc. etc. bone and skin seizures, proposed government policy changes affecting the environment before they come into effect, proposed dams which will submerge large chunks of the last remaining pristine forests etc are just a few things reported and debated by this NETWORK many a times bringing corrective action in time. This is a list dealing with issues faced by Indian Naturalists, conservationists, and NGOs who network on it thankfully, including members of related Government institutions, IT CAN ONLY BE COMPARED WITH OTHER LISTS OF THE REGION dealing with similar issues and it stands head and shoulders above the rest, most of the top people in the field in the region are subscribers or know of its reputability. It is a notable achievement in India in its field, please understand that before taking the argument around the world comparing ORANGES with APPLES i.e. with just other sundry mailing lists. Thankyou Atulsnischal 05:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The game is up, lying and misleading references will not save your article. Resurgent insurgent 06:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mailing lists should not have their own articles in cases like this. NN. And I'm tired of voting on this one. :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mention at Indian natural history, if you wish. It's nice to see the good work being done at this list, but none of the references or sources indicate that it's notable to deserve an article of its own. Since I've been accused of voting delete in bad faith, let me explain the rationale behind my vote in detail -- I'd like to address all the arguments from the first AfD nom, the second AfD nom and this one:
    • Argument 1: The list is "Natural History Network", "Wilderness Telegram System", "NGO in itself": The claim that it is the "Natural History Network" is based on a book endorsement, where the creator of the mailing list mentions himself as "Co-oridinator, South Asian Natural History Network". Other such assertions are based entirely on perception of the creator of the article. Even if such claims are assumed to be true, the subject of the article still fails WP:ORG.
    • Argument 2: The list has been mentioned on websites of notable organizations or the selectivity involved in adding this to their lists is an endorsement of its usefulness or the list has been "recommended" by ESA, IUCN, and people such as Frederick Noronha: All the "references" provided for these arguements are actually trivial listing among many other URLs. For eg., the "reference" being provided to assert that the list is recommended by the American Museum of Natural History is a fax message that mentions some useful URLs including these: [11][12][13][14][15] (many dead links) -- do all these pages become notable enough to deserve an article on Wikipedia? Similarly, this mentions the list among eight others (most of them Yahoo! Groups). This is a list of 100+ links that includes several tripod, geocities, freeservers, 8m.com pages -- do all these pages become notable enough to deserve an article because they have been "recommended" by a highly respected journalist (Frederick Noronha)? Other such "references" are also trivial mentions of list in newsletters etc.
    • Argument 3: The list members are employees of notable organizations such as WII and USFWS: The "references" provided for this are messages like this one (a Reuters news item forwarded to the list by a USFWS employee). How does this make the list itself notable enough for an article? I work with a very notable organization and I subscribe to many lists -- that doesn't make those lists notable. I'd vote keep if many participants of the list were themselves very notable or famous, which doesn't seem to be the case.
    • Argument 4: The list that produced a number of noteworthy predictions (the 2nd AfD nom was closed citing this argument by trialsanderrors) -- the article doesn't contain (and never contained) any information about "number of noteworthy predictions". It contained information about speculation that a subscriber to the list may have predicted the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. The reference doesn't assert notability of the list. It just mentions the list once, as a place where one can verify that the prediction was made before the earthquake occured.
    • Argument 5: The list is hosted at Princeton/some of the list members are professors, so the list is notable in academic circles: Just because some of the list members are professors doesn't make it highly notable in academic circles. All the "references" earlier mentioned in the article were trivial one-sentence mentions of the list. utcursch | talk 10:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was cautiously in favour of keeping, but Utcursh's work above is compelling. Guy (Help!) 13:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No assertion of notability. Fails WP:WEB.--Bryson 14:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Utcursch says it all. Betaeleven 15:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Protest & Appeal to all Wikipedia Administrators that This version of this Article passed 3 Deletion debates already, check Discussion page. (Personal attack removed). Atulsnischal 15:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Personal attack removed) Thanks Atulsnischal 15:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have had a long history of problems with Ragib, (Personal attack removed). I have already complained about him once on the Administrators Board. (Personal attack removed) Atulsnischal 16:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Atul, this is NOT really a place to make personal attacks against other editors who vote against you. Thanks. --Ragib 16:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for all your friendly advices in the past including this one Ragib Atulsnischal 16:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Atulsnischal has been re-inserting the fake references repeatedly into the article. I have reported him for 3RR (he had been blocked for it before). --Ragib 17:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I originially closed as a delete (I think this is the one). Its claim to fame is the first mailing list for a specified area. If that were the case, any mailing list being the first to cover an area would be notable (I.E. almost every mailing list would be notable). Definitley not encylopedic. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looked non-notable at first; info provided by utcursch clinches it. Raymond Arritt 17:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and utcursch's demolition. Beyond that, the Keep proponents have left one crucial element out of their protests about how vitally important this mailing list is to South Asia - how does that equate to the subject being an encyclopedic article that passes WP:ATT for Wikipedia? I don't fall for the common presumption that just because Something! Is! Important! that it receives a free pass through WP:ATT, WP:N and WP:NOR as a reward. RGTraynor 17:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- a search using google produces virtually no hits: "Natural History of South Asia mailing list".
  • Delete per above. Addhoc 18:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the other deleters. Acalamari 19:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Utcursh and nom. Rama's arrow 20:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First question: a mailing list here? That better be one heck of a mailing list - but just looking around, it doesn't look all that notable. Sorry. Cites on the page are fairly trivial. Good that other things are citing the list, but that's like citing...well, Wikipedia as a primary. (Sorry, Jimbo.) --Dennisthe2 20:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (1) WP:NOT a directory, (2) the article is not very interesting, (3) there is a lack of reliable third-party sources specifically commenting on the mailing list. If a new bird species was announced there, that adds to the notability of the discoverer, but not much to the mailing list. The discoverer could have sent email to his personal friends, but that would not make the friends notable. EdJohnston 20:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Wickethewok and most of the above. --kingboyk 21:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per utcursch. Pete.Hurd 21:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and utcursch. --Haemo 21:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dennisthe2's sentiments exactly: a mailing list? The references fail to impress. Sandstein 22:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I thought it lost the first debate. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 01:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It did. Resurgent insurgent 01:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So then, what are we doing here? Maybe delete and salt, so we don't have to waste our time on this again? Raymond Arritt 01:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • According to the nominator the first AFD was overturned on DRV and it survived a second AFD. So that is why we are here. --67.71.77.213 02:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per dgg--D-Boy 07:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Utcursh has dealt with every keep argument sufficiently. GizzaChat © 11:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a mailing list, for Lord Jimbo's sake. Utcursh has summed it up well enough. ♠PMC♠ 18:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I have made a thorough effort to find the AMNH listing on a public part of their site, and not succeeded. So I agree that it is not an RS. The evidence above that this list is used by senior scientists there and elsewhere seems to be the strongest documentation available, . DGG 18:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's a mailing list with no real notability or anything else particularly noteworthy. Fails Notability (web) and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Jayden54 20:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • PLEASE NOTE: (Personal attack removed) Thanks Atulsnischal 13:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If searched on the internet in Google Search Engine etc. as "Natural History of South Asia", "NatHistory-India" or "[email protected]", it brings up more then 1000 search results where this list is mentioned in various documents and websites on the world wide web which also speaks well about this List's notability. (I have personally not checked all thousand search results though) Atulsnischal 13:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"NatHistory-India"- Notability Check on Google: Over 900 Results, "[email protected]"- Notability Check on Google: 115 Results and "Natural History of South Asia"- Notability Check on Google: 51 ResultsAtulsnischal 13:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • PLEASE LOOK INSIDE HERE TOO FOR REFERENCES: Natural History of South Asia mailing list Archives / NatHistory-India List ArchivesAtulsnischal 13:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't use the list itself for references to support notability. Chris cheese whine 16:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great, why don't you google my name ... that will give you 11000+ links to an exact match of my name. So I'm 11 times more notable than this list, right ;)? Also, calling removal of faked references is quite unfortunate. --Ragib 14:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Isn't that link just a mirror of the mailing list? x42bn6 Talk 14:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See WP:BIGNUMBER. Think sources, not numbers. x42bn6 Talk 14:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cloveoil 16:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • AFD is not a vote. You have to provide a reason for your opinion. Thanks. --Ragib 16:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Policy plz Cloveoil 19:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • See WP:AfD#AfD_etiquette and the following section. --Ragib 19:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can't quite seem to find the appropriate text which makes commenting upon my recommendation mandatory. Perhaps you would be so kind as to quote it for me? Cloveoil 09:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments.. Also, Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself. Thank you. --Ragib 09:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I believe he asked for the text that makes comments mandatory. Have you one? RGTraynor 13:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - It doesn't sound useful or important enough. RaymondWinn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondwinn (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lightborn[edit]

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

Prod was removed. A search for <lightborn eastlight> gives 40 google hits, which might give some idea about notability. He clearly fails WP:MUSIC. Also, the article is almost a copyvio of [17]. YechielMan 02:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No assertion of notability. Fails WP:MUSIC.--Bryson 14:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Failure of music standards and notability.
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC big time. Just for laughs, I googled "Lightborn" + the title of the song claimed in the article to be his most heavily downloaded. I got 30 hits. Oops. RGTraynor 18:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Acalamari 19:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-wiki-notable. NB I have restored the tags on the article. Springnuts 20:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this artist is not included on here then no hip hop artist should be.

Just the notable ones of whom people have heard, is all. RGTraynor 04:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the ones you heard of? Name five hip hop artists not on MTV. I am sure you are not an expert. You're useless.

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

The result was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GI Online[edit]

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

1. all relevant info is already at Game Informer under Website 2. Blatant advertisement 3. nn web community in and of itself Chevinki 03:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per norm with fan-sites and myspace attempts. ZBrannigan 08:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definately Delete Sounds like a badly-worded ad. DTD(speak)
  • This does not need to be deleted. The information is not complete, and is still under development. The information is not the same as the Game Informer Magazine either. Nick, Production Assistant on Game Informer Online, asked us to make one. You can find his request here. It will be cleaned up. We have had problems with members from here deleting and adding profanity and nonscences, so that had to be dealt with as well. It will be better and work is being done slowly. If people complain about it,then they should contribute. That is the point of wiki. This is for others to add in information they want. If you want something added, contact me or do some research onyour own and add it.Juganhut 21:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. Gameinformer Online is a full website with a history to it, just let the wiki article blossom, it will take time so let build - apocalidiot *do not touch*
  • The Game Informer Online wikipedia entry shouldn't be deleted. As said by another user, it's only the beginning of an effort to create a stable and useful page. There is an inherent difference between the Game Informer magazine and the Game Informer website. They both have their own culture, coverage, style, and impact upon the gaming community. While both may be Game Informer, there are enough differences and content for both entities to have their own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srkelley (talk • contribs)
  • Merge with Game Informer, if there is any information to merge. It's certainly part of Game Informer, and deserves a note in the article, but like the GameFAQs boards, it probably does not deserve its own article. Maybe if the Game Informer article gets too big, it could be split out. Kesac 22:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete or merge. I and other users are working on the art, and I am in contact with Nick from GI about the page. Quatreryukami 01:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue isn't if it can be expanded. The issue is if it meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia as set out by WP:WEB. It doesn't have multiple published works about it or any notable awards. "Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article." Not trying to get anyone down (I like Game Informer as a gaming mag), just trying to clean Wiki up. Chevinki 05:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to above. This article, while it may be messy ( as i have noted myself, I added the clean up tag) there is definatly enough info available to make an art. AND Nick and I are in contact, and he will be giving me info that can be added. Does that qualify as Original Research? I hope not... also, notablility can be established with web traffic and a link to GI mag, can it not?Quatreryukami 15:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' Notability must be established on its own accord according to WP:WEB. Web traffic doesn't count because it's WP:BIGNUMBER. Unless there have been been multiple independent publications to establish the notability of this particular forum or it's won some big awards it's nn. Just because it's a forum of a notable magazine doesn't mean the forum itself is notable. Chevinki 18:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' It's not just about the forum, it covers the whole website.
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't seem to be any merge-able material here.--ZayZayEM 05:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaspects[edit]

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

No sourced claims of notability; maybe there are, but it's next to impossible to read to find them. Veinor (talk to me) 03:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No assertion of notability. Fails WP:MUSIC.--Bryson 14:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. DTD(speak)
  • Delete, fails (deep breath) WP:MUSIC (they're "signed" to their own self-produced label?), WP:ATT (only sources are to their own website and their own Myspace page), WP:N (120 G-hits [18]),WP:SPAM, since this blatantly reads like promo material cut-and-paste from their own releases, and probable WP:COI, since this article is the sole Wiki activity of the creator and the creator's the only person to have worked on it. RGTraynor 18:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This subject is not notable. Acalamari 19:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promospam--ZayZayEM 05:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasspeedy massive hoax `'mikka 20:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entarians[edit]

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

Blatant hoax created by User:Vunvjorhimm, who aside from creating these pages also makes nonsense edits like [19][20] about "Čosånian" or "Entarian" (which appears to be a World of Warcraft guild [21]. Otherwise terms get no google hits, except for Entari since it's a Turkish word for a kind of dress/robe.. I am also nominating the following related pages:

Entarian language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Koreanic Peoples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Entarian Dominion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Entarian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Čosån (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thanks, cab 03:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC) (third and fourth articles added at 04:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)) (fifth article added at 04:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. -- cab 03:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. I almost nominated first article listed for a CSD but requested an expert examine it. Fails WP:V and WP:N. Morenooso 03:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thought about speedying it, but given the nature of the creator's editing, I doubted the tags would survive long enough. (I was also under the impression that hoaxes aren't speediable? Never really was sure). cab 04:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Hoax. --Bryson 18:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Joke article. Acalamari 19:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - delete as hoax. --Haemo 22:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Hello! There is indeed a guild named "Entarian Dominion" in World of Warcraft, and I'm pretty sure it is related to Entarians (Koreanic ethnicity living nowadays in Russia and Kazakhstan), which are also falsely being refered to as "Koryo Sarami". This is an unacknowledged ethnicity, however I have met actual descendants of Entarians in the United States and in Kazakhstan. I studied Entarian from very few remaining speakers, and it resembles many word similarities with Korean. Please do not make false conclusions. Do not support if you don't have enough knowledge, but do not disprove the topic either if you don't have ample evidence to state Entarians (Hentarissarmi) have never existed as a group. Thank you. Vunvjorhimm 23:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, hopefully this article will draw attention of specialists specializing in anthropology/history, and they will contribute to impovement/correction of the information. HENTAR in Entarian means "one", in Korean HAN means the same thing. RIS is dominion/area/realm/territory in Entarian; best equivalent for this word in Korean would be Sino-Korean GUG, which means country, state. In Korean Entaria would be HANGUG, but it has little to do with modern South Korea. Please read carefully the history of Korea to make sure nothing is contradicting. If you are interested in more information and the sources of it, ask me, I am ready to answer all the questions to the best of my knowledge. Be more critical. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vunvjorhimm (talk • contribs) 23:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in entarian hen is one, and hentar means adjective. Thank you for bringing up information about entarian kingdom, i will support as i can because i myself have entarian heritage. Komabs, dunn char gilen entarissarmie changikem ibni! Dansei e-mail nae musli dyreo. Hessosuwonae 00:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC) — Hessosuwonae (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. cab 02:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I have never heard of Entarians before, but I'm pretty sure the author isn't just vandalizing Wiki. He just wants to let the world know about Entarians and their ancient kingdoms. How many ethnicities in the world and in Europe in particular have been exterminated or vanished? You don't even know of their existence, so be constructive and don't disregard History. Danke. (Respect to Vunn) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 153.90.117.3 (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC). — 153.90.117.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. cab 02:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, looks like a hoax. Tim.bounceback (talk • contribs • count) 00:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely! How can people say it is a "hoax", if according to Wikipedia A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real. I personally do not believe that Entarians aren't real. Read above, there are actual Entarians, and they also don't think they aren't real... Wiki is created so readers know more about new things, not to spit off something they can't understand or unable to know. Don't be vandals of the Knowledge. Vun, try asking Korean department in Russian universities, they might know. Don't give up. Good job. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flyingdannish (talk • contribs) 00:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC). — Flyingdannish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. cab 02:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow Holly Sock Puppets Bat Man!--Bryson 00:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to World of warcraft. Individual guilds are not generally notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carolfrog (talk • contribs) 01:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep and Develop. User cab writes: "Blatant hoax created by User:Vunvjorhimm, who aside from creating these pages also makes nonsense edits like about "Čosånian" or "Entarian" (which appears to be a World of Warcraft guild". Well, I think by "Čosånian" the Author meant "Of Joseon", and this kingdom was real. I followed the link and read the site of WoW guild Entarian Dominion and look what I found: "The name is taken from one ancient Korean kingdom..." [1], make sure you read About the Guild section. I think the author and the developers of the information section on Entarians deserve attention and support, rather than simplistic deletion of the material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.90.116.50 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC) — 153.90.116.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. cab 02:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note both 153.90.116.50 and 153.90.117.3 are IP's from United States [City: Bozeman, Montana], Montana State University. [23] and [24].--Bryson 01:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have found some even written references to support existance of Entarian Dominion. Please tell me how I can provide them! (I am not familiar with the coding much.)Vunvjorhimm 01:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last time you tried "adding references" [25], it took about 5 seconds with Google Books to tell it was a hoax, so now you're adding Russian books we can't check so easily. Mildly clever. cab 02:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If my article will get deleted, the only conclusion a reasonable reader can make of it is that the users and administrators of Wikipedia can only rely on something that's easily accessible via internet, and they don't want to acknowledge something that is out there... Or may be someone wants to venture forth to Eastern Siberia and search for material findings, make system of them, and objectively describe what was it, Entarian Dominion. Entarians were basically (if not completely exterminated) deprived from their identity, their culture was disregarded, and the research done in the area was most likely biased. No one knows that Japanese archaeologists were digging in the area and how did they view Koreanics? Were they interested in disclosing any data from the northern Manchuria? May be so that Entarians won't have legacy to be acknowledged as a group forever in the history, that is being written by... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vunvjorhimm (talk • contribs) 01:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Please, remember the name of Entarian Dominion. I give up here in Wikipedia, because there is too much counterlogical resistance. If only our World had more critical rather than robotic thinkers... Peace to all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vunvjorhimm (talk • contribs) 02:03, March 30 2007 (UTC)
  • cab, we are in an argument, but it is formal only, nothing personal. So, let us be constructive, rather than destructive. I would like to establish a dialogue directly with you or other administrator of Wikipedia. If i need to provide sources, translate information from a non-english language, let me know how. Hope our dispute will be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vunvjorhimm (talk • contribs) 02:45, 30 March 2007 UTC
  • KEEP I have figured out the way to provide internet sources. Now I am trying to link books correctly. The process is on its way, I'd suggest the critics to search information about Entarians. Since the former territory of Entarian Dominion lies entirely in Russian Federation, Russian sources seem to me more relevant. Vunvjorhimm 03:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • More horseshit. [26] never even mentions Entarians, it's just a Tatar historian writing about the history of Kipchaks, etc. Turkic peoples. This is really sad. cab 04:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • HOAX. Closing admin note: THIS IS A HOAX. "Entarian writing... did not have any commonly-accepted standard, and usually only the authors knew the meaning of their symbols." Mmmmmkay.... Herostratus 03:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Оттуда берет начало та культура, которая дала начало многим народам — финно-уграм, корейцам, тюркам..." on the site you've said to be dedicated to "Kipchaks". Now I have an idea what ... are the Wikipedia's admins. Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source at all, no independent thought at all. You can only lick the covers of the books written by those who cut the first paths. You better know the history of your ancestors... oh wait, yes, you can't rely on what your parents tell you because what's written in some published book is "more reliable". :) Apex of intelligence indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vunvjorhimm (talk • contribs) 04:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, so the fact that Adzhiev's page about Turkic peoples mentions Koreans (and Finno-Ugric peoples) once somehow proves the existence of "Entarians". Got it, thanks so much for the clarification. cab 04:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, you're so welcome :-P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.90.125.166 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Please Keep and it should be expanded We will see how it develops, wait a while and then re-visit the issue. Jegal 22:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, with a recommendation to rename the article. - Mailer Diablo 14:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who went to heaven alive[edit]

List of people who went to heaven alive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I do not believe this topic deserves an article. Putting aside the correctable issue of a misleading title, a "list of people" is inappropriate in this case. An article on the supposed phenomenon of persons entering heaven while still living may be notable and should contain examples but this is not that article and, as far as I know, that article does not exist. An online search for information reveals that there are plenty of sources about Elijah, Serach, and Enoch that mention the aforementioned entry into heaven while still alive. However, that information belongs in the individual articles. So, I propose that this article be deleted because:

  1. The article does not prove the notability of the subject by providing at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial secondary sources, and I have been unable to prove the topic's notability through my own search.
  2. The article does not provide clear standards of inclusion or exclusion, in violation of Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). For instance, not too long ago, this list boasted Cheech Marin (see diff).
  3. Any listing of the handful of characters who supposedly entered heaven while still alive should be contained in an article on the phenomenon itself rather than existing as a stand-alone list.

As I believe the problem to be endemic to the topic rather than the just the article, I am skipping the usual steps of tagging the article with various cleanup tags or requesting that the article's author (inactive for a month) try to fix it. -- Black Falcon 03:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In lieu of the changes made to the article within the past 20 hours (see diff), I am changing my recommendation to delete and now believe the article is worthy of being kept. The changes have made this a wholly different article that proves the notability of the topic, provides clear(er) standards of inclusion (as clear as we'll have with 2000 year old texts that are disputed), and addresses the general concept of ascension into heaven rather than merely listing persons who could fall in that category.
That said, I do not think this AFD should be closed early (i.e., I do not withdraw my nomination). A few editors have already suggested deletion, and even though their comments apply to the old version, a speedy close is no longer possible. Additionally, other editors may be able to contribute to the article or to the discussion regarding a new title, currently ongoing at the article's talk page. -- Black Falcon 23:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete is this a joke?--Sefringle 03:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know, I did think of {{prod}}ding it. The only reason I didn't was the abundance of sources that discuss the topic specifically in relation to Elijah, Serach, or Enoch. The issue is that their synthesis into an article (note: not a list) would probably require original research (and there's still the point that such analysis should belong in the individual articles rather than a list). -- Black Falcon 04:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete if it's not a joke, it's a very minor literary reference Citicat 03:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is most definitely not a joke. Having been educated in a rigorous Orthodox Jewish day school, I have the background in Midrash to recognize the claims made about Enoch and Elijah, and the inclusion of Serach does not surprise me. The topic of people ascending to heaven is extremely minor within Jewish tradition, let alone in the context of a general-interest encyclopedia. The event should be noted in Enoch and Elijah; I presume it already is. YechielMan 04:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. I would love to believe in this but fails WP:ATT and WP:V. Morenooso 04:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Resurgent insurgent 06:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. I would love to believe in this but fails WP:ATT and WP:V. Morenooso 04:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This was accidentally double-posted (see diff) by another user. -- Black Falcon 19:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the list could be improved enormously. I take deep offense at calling this a joke. If you don't know enough about a particular religion, or religion in general, don't go calling subjects related to what people hold sacred a "joke". I'm no expert myself, but I know "People who went to heaven alive" is usually called "translation into heaven" or "assumption into heaven" or "ascension into heaven". From Christianity you could add Jesus of Nazareth and (at least in Roman Catholic doctrine) Mary, mother of Jesus. The day commemorating her assumption into heaven is a holy day of obligation for Catholics. See Assumption of Mary. It's also celebrated in art. See: Assumption of the Virgin Mary. This hardly indicates that the "topic of people ascending to heaven is extremely minor within Jewish tradition, let alone in the context of a general-interest encyclopedia." (Emphasis added.) Muslims might also beg to differ, since many believe that Muhammad also ascended into heaven at the Dome of the Rock. Wikipedia has a short article on it: Kitab al-Miraj. In Polynesian (or at least Maori) religion, there also seems to be a person (maybe more) who ascended into heaven, but I don't have time to read through Rupe's Ascent into Heaven. If you scroll through these search results, you'll see plenty of examples, although it shades off into myth, or at least people we have no historical knowledge of. Apollonius of Tyana is also said to have been assumed into heaven.
As a subject the list is certainly important enough for an encyclopedia. Since some explanation of which religion(s) consider certain figures to have ascended bodily into heaven is necessary to help a reader navigate through the topic, so a category would be inadequate. I haven't found any source that considers all bodily assumptions into heaven from all religions, but it seems to me it isn't origional research to simply state that the concept exists in various religions and describe how each religion treats the concept in theology and tradition. One day I expect we'll get individual articles on bodily assumption in Judaism, Catholicism, Islam, etc. Perhaps a fuller account of how assumption into heaven relates to how these people are understood is best left to the individual articles on these people, but something is needed for this concept, and I think a list with short descriptions is a worthy start. Noroton 06:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as problematic but salvageable. Although not a fan of lists, the nominators first two points, I think, are not valid. #1...Most, if not all, biblical person's existence and actions are attested to only through that document, all other sources derive from that and they are abundant. #2...Vandalism to an article is not a reason for deletion of that article and standards for inclusion could be addressed through a more qualifying title for the article. #3 Raises the best point but could be addressed through renaming...in Christian/Jewish/Muslim theology..., or some such way. I hope the creator of the article can tighten it up during the nomination process. killing sparrows 06:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My second point was not vandalism, but rather a lack of clear criteria for what consitutes "going to heaven alive". Given the vague inclusion criteria, the addition of Cheech Marin technically was not vandalism. -- Black Falcon 07:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see what you mean. I'll add the comment that I can see the value of this list where someone reads about Enoch or Mary or Mohamed ascending to heaven and then from this list, (as a 'see also') is able to compare and contrast the phenomenom in other traditions. FWIW --killing sparrows 16:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:ATTR and WP:V Chevinki 07:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and give it a more appropriate name - something like Religious belief in the possibility to enter heaven alive. It is a pretty well sourced theme in theology and comparative religions, so I do not see problems with WP:ATTR or WP:V.--Ioannes Pragensis 11:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Tnomad 13:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It probably needs a better title, but as Noroton and Ioannes said, this is an important theological point in several religions. Pinball22 13:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Certainly there is theological importance regarding those who have went bodily to heaven, but the issue here is if a list of such people is important. I think that the individual pages of those who have is enough to cover the subject, and that seeing a list of them is of no importance. Also note that no article pages link to this one at all. Tarc 13:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Bad Jokes and Deleted Nonsense. At least it made me laugh. DTD(speak)
  • The topic deserves coverage, as a comparison of the various doctrines within each faith stating that certain people ascended into heaven, but the format of a list is misleading. How about moving it to, "Religious doctrines of ascension into heaven" or something along those lines? --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete There is enough misinformation on Wikipedia without adding religious psychobabble masquerading as truth. NL 29 March 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.214.34.243 (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. We can't pick and choose what "religious psychobabble" (to quote the unregistered user above) to keep and what not to keep. Barring a Wikipedia policy banning religion-based articles, this topic which has non-trivial sources cited (though more would be desirable) has every bit as much a right to have an article as immaculate conception. It does, however, need to be given a different title and it should not be treated as a list. 23skidoo 17:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. Fails WP:N.--Bryson 18:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A bit confusing in the title, and at first brush a lot of folks thought it might be a joke or something. But since it's clearly not intended for humor, it's confusing. Anyway, concur with the nominator. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since this article is undergoing some revision, editors in this discussion should take a look back later and see if their opinions still apply. I've begun to make some changes, many more are needed and by editors who are more familiar with the various religions involved, but the article is already a lot different from what it was when nominated. I think this can and should evolve into something more than a list. I'm starting a discussion on the article's talk page about what to name it.Noroton 18:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator. In response to the comment by 218.214.34.243 above, I ask that this AFD not be turned into a discussion about religion or faith. As I mentioned in my nomination, the issue of a misleading title is correctable and not a reason to delete. My position from the start was this: an article on Translation into heaven may be notable and would include a list of such people, but such a list should not exist by itself without sources or additional prose content. If this list can be modified to that purpose, I will modify my position to simply requesting a change of title. -- Black Falcon 19:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely agree This should be a discussion on an article, not beliefs, and I don't think anything more needs to be said here about the nature of the beliefs. Noroton 19:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Note that this article has been substantially improved since its nomination. Encyclopedic topic in comparative theology, reasonably well sourced. Should have a better name, though. Sandstein 19:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename - the title is awful but the topic is encyclopedic because of its importance in major world religions. There are many solutions besides changing the name including splitting this up by religion. In any event, the article should be kept and improved rather than deleted. --Richard 19:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep It needs renaming, but considering the development since the nomination deletion shouldn't even be considered anymore. A.J.A. 19:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Far more notable than List of charismatic leaders as defined by Max Weber's classification of authority, for example. Article should probably be renamed. — goethean ॐ 20:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The work on this article is commendable and I would be able to support a move to a better title. Please note the existence of Translation (religion) which itself is a disambig page that mentions bodily ascent into heaven. Translation (disambiguation) reveals a number of other Translation (x) articles in existence so name choice an integration might be a little complex. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How about some variation on "Ascension"? - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Name-changing discussion is now taking place at Talk:List of people who went to heaven alive#Suggestion to change the name of the article. Please make any name-change suggestions there and then this discussion can concentrate more on whether to keep or delete the article. Noroton 22:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The article needs major improvement and a more appropriate name, but it has the potential to become a valid article. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 22:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This certainly isn't a joke, and there are sources for the individuals given. However, there are significant WP:OR and WP:NPOV problems not solvable simply by changing the title. One difficulty is that there are enormous differences between the degree of belief and sourcing for various individuals. In Judaism, for example, Elijah is specifically mentioned in the Bible, while other figures are mentioned only in relatively minor Midrashic sources. Simply listing them creates an appearance of commonality of belief and importance which simply doesn't exist in the underlying religious traditions. A more fundamental problem is that the whole topic, as it stands, represents WP:OR -- it claimss a commonality among figures who have different stories. for example it presents them as going to a common, a place called "Heaven", which is impliedly represented as being common to every religion listed, even though not every religion listed has this concept. I'm not sure that changing the name would solve the problem. I'm not questioning that this could be a valid topic. It's the business of original researchers to identify common themes in disparate cultures and to provide explanations why regarding the themes as common is legitimate. But I don't believe it's the business of Wikipedia to do this sort of original research. And it's even less the business of Wikipedia to do it in a way that treats commonality as a hidden assumption which the reader is required to take for granted. The article should at least address the question of whether other religions actually have a comparable concept of "heaven" rather than fitting them into the framework of ones own worldview unquestioningly. --Shirahadasha 01:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response I've posted requests for editors to look at this article and deletion discussion at WikiProject talk pages for Bible, Christianity, Judaism, Islam and, I think, Religion hoping to get some useable insight of this general sort. But I have to respond that absolutely none of Shirahadasha's points show any reason at all to delete, only to further improve the Judaism section of the article (there's already a notice at the top of that section calling for improvements). There is a Wikipedia article, Heaven, which is linked to in the top paragraph of this article and where the Jewish concepts of the afterlife are discussed, and it would be proper to note some differences in the concept of heaven or note the absence of the belief in heaven in Judaism, if that's the case. Of course, that explanation would have to address the citations from Genesis and 2 Kings already in the article. I'm going to copy and cross post S's valuable comment above to the article's talk page and respond to other points about article content, which don't need to be addressed further here.Noroton 19:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm under a bit of time pressure so I'll just drop a quick note. Noroton, can you discuss the pros and cons of just merging this article into Heaven? Does it really merit a separate article? --Richard 19:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I think the only reason to separate one article from another related article is to keep article sizes manageable and help readers navigate. If this article and Heaven were smallish and couldn't be expected to grow more, then I think we could merge them. Heaven is 47 Kb long right now and, although I haven't looked closely at that article, I can easily imagine it could grow more (there's a lot of information out there). After Googling this subject, here are the areas where I know or have reason to suspect this article might grow: The entire Judaism section, which should show the significant viewpoints on ascension within Judaism, including, I assume, something on midrash; Christian views on Enoch and Elijah's ascensions; more information on Roman Catholic views, Orthodox Christian views and various Protestant views and how they differ and are alike each other; Islam's significant views on Enoch and Elijah; an adequate explanation on Islam's views on Jesus and ascension; the same for Muhammad; ascension in Polynesian religion; more information on Apollonius of Tyrana and ascension; possible ascension of Chinese emperors (I get intriguing whisps of this but can't find anything that really confirms it). All of these sections should eventually show similarities and differences. Ideally, every major part of this article would summarize better, fuller accounts in other, more specific articles, as well as discuss what reliable sources have to say about the similarities and differences of different religions and sects (this would be the best spot for that information and I'm frustrated that I haven't found it yet). This article is about ascension and belief, but it's not hard to imagine ascension in myth and ascension in fiction.Noroton 20:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My only problem with this article is that it is an articlespace orphan. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 01:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:V and <sarcastic comment> WP:BLP </sarcastic comment>. Carlossuarez46 03:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For this case, verifiability is not a question of whether heaven exists or of whether people go to it while still alive: this is a question of truth, and if this were the case, we'd have no articles on religion at all. Here, verifiability refers to confirming that these individuals were said to have ascended. -- Black Falcon 03:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to an article Shirahadasha, your discussion above is interesting, so why don't you make this an article instead. It needs too much explanation to just be a list.DGG 04:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is already pretty much an article now. We just have to change the title to reflect the fact that is an article. We have to wait for the AFD close before we can move the article and so we're debating the new title now on the Talk page
    --Richard 05:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename. It is a philosophically interesting topic which I am sure plenty has been written about, but the current wording of the title is quite awkward. --Merovingian ※ Talk 05:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to a better title, since the current title seems to assume the truth of the included religious claims and therefore violates WP:NPOV. The article itself is not bad, and has some reliable sources. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 09:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom and (speaking only of the Christian elements) as incoherent, inaccurate and un-sourced theological illiteracy - eg the total confusion of the topics of ascension and assumption - ie the attempts ot improve it have not helped, rather the reverse. Shirahadasha makes very valid points above. Unsalvageable. Springnuts 14:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles can be and have been totally rewritten. What you need to justify a vote for deletion is a case that there shouldn't be any article on the general topic, under any title, EVER. I say that because 1) there is an ongoing discussion on changing the title 2) the notability is hardly going to change and 3) if this article is deleted any future article on the topic will be liable to get speedied. A.J.A. 19:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Springnuts, your comments are essentially incomprehensible because you offer no explanation for them and your citations are indecipherable. Give the specific reasons and citations your strong opinion actually demands. I'll be specific: (a) what precisely is inaccurate (a serious charge in an encyclopedia); (b) where is the confusion between ascension and assumption; (c) what is incoherent. If you're going to criticize the efforts of editors who are doing their best, then it seems to me that [self edit to delete my comment. See Apologies comment below]. You might even practice a bit of your calling by helping to edit the article, but you're the best judge of where your time and effort is most needed.Noroton 20:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch! Well Noroton, not to waste a lot of time - (a) inaccuracy: the article lists Jesus as someone who entered heaven without dying, however it is a fundamental Christian belief that Jesus died on the cross. The article states "in Christian belief, the privilege of entering heaven without dying is reserved for those who are considered to have been without sin" - but most Christians do not consider Elijah sinless, yet he did enter heaven without dying ... the article states "Belief in the ascension of Christ is part of the Reformed churches tradition" but it is actually part of all orthodox tradition (b) ascension is after death (ie with dying), assumption is before death (ie without dying), (c) hence the whole thing is, imo, incoherent - and un-necessary. (self edit - remove now unnecessary comment). Springnuts 22:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Double-ouch! Those are valid points and I wrote one of the offending sentences so I cry "Uncle!", "mea culpa" and whatever else is appropriate. We should address the issues raised by Springnuts. However, those are just arguments that the article could be improved not that it should be deleted. As stated above, one argument for deleting an article is that there should not be an article on this topic because the topic is inherently unencyclopedic. A somewhat different line of argument would assert that the topic is encyclopedic but this particular revision is so hopelessly flawed that it would be better to throw it out and rewrite it than to attempt to save it. I don't think either of these arguments is applicable here. --Richard 22:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies: I'm sorry. My comment was inappropriate, so I've deleted it. When I wrote it I told myself I was writing criticism, but the plain meaning of the words amounted to a personal attack. Thank you for pointing that out to me. I'm copying some of your comments onto the article's talk page (and responding to some points there), and they'll help us improve the article. I agree with Richard's comments just above and leave it to Richard to change what he wrote. Noroton 23:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So remove the part about Jesus and the part about sinlessness and say "Christian" instead of "Reformed". None of this shows that no encyclopedic article on the topic could ever be written, just that one doesn't exist right now. A.J.A. 05:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I acknowledge the article needs work, and there are inherent problems in trying to lump a variety of different theological concepts under the word "heaven". However, I also believe that the subject is sufficiently notable and well sourced for inclusion. It will need a lot of work though. John Carter 15:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - needs to be renamed, and needs a lot of work, but the basis of the article is sound. The reference I just added treats the subject more fully than we've seen so far. -- BPMullins | Talk 20:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a perfectly valid topic for a list. - Nunh-huh 20:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As the existence of heaven cannot be proven, by definition, nor can the contents of the article in question. HalfShadow 22:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The standard is not whether we can prove that these people actually entered heaven, but rather whether we can prove that religious texts have claimed they entered heaven. Your argument would essentially condemn any article on a religious topic. Verifiability, not truth is the standard. -- Black Falcon 23:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not so fast, Black Falcon, maybe we could use this argument in Pokemon deletions ... Noroton 23:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything while I read that. I have a hard time really sympathising with your desire; of the hundreds of times I've clicked on the "Random article" link, I think I've only encountered 1 or 2 Pokemon-related articles. -- Black Falcon 00:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While this is a notable subject, and it itself could definitely be attributed and written into a good and maintainable article, it shouldn't just be a stand-alone list. The subject as a whole has another name which I don't remember at the moment, (looked it up, the word is Translation) but if someone can then they should feel free to write it. --tjstrf talk 04:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Translation (Mormonism), which in turn is then renamed and expanded to include the beliefs of other religions as well. Silly me, not reading the full text of the debate first, if I had it would have saved me the trouble of digging out my copy of Prophets and Kings to look up what it was called there. --tjstrf talk 05:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename. It is an interesting and notable topic — and certainly if the person standing next to you was so "taken up", you'd be "sore amazed". The title is misleading since it's really an article and not a list, per se. It should drop the pretense to being a "list" and be expanded as the article it already is. Askari Mark (Talk) 05:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep but rename - This is not a joke as claimed by a self-proclaimed atheist, but a seriously held subject in the three great monotheistic religions. However 'List of' should be dropped from the title. Since it is combining various different kinds of entry into heaven (Translation, ascension, and assumption), perhaps St Paul should also ne mentioned, as he claimed to have been taken up into heaven temporarily, though he did not know if it was in the body or out of it. Some one claimed the reference to Enoch is a minor literary reference - that is true but much has been written and preached about it. The article Translation (Mormon) has nothing to do with this, and I would oppose any merge with that. Peterkingiron 22:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete for the reasons set out in detail over several posts in the article's talk page. To summarize briefly:

  1. Mary did not go to heaven alive, her body was assumed after her death.
  2. Jesus was not a 'person,' an ordinary mortal as is meant by all other persons in this list, and experienced death prior to ascension.
  3. Elijah's status, although superficially qualifying, is subject to different interpretations as laid out in the WP articles, Elijah, and Bosom of Abraham.
  4. Translation (Mormonism) was added to the article, but this doctrine does not, as far as I can find, say anything about 'going to heaven.'
  5. Enoch and Sirach, problematic for several reasons, not the least of which is the ambiguity of Judaism on the topic of heaven in general and these personage's fate in particular.
  6. Appolonius of Tyana, not a part of Abrahamic tradition, thus use of the word 'heaven' really cannot be accepted.

What we have is a list of disparate persons arriving at arguably different 'destinations' by various means. Assumption, ascension, translation, no commonly accepted terms or processes. I supported this nomination and have spent much time looking into the persons and processes and have to say that all are covered in specific detail in the relevant articles, a list of this type would have to say something like...'List of people/dieties who went somewhere either before or after dying.' I just can't see any way to tie it together in one article. Please, no replies to specific points here. Take it to the article's talk page. killing sparrows 01:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 07:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although we should almost keep it for the comedy value. Encyclopaedia Britannica eat your heart out. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename Even though it might seem minor, it is a notable theological concept. The article needs some rewriting and clean up but there is no reason for deletion. Pax:Vobiscum 10:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Category: People who went to heaven alive. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 16:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't since a CfD would likely have a consensus for a list. With a list you can add the date they went, the source, their religion and other information. Placing these in a category would not add those characteristics. Vegaswikian 19:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename and make into article, needs much work so that it doesn't stray into original research. As several have noted, it's a theme prevalent in several religions. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 03:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, but renaming and improvement are needed. This is a very important concept for Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and it consequentially merits an article on Wikipedia. --Tim4christ17 talk 11:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (removed own edit to article talk page) Springnuts 08:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Wizardman 14:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Sternick[edit]

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

An "author" who has not been published. Gets 2 Google hits. De-prodded without comment. - IceCreamAntisocial 03:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 15:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Filemon[edit]

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

Non-notable band, only, cannot establish notability outside the province of Cebu. Also, sources are suspect. I'm retracting my nomination and is moving for a KEEP while giving editors time to cite sources. Apparently, down South, they do have a following, and unlike other Cebu-based bands, they do deserve their own place on WP. Who knows that they might be the next Junior Kilat? ;-)Tito Pao 03:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Note: unsigned edit was made by Tito Pao[reply]

  • Delete as it does not assert notablity per Wikipedia:Notability (music). --Roswell native 03:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep (Pasensya na ho kayo, Tito Pao). When I think of BisRock, Missing Filemon is the one that comes to mind. I think as time goes on, they will gain more notability. Their scope is limited to only the Cebuano-speaking regions since Tagalog music has a grip on the whole Philippines. I'm not in the Philippines myself, but I have managed to download their songs (my favorite is Suroy-Suroy), which are available on LimeWire. There are 59 fan videos of Missing Filemon on YouTube. BTW, there are 739 Google hits with about 17 mentions on the Sun.Star Cebu website, so contrary to what Evergreens78 said, it's not a stupid garage band. I'd roughly consider Missing Filemon to be as notable as the Catalan rock group Els Pets, whose fans are limited to Catalan-speaking regions in Europe and nowhere else. --Chris S. 05:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite a lot of that rationale isn't relevant. That a band's songs are available for download isn't relevant. Your own subjective opinion of what is and isn't important is irrelevant. And counting Google hits is not research. What is relevant here is whether the band has been independently documented, in depth, in multiple published works. And research involves looking for such things. Please cite sources to show that the WP:MUSIC criteria are satisfied. You can start by citing those newspaper articles that you say exist. Uncle G 14:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I was aware of that, but my rationales were basically in response to the above comment saying that Missing Filemon was a "stupid garage band." If someone makes a subjective comment I don't agree with, I think I should go ahead and do the same. Subjectivity aside, I thought the Sun Star link, which is a major newspaper in Cebu and other areas, I provided above was sufficient. Further sources are articles from the Manila Times, Cebu Daily News (on the Philippine Daily Inquirer website), the aforementioned Cebu Sun.Star, and here. --Chris S. 23:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If this article will be documented as shown above, I will endorse a keep and withdraw the AfD nomination (speaking of which...how do I do that, btw?) --- Tito Pao 00:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You have to let the AfD run its course if memory serves. --Chris S. 01:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • All right, then. I've cut and pasted the sources into the article's talk page. --- Tito Pao 01:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thanks, and by the way, Tito Pao, you could strike your rationale above and put a "keep" rationale below. --Chris S. 22:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I thought this was a glitch Pokémon? JuJube 00:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the 3rd party non-trivial mentions by reliable sources supplied by Chris S. (how's that for a Wiki mouthful?) --Oakshade 05:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 03:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Simmons[edit]

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

Non notable junior footballer. This can be recreated if and when the subject becomes notable Mattinbgn/ talk 03:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This may qualify for speedy deletion as there is really no assertion of notability. If someone else agrees, I invite them to tag. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 03:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Punkmorten 07:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; could have been speedied or prodded with not much fuss, bear that in mind for future similar nominations. Qwghlm 08:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable yet. Matthew_hk tc 09:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 19:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete same reasons as above. Tangerines 23:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all others. There are some bad football articles coming up from Australia as we enter the football season... :( Garrie 01:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bigmike 23:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Medan[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO after two years. there are no reliable sources and the article has been tagged with {{unreferenced}} since November. Sefringle 03:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't think he fails WP:BIO (though he doesn't pass with flying colors either). I see 2,000 Google hits, some in the Bahasa Indonesia language. The problem is that Indonesia has almost as many people as the United States, but the language, social and distance barriers are such that it's hard for us to judge notability over there. The fact that he has an article on the Indonesian Wikipedia makes me want to leave well enough alone. YechielMan 04:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails attribution and verifiability policies and after that long I'm not seeing that change. NeoFreak 06:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per YechielMan. Indeed a Factiva search gets 37 hits in reliable press sources, mostly the Jakarta Post and The Straits Times. Articles which mention him include:
    • "Ex-convict denies instigating riots., Jakarta Post, 22 June 1998, 372 words, (English)"
    • "Preacher named suspect in bloody mid-May riots., Jakarta Post, 11 July 1998, 277 words, (English)"
    • "INDONESIA IN TRANSITION - Preacher questioned over May riots., Straits Times, 17 July 1998, 240 words, (English)"
    • "Unorthodox Cleric: Riot Suspect in Jakarta is a Man of Many Convictions, The Asian Wall Street Journal, 28 July 1998, 945 words, By Jay Solomon, (English)"
    • "SOCIETY-INDONESIA: EX-CONVICT LEADS OTHERS TO LIFE AFTER PRISON, Inter Press Service, 17 September 2003, 1016 words, By Kafil Yamin, (English)"
  • I will see what I can do given the articles in the next few days. Resurgent insurgent 06:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is still a stub, so it needs an expansion for sure. About the nobility, the person is notable enough in Indonesia. A criminal turned out to be a politician and a religious figure. I will put some references about him then if the problem is only about referencing. — Indon (reply) — 07:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I have edited the article, it has now reliable sources. If you read there, then you'll see that he is notable enough to have an article. — Indon (reply) — 11:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletions. Resurgent insurgent 07:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After Indon's edits, it seems clear enough to me that he passes both notability and verifiability requirements. Rigadoun (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per YechielMan, sbandrews (t) 20:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. However strong policy based objections were raised by those arguing for deletion. It would appear that there is definitely a need to reconsider the list's title and the criteria for inclusion given the problem of subjectivity in what constitutes an "unusual" death. Determining this cannot be left to judgment calls by editors given WP:OR. WjBscribe 23:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of unusual deaths[edit]

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

This list defies NPOV, No Original Research, and WP's standards on Notabilty

First of all, the word "Unusual" is highly problematic as it is a very subjective word, on par with "good", "bad", and "normal". A death that may seem unusual to one person may not seem so to another, and even within different contexts of data may lose its seeming unusualness.

If we were to change this article's title to "List of deaths generally viewed/cited as unusual", we still would be doing original research, and this would still be only presenting a biased view.

If we were to change this article's title to "List of deaths refered to as unusual", all the remaining entries will be sourced, however, these will be hard to find, and barely representative of the subject, and be mostly lifted from published personal opinions. (Although this option will satisfy verifiability).

And if we were to change this article to focus soley on statistically unusual deaths, the whole article will have to be rewritten to include rare diseases, rare instruments of destruction, etc,etc. In addition, what aspect of the death and in what context will we look at look at to declare it statistically unusual? (Of course, this will violate NOR)

And lastly, the subject of the list itself, "unusual deaths" is hardly notable at all. It may often pop up in trivia books (which often repeat many myths and unverifiable factoids), but this subject, by itself, does not meet WP:NOTE.


In this discussion, please avoid arguments such as "It's interesting", "It's useful", "It's entertaining". For help, read WP:AADD.

I know people are very much attached to this content, but please, this does not belong on WP. There are other wikis with not such stringent guidelines that may be better places for this bit of trivia, such as [27], [28], and [29]. Blueaster 03:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT#INFOthis is of no uses to anyone it should be in people magazine not a refrance work66.108.211.125 05:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)david hodgson[reply]
  • Delete, This would be completely unmanageable, but did you notice the Herod thing about putrefaction of his gentiles?--killing sparrows 06:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • “”Keep”” but perhaps with more specific criteria. The previous discussions are pretty comprehensive.

Meets notability criteria for lists under WP:BIO: “Instead, the list should be limited to notable people: those that already have a Wikipedia article or could plausibly have one, per this guideline.” Re: Sensationalism. Listing Isadora Duncan’s death as “unusual” may be more emotionally-involved than listing it as “road accident.” That makes it more challenging but no less valid. Actually supports NPOV: “representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.” If the published sources perceived the death as unusual, the encyclopedia should respect and reflect that fact, just as is done with list of deaths by date or by cause. Category:Lists_of_people_by_cause_of_death For instance, Toilet-related Injuries are real and the subject of medical research, and the article includes a section on Famous Toilet-related Deaths and as a theme in popular culture. Re: Litvinenko death. It's unusual because poisoning by polonium is not common and was perceived as a notable way to go. Canuckle 06:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, you're saying we should change the article to be about Deaths refered to as unusual, of notable people? Although this will be verifiable, it still is a very narrow group defined by trivial criteria, and we would have to parse through biographies and text books and news pieces to find the authors' actual reference to the death as "odd", "strange", "quirky", "unusual", etc, as using anything else to gauge the authors' opinion would lean towards original research. Blueaster 07:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and clarify what you meant by "Listing Isadora Duncan’s death as “unusual” may be more emotionally-involved than listing it as “road accident.” That makes it more challenging but no less valid.".... Blueaster 07:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Grue , your reason in the first AfD was "Keep, useful list", and you didn't appear in the second vote. Are you saying that if an article has been previously AfD'd and survived it should never be deleted? Vizjim 10:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe everything that needs to be said was already discussed in the previous nominations. This article is fully verifiable, and as such has a place in our encyclopedia.  Grue  13:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the reason given for the first nomination was that the list is an indiscriminate collection of information, the second nomination was for its unverifiability, and this third, more thorough nomination is because the article breaks several Wikipedia policies, as outlined above. The reasons for nomination being different, the reasons for your vote should surely change? Vizjim 13:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN a shame this had to be nominated as I most definitely like it. The funniest article at AfD since the list of US Vice-Presidents who have shot people. MLA 10:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - see WP:NOT#INFO, clear violation.Vlad fedorov 17:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Grue. I suspect that this will just keep getting AFDd until those defending it get bored, or are away for the debate. Enries need to be disciplined, tho. Maybe POV, but it's a (popular) trivial article with little ideological implication. The JPStalk to me 11:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC) The JPStalk to me 11:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with more specific criteria. Potentially very interesting list. --Jetman 12:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom and WP:NOT#INFOWP:NOT#IINFO. I don't see how to make this simultaneously notable, sourceable, and well-defined. Mike Christie (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the hell is WP:NOT#INFO??? Can you provide some reasoning instead of copypasting others stray links?  Grue  13:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." The list of deaths is interesting, certainly; I enjoyed reading it. But the information in it is collected together not because it addresses a topic that is itself notable, but rather because it has entertainment value. To me, this means that WP:NOT#INFOWP:NOT#IINFO applies. (I'm not sure if you're asking what the link is or what I meant by it; that link points to the subsection of WP:NOT that I feel applies.) I don't think it's accurate to call this a stray link -- this argument is common enough in AfD discussions, and is certainly a legitimate argument for deletion, though you may well disagree about whether it applies here. Mike Christie (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yeah. Sorry about that; I only just noticed the typo myself. I have struck and edited it above. Grue is correct that I copied it down from a prior poster; seemed quicker than retyping it and I didn't notice the typo in the prior post. Mike Christie (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list has 35 references, and most of the deaths are certainly by unusual means. The normal editing process can via consensus delete any which are too common. There is no reason to limit it notable people who died unusual deaths. Since the persons share the feature of diying unusual deaths, the list is not indiscriminate. Similar lists have long enjoyed a place in such reference works. Edison 14:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you're saying that editors should decide which deaths are unusual and which are not? This would violate NPOV, because it would be declaring what's unusual from the perspective of ourselves. And our judgement of a death as usual/unusual would be original research. As I've said before, references would only validate an entry if the author expressed explicitly that the death was odd. Blueaster 16:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is not too hard of an exercise to find a reference wherein a reliable and independant commentator will say the a British noble dying from the effects of a red hot poker being stuck up his rectum is an "unusual way to go." That would satisfy your worries about it being "original research" by a Wikipedia editor thinking that to be an unusual way to go. Googling shows that this particluar article has been widely and favorably cited on other websites, so readers of Wikipedia besides those arguing here for keeping it have apparently found it useful.Edison 19:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote', but please BJAODN if it gets deleted. --3M163//Complete Geek 15:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why BJAODN? This is neither bad, nor nonsense. A better place would be Wikipedia: namespace, alongside with Wikipedia:Unusual articles.  Grue  15:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, it is neither a bad joke nor silly nonsense. It's just too trivial and subjective for WP, which is why I suggested Wikia, bluewiki, and anarchopedia to transfer this article to, and not uncyclopedia. Blueaster 16:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry; I assumed that BJAODN was for any humorous material, not just bad jokes. :-) I find the article interesting and funny, but as has been pointed out, that's not grounds for a keep... just, please, per Chevinki, preserve it in some way! :-) --3M163//Complete Geek 17:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Grue. The list is supported by many sources. This is very interesting list.Biophys 16:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper nom and transwiki elsewhere. WP:ILIKEIT isn't a reason to keep it in the mainspace but it'd be a pity to see such unusual information disappear. Chevinki 17:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I see no properly appropriate reasons for the deletion of this article. Firstly, it's well-referenced , most of mentioned-deaths are based on reliable sources. Secondly these deaths totally deserve notability, for example Georg Wilhelm Richmann or Saint Peter, whose have particular section about their deaths on their main articles . Thirdly, the conception of "unusual" is "not" assessed by the editors themselves, all the deaths they write in the article are,widely believed to be "unusual" by a significant group of people, which is indicated by a long list of references from different collected sources . Thus, it's not POV nor completely original research. However, we should clean up a bit, remove several "not very notably unsual" and "lack-of-referenced" ones instead of deleting the whole article. Apple••w••o••r••m•• 17:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN Some and transwiki to that joke wikipedia. Too funny to be ignored George Leung 18:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is an interesting list, and I've read this one before, but I can't disagree with the nominator on this one. Articles with subjective words in the title like "Unusual" unfortunately have subjective inclusion criteria, and pretty much by their nature POV. It does amount to a source of trivial information, and doesn't have any real inherent notability, either. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The ambiguous nature of the list makes it OR/POV pretty much by default. If someone can come up with an objective measure by which to determine what is included, I could change my opinion, though.Chunky Rice 19:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless you can find me a non-POV defintion of "unusual." In the USA, beheading is unusual. Other places, not so much. Slavlin 19:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN and delete, easily. This is incredibly silly! =^_^= --Dennisthe2 20:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete unless sourced, and that means the unusual aspect needs to be sourced, not just that the deaths happened. None of the previous noms actually addressed the fundamental issues with "what's unusual?" Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Grue and AFD1. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 01:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is no possible objective definition of "unusual" and thus requires impermissble POV judgment calls on the parts of editors. Otto4711 02:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The NPOV argument appears to be a bit too strict with the NPOV application. If this is deleted, what will keep "Unusual articles" from being deleted? And from there, WP:DAFT could easily fall, as "freaky" is far more POV than "unusual". And from there, we would go to WP:LAW, and even WP:BJAODN itself! THE HORROR!Gorank4 03:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Unusual articles was deleted from article space, because it is fundamentally OR/POV. Pages in project space don't need to obey NPOV. Your examples are incredibly misleading and in fact represent precedent for deleting this article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because this article is fun to read. However, I do agree that "unusual" should probably be given a more specific definition and that the "unusual-ness" should be sourced. Useight 05:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I like it" is not a valid reason. Do you have any reason for your vote beyond this? Vizjim 07:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I doubt that we could ever find a source defining "usualness". And if we do, the article would have to be changed to "Unusual deaths, as defined by X" Blueaster 17:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; if this list had just been created, I'd say delete, but it has become something of a Wikipedia tradition by now. By its nature there can obviously be no WP:BLP concerns, and the talk page shows intense and serious debate over criteria for inclusion. If it can't be kept here, it should be moved to Wikipedia namespace, BJAODN, or another wiki. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 10:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So are you saying we should keep it and leave it alone because it's survived this long and people like it and it would do no harm? You obviously have never come across WP:AADD. Blueaster 17:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I just wanted to say that the comment on WP:BLP is one of the best throw-away lines I've heard recently. Thanks for making my day! :-) --3M163//Complete Geek 10:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The only real problem with this article is the criteria for unusualness, which (like inclusion of items in hundreds or thousands of other list articles) is handled adequately by editorial consensus. A consensus of editors applying common sense does not equal original research in the sense meant by the policy. (If it does, most of those list articles should be nominated as well.) Other than the inclusion criteria, the article is reasonably good in that it requires the subjects to be notable persons (including people famous for the specific manner of their death) with existing articles about them, and requires attribution of the facts involved. Alternatively, if the article is not deemed worth of keeping in article space (although reading this discussion I see no consensus for deletion), it could be moved to project space à la Wikipedia:List of unusual articles. --MCB 20:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a weak argument. Name one other list where "editorial consensus" on someething as subjective as "unusualness" preceeds inclusion of an item. Remember, "common sense" is not as common as you think. What if all the editors were from Japan, and a notable person died of a heart attack? Or there was a famous Maori who died of infection from female circumsicion? Or if someone from Latin America died from an accident related to Susto, a psychological disorder primarily seen in Latin America? North American editors would definately agree that it would be unusual, because it's unusual to them.
And about Wikipedia:list of unusual articles. If "Unusual deaths" is allowed to remain on the mainspace, then why don't we make a "List of unusual places", and a "list of unusual names", and a "List of unusal objects and inventions"? Those topics will never survive a week on article space, but they're just as arbitrary and POV and OR as this one. Blueaster 03:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If unusual is to subjective should the word be removed from every wikipedia article where it used? Tjc 22:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless attributed to someone else making the analysis, yes. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What? We're talking about unusualness as a criteria for inclusion in a list, not the word, "unusual", which may be very well be used objectively in description of many trends, views, and opinions. Blueaster 03:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unusual" is a subjective quality, not an objective one. What is unusual to you may not be to me.Chunky Rice 03:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Worms in his gentiles, definately not. Putrefication of his genitals, possibly. Slavlin 16:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. It was a rather odd spelling error that I corrected. bibliomaniac15 04:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • observation, from my POV at first, the arguments for delete outnumbered those for keep, and I think those were from people who frequent deletion discussions and are familiar with them... and now, there's a flood of keep votes from people who are attached to this article and just don't want to see it gone. Seriously.... look at how many people are basically arguing "I like it". Blueaster 03:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do like it; I realise that, but I'm willing merely to transwiki it, or even (if it's completely deleted) to have to store it on my own computer... I've just decided not to vote, and to see how the discussion plays out. --3M163//Complete Geek 07:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft. Pavel Vozenilek 08:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What the hell is the matter with having a list of deaths, mythological or unattributed or otherwise? If the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform and to engage the reader, this item worked for me. If the purpose is to be just another dry elitist compilation of things other people want you to know, then what's the point of this site in the first place? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.86.156 (talk • contribs).
There's nothing wrong with a list of deaths; see Lists of people by cause of death. At least some of the articles listed there are worth keeping. The problems with this article have been discussed above and relate to subjectivity, original research, and lack of inherent notability, among other things. Mike Christie (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a valuable article and has already been used as a sourse for other internet postings. To delete such a resource for hypertechnical reasons would be sillieness at it's worst. Doug O'Connell 05:40 EDT, 31 March 2007
    • I wonder if this article ends up being moved to "Wikipedia:List of articles detailing unusual deaths", if the original page could become a redirect to that Blueaster 17:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This artic;e is both interesting and informative whilst being slightly 'quirky'. Articles like this are what sets wikipedia apart from any book bound reference. Bass fishing physicist 00:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - interesting and encylopaedic. also well sourced +Hexagon1 (t) 09:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to see some policy reasons for keeping the article other than "I like it." At the very least WP:IAR as an acknowledgement that we'd be keeping this in contravention of policy.Chunky Rice 16:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to see some policy reasons for deleting this article. So far no such reasons have been presented (in the nom, or elsewhere).  Grue  16:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Keep - Content is related to the theme. Although improvements on the title might be needed. --Maverx (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trenny Lynn Gibson[edit]

Trenny Lynn Gibson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This one really bothers me, but I can't avoid the issue. It's one thing to say "nonnotable" about a minor league rapper who's just trying to promote his recent CD on Wikipedia. It's another thing to say "nonnotable" about a young girl who disappeared in the Great Smoky Mountains 30 years ago - especially when the article is 15 minutes old and was written by a good editor. Unless there's a basic assumption that all missing people are notable, I don't see a way to justify inclusion. YechielMan 03:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Give the article some time for someone to assert the girl's notability. Maybe there was a small media frenzy from some resultant missing pretty white girl syndrome. Blueaster 04:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as even though this is a bit Picnic at Hanging Rock, it doesn't seem notable that somebody (almost certainly) fell and died while hiking. No results on Google News Archive nor Google Books. The web results are all speculation-heavy amateur criminology sites. I'd even have trouble with inclusion if there were a body an a homicide ruling. Also, while I believe in being kind to new editors, all articles should have a reasonable basis for notability, and AFD offers up to five days for reasonable improvement.--Dhartung | Talk 04:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Personally, I would delete this sort of article even if the event is modern and there are national news stories. The "notoriety" lasts a few days and then is gone, unless it leads to new laws or some other long-lasting effect. And the person involved, the lost girl or boy, is usually less important than the generalized image of "The Lost Child". Brianyoumans 07:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was MERGE to Simon Sheppard (activist) Herostratus 16:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heretical (website)[edit]

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

The article's content is information that is in the Simon Sheppard article. It is meaning less to have two articles with the same info.You very nice place 01:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing debate: W (Web or internet) ◄Zahakiel► 15:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's OR and POV article. It should be removed unless there is another reliable site which supports its contents.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 17:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then redirect for the following reasons: (1) the article provides no proof that the website is notable, nor was I able to find (through a brief Google search) multiple independent, reliable sources that cover the website non-trivially; (2) the article reproduces largely reproduces content already contained at Simon Sheppard. I think a redirect from here to Simon Sheppard would be appropriate. However, given that the current content of this article is unsourced and may be controversial, I think it ought to be deleted (i.e., its history removed from public view) before it is redirected. -- Black Falcon 22:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 04:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • MERGE it with the Simon Sheppard (activist) article. That would put both articles in context and perhaps the sum of the two will form a better article.

--Ng.j 04:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect. It's the obvious solution. The website is not worth an article by itself, but it provides proper context to Sheppard's bio. YechielMan 04:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Re-direct not needed. Springnuts 20:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification I typed the wrong edit summary - please ignore the edit summary which should have read "merge". Springnuts 21:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caveworld[edit]

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

Hoax and/or not notable Ng.j 04:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'd almost say speedy, but there is no deadline. This is clearly made up - all relevant Google hits are to Wikipedia and its mirrors. YechielMan 04:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Tnomad 13:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Buck Mulligan and Vivian Darkbloom? Clearly a hoax. Deor 02:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Demeny[edit]

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

Suspected hoax. The list of references is impressive but I don't think any of them refer to Demeny, while at least some of the text has been plagiarised from here: [30] There are also no obvious Google results for anyone called George Demeny in the Revolt, which seems strange if he really was a top commander. Maybe someone who knows the history of this in detail should check it out? Moyabrit 15:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Check out SteveBaker he created the article, I found it doubtful that he created a hoax article as he is an established and hard working editor. --Daniel J. Leivick 16:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Important Note I did indeed create the article on Dec 26th 2006 - but only in response to an AfC request from User:Phas3d (as you can see, I clearly noted this in the very first entry to the edit history) The original AfC request (and my reponse to it) is here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2006-12-25#George_Demeny_.28Demene.29. I noted at the time that the list of references appeared to be copy/pasted and requested that the submitter fix that ASAP. I regret that I do not recall what background checks I did to ensure that the article was 'for real' - but I'm usually fairly sceptical so I probably checked something. In retrospect, it is a little unlikely that User:Phas3d would produce such a well-referenced article as his/her very first contribution...he/she hasn't produced anything else after that. At any rate, I have no personal attachment to the article - I don't really care whether it stays or goes. My profuse apologies if I allowed junk into the Encyclopedia - that was most certainly not my goal! SteveBaker 17:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the hoax theory is quite likely. There is a French artist under that name on Google, but he does not appear to have any commonability with this article. Also, I note that there are no Hungarian entries under that name (strange for a Hungarian Restitance Leader). Even the name doesn't sound Hungarian. HagenUK 20:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 04:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked for twenty minutes and found no ref with connection between this person and Hungary. --killing sparrows 05:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Remember, Hungarian names are typically written family name first - a Google search on "Demeny George" does bring up a few hits, albeit mostly from Wikipedia mirror sites - none appear to relate to this character. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. For one thing, the first half at least is a direct copy from here. Also, a main thrust of the article is contained in this assertion: "The Hague Conventions and the Geneva Conventions do not specifically define the terminology of "the occupying power," and many researchers are confused about this aspect. In fact the conqueror is the occupying power." But is this true? Is the conqueror "in fact" the occupying power? Or is this just something the author of the article (lifting from the document at the above link) are asserting? No proof is offered that this is codified in the rules of war (in fact, the opposite is stated ("The... Conventions do not specifically define the terminology..."). I have to accept the arguments of the commentors that this a neologism and (partly) an opinion piece. Herostratus 16:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proxy occupation[edit]

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

Non-notable, nothing that wouldn't be covered under military occupation, poorly sourced. Ngchen 04:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Poorly sourced means it needs to be sourced, not that it should be deleted. Notability doesn't seem to be an issue here; it is referencing an actual type of military occupation, and remember: Wiki is not paper. After reading the article myself, I can agree that that what it is trying to describe it fails spectarularly at. Nevertheless, it is in fact describing an actual condition specified by current laws of war, and deserves space in the wikipedia. It should definitely be heavily rewritten, both for ease of understanding and more sources. But it should not be deleted. — Eric Herboso 21:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-existent, neologism. Pavel Vozenilek 08:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect, doesn't seem to be used much, no Google Books or Google Scholar hits to speak of, poorly cited seems to be due mostly to rare usage. Smmurphy(Talk) 05:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Shimeru 18:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Farah (author)[edit]

George Farah (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person that fails to satisfy WP:BIO. No WP:RS cited means no WP:V for even the scant claims made. Valrith 20:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No assertion of notability. It's hard to claim to claim someone's a notable author if you don't mention the books/articles they've written. Caknuck 21:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 04:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cincinnati Fan[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence of notability FisherQueen (Talk) 21:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak keep. Needs outside sources, reads a bit like an official corporate history, but still notable enough manly due to longevity. Realkyhick 21:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They make fans. So do other non-notable companies. Article written by single purpose account Nibbler2 (talk · contribs). Fails WP:CORP & WP:NOT. Caknuck 21:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 04:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Google search for company's name and year of establishment and founder's name turns up exactly 2 hits - one of which is this article. [31] Apparently no one has bothered to write about this company despite its age, so it fails WP:CORP by lacking multiple independent sources. Resurgent insurgent 06:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above comment. DTD(speak)
  • Delete. Interesting history about this company (clever, a dust vacuum that has only been revised twice!), but WP:CORP comes to mind here, regretfully. If there are sources, my mind can be changed - no prejudice to recreation as appropriate. --Dennisthe2 20:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Kennedy[edit]

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

I suspect it's a hoax. It's written by a new user, the books that "Don Kennedy" has written simply do not exist, and I was not able to substantiate the claims about his college basketball career either. YechielMan 04:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If not a hoax it is about a person with questionable notability. ArchStanton 11:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can confirm that it is a hoax, brought about by fans on KU and Texas A&M basketball message boards. (ESkog)(Talk) 11:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 19:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Farmer[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Not notable. An undistinguished author published by an undistinguished publisher. His only apparent claim to legitimacy seems to be a PhD from Madison University (not to be confused with similiar sounding good schools), which is a diploma mill. Article has no value and no info about him. Arbustoo 04:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eclecticcollector (talk • contribs)
    • Comment I moved a long section added by a new user (first and only ever edit made here) to the talk as it does conform to the normal AFD policy. To view it see this talk page. Arbustoo 01:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable; article perhaps created as an advertisement.--John Foxe 14:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notability Suriel1981 00:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I didn't create the page as an advertisement. Doreen Virtue's article mentioned her husband who is an author in his own right and so I linked the two. Hay House isn't an "undistinguished" publisher either- I don't know where you got that from Naysie 02:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Hay House" is undistinguished. It is not a publisher that requires evidence, research, or academically reviewed material. It publishes material, which goes against academic research. It's best known author is Sylvia Browne.Arbustoo 02:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep bio -- this person represents a popular culture, even if it's alternative. Don't feel it's an advertisement but could use more information. Johelia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johelia (talk • contribs)
    • Comment This is Johelia's first and only ever edit. Arbustoo 20:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO DELETE: actually Louise Hay would be Hay House's best known author, but that beng said, Doreen Virtue and Esther And Jerry Hicks are popular authors too. '"Hay House" is undistinguished. It is not a publisher that requires evidence, research, or academically reviewed material. It publishes material, which goes against academic research.' [Arbustoo] - this can be disputed. Kali — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalimajik (talk • contribs)
    • Comment This is Kalimajik's first and only ever edit. Also Kalimajik, feel free to provide scientific evidence for your claims. Such proof would win the nobel prize and we would have to throw everything we known about science out the window. Good luck with that. Arbustoo 20:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to point out that no changes have been made to the page. No one has asserted how this person meets WP:BIO and the only one who want to keep are three user accounts whose only edits have been on this voting page. I think this should be deleted even more so. Seems like vanity. Arbustoo 20:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dawkins in popular culture[edit]

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

A mix of Dawkins's TV appearances (popular culture?), along with a few other references. Non notable, his 2 TV appearances can be mentioned in his main article along with anything else that's important, this doesn't need a seperate article. Plasticbottle 04:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I see there has been a long discussion (Talk:Richard Dawkins#South Park again) regarding trivia in the main article. The consensus appears to be that editors don't want trivia in Dawkins's article so they sent it off into its own article, the clearest explanation was "we decided to create the Dawkins in pop culture article for the unencyclopedic stuff." That says it all really, it seems to be the reason behind most of these "In popular culture" lists. Croxley 06:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopedic stuff doesn't belong anywhere on this website. Giving it its own article doesn't make it more encyclopedic. Resurgent insurgent 06:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Croxley and Resurgent Insurgent.Dr bab 08:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Tnomad 13:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge selectively to Richard Dawkins, from which this was apparently forked. My understanding is that Dawkins's chief claim to fame comes chiefly from having written a number of popular science books in which he took stands on social issues involving religion, nature versus nurture, and so forth. That he was apparently satirized on South Park surely belongs in his article in chief. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it's claimed that "merger is not an option", obviously this should be kept. Apparently some editors of the article in chief believe that the solemnity of their subject is sullied by these details of his public career. Whatever else the vague "policy" WP:NOT#IINFO might mean — your guess is as good as mine, but it nowhere defines "indiscriminate information" or "trivia", much less provide for their removal — it surely must not become a tool to ghettoize and then remove valid information about public figures like Dawkins. Wikipedia is not censored, and this misuse of a vague heading about what might be "indiscriminate information" would become just that if this were to be deleted. - Smerdis of Tlön 22:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merger is an option, but of WP:PM, not of WP:AFD. As I said, such a merger can be proposed at Talk:Richard Dawkins, but it cannot be forced by the outcome of this AFD. That's all. Also, if this article does get deleted and you succeed in getting consensus for a merger later, an admin can undelete this and turn it into a redirect, which would give you access to the page history for merging. That's rather immaterial to the discussion here, but I offer it in case the suggestion becomes useful to you later. — coelacan — 22:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although Dawkins might notable in his field, he has not achieved sufficient widespread notability to justify such an article. (Unlike, say, Stephen Hawking). 23skidoo 17:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not merge; merger is not an AFD option. Either a keep or a delete is fine with me (article creator), but this AFD has been proposed apparently may be interpreted by some as a merger: the nom says "his 2 TV appearances can be mentioned in his main article along with anything else that's important". Merger is an editorial decision and is not an AFD result. Those of you who want the content merged will have to take that issue up at Talk:Richard Dawkins; you cannot have the merger simply as a result of this AFD. AFD is not WP:PM. — coelacan — 19:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where did I say anything about a merger? Don't try and alter the meaning of my nomination in order to discredit it - I said his 2 TV appearances CAN be mentioned in his main article. Not should be mentioned. It was to prevent anyone saying "keep" because they don't want to lose these details. You are just attempting a poor straw man argument, but it won't work. In case anyone else became confused like Coelacan, my nomination was/is to Delete. Delete the whole thing, I have no interest in what you do to the Richard Dawkins article, just don't create any more articles like this. Plasticbottle 00:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - why so aggressive? All he said was that he is opposed to merging and prefers the material be either deleted entirely or left in a separate article. He didn't accuse anyone in particular of favouring merging; it's simply an obvious possibility that he felt moved to comment on. (read "she" thoughout if Coelacan happens to be female.) Metamagician3000 03:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Coelacan did accuse me of favouring merging quite clearly; this AFD has been proposed apparently as a merger. I wasn't being aggressive, I was being assertive to make sure there was no possible doubt over my original nomination. Plasticbottle 03:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was wrong on that point. Conceded and corrected; apologises for my error. He did say it was proposed as a merger. All the same, your language was not merely assertive. In talking about attempts to "alter the meaning", and to try "to discredit it" you were assuming ulterior motives, with no real foundation for doing so. That is quite aggressive language that you used, and hardly in keeping with the requirement to assume good faith. Metamagician3000 03:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Plasticbottle, I'm sorry if it seemed I was trying to discredit you, this was not at all my intention. Your nomination is within the sphere of AFD. It did, however, read to some (myself included) like it carried along with it a merge proposal. Above, for example, Smerdis of Tlön has changed their !vote to keep after I made it clear that a delete result here would not necessarily result in the information being included at Richard Dawkins. So it's probably good that I made that clear, at least from that editor's perspective. As to your proposal to delete, I do not oppose it. I have said keep or delete is fine; I am abstaining from that question. I am glad that you have also now made it clear that there is no merge proposal from you. I did misread your intention somewhat, but I think it's all clear now and I apologize for amplifying my misunderstanding. — coelacan — 03:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The popular culture additions were felt to be unencyclopedic when they were brought up on the main Dawkins page, and they don't become better simply by having them on their own page. Nothing there is notable enough to be in the main Dawkins entry. Edhubbard 19:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.
  1. Find a site with a database of Dawkins in popular culture;
  2. Include a sentence stating "Dawkins has been featured in popular culture on numerous occasions....[1]"
  3. Ref or external link that site
  • — Deckiller 01:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleting will just bring this rubbish back onto the main article, creating edit wars, and those who are voting for deletion will not be the ones who have to deal with it. -- Michael Johnson 11:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Content not fit for an article. Madhava 1947 (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That is actually not a possible outcome of this AFD. If you want content merged, you can propose this at Talk:Richard Dawkins or WP:PM — coelacan — 21:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see a parallel with Stephen_Hawking_in_popular_culture (Hawking's lack of mobility certainly hasn't stopped him appearing in a huge array of programs !). Dawkin is notable and the (few) programs listed are from non-trivial sources. Ttiotsw 19:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apologies in advance to those who disagree: this debate appears fairly high temperature; please do not bite: No need for this article; imo material should be in Wikipedia and should be on the main RD article. Whether that is done by a formal merge, or simply by addition to the main article is perhaps merely technical. Springnuts 20:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a consensus of editors on Richard Dawkins that this material does not belong there. Therefore editors should not vote for deletion in the belief that merger is an option. -- Michael Johnson 22:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response In the discussion pages on Richard Dawkins there are two relevant sections and a debate, but not, as I read it, a consensus. Points such as that made by Smerdis of Tlön below are not universally dismissed. Springnuts 21:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as a regular at the main Dawkins article, I'd most certainly say there is a consensus not to include trivia. If someone disagrees with this consensus, please feel free to (a) read the talk archives and (b) try to convince us that some of the material is important enough to be in the article. Mikker (...) 11:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever the decision, for the love of God do not merge it back. These articles are created to keep this kind of contents out of the main text, then the seriously minded maintainers won't get burned out. I would vote keep as usual but I got tired that so many people do not see how easily could Wikipedia get worse by sticking with the letter against the spirit. Pavel Vozenilek 08:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The problem is that there are parts of this article — at least, the use as a central character of two episodes of the long running and (in)famous cartoon South Park — that are noteworthy in the highest degree and ought to be in the article in chief. Indeed, they ought to be there even if a separate "in popular culture" article is kept. Unfortunately, putting the words "in popular culture" in an article's title seems to be like waving a red flag at a bull, certain to attract unwanted attention. Since neither Dr. Dawkins nor some of his admirers were much pleased with his treatment on the cartoon. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is hard to see in what way a cartoon series is "noteworthy in the highest degree". Are we to use cartoons as a source on Wikipedia? Consulting Disney when writing natural histories of mice or deer, perhaps? I think it fair to say there are two groups of editors, those who edit the article and don't want trivia, and those who want to add trivia but do not otherwise edit the article. --Michael Johnson 06:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with Uncyclopedia. From WP:BLP:
    • "Biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections. Relevant notable sourced claims should be woven into the article."
    • "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability"
Delete this nonsense --Merzul 17:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canyon Creek Elementary School[edit]

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

Contested prod, no assertion of notability, elementary schools are generally not notable, thus delete unless notability is established. Iamunknown 05:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedied as A7, does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.. Sarah 11:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Anderson (Australian Rules Footballer & Academic)[edit]

Scott Anderson (Australian Rules Footballer & Academic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject not notable enough to include on Wikipedia Biting mammal 06:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Clearly not notable enough as a AFL player and does not even state he is an academic. --Bduke 10:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 10:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as clearly failing biographical requirements. From the creators name also appears to be slightly autobiographical - Peripitus (Talk) 10:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Peripitus. John Vandenberg 10:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable junior AFL footballer, and looks autobiographical. --Canley 21:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete surely a joke.--Mattinbgn/ talk 22:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn junior footballerGarrie 23:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Junior footballer whose article indicates no notability. How a 17-year-old can be considered as an academic is beyond me unless going to school is considered as academic credentials?

Capitalistroadster 02:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "one of the greatest players of all time. Anderson is currently playing for Parkdale Vultures AFC U/19's side in the VAFA". Mmhmm. Delete. Lankiveil 09:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete -- unreferenced vanity peice. -- Longhair\talk 13:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow. Why would you waste your time talking about this article? Surely you have something better to do? There is no such thing as a junior AFL football and, yes you can become an academic at school if you achieve beyond outstanding results and receive awards -- Bduke 14:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ando1017 (talk • contribs) Bduke's signature on this message was forged by User:Ando1017.[32] Sarah 11:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. The Russian translation of his name is a good touch though. --Roisterer 09:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clog foot[edit]

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

This page is marked merge to Trench foot. I would support thismerge, but Clog Foot contains absolutely no sources or means of verification. It has been marked orphaned since Sept 2006. Google for Clog Foot turns up wikimirrors and some dude trying to impress a girl.
DELETE unsourced unverifiable information. Replace with REDIRECT to Trench foot ZayZayEM 06:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S-TEC Corporation[edit]

S-TEC Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unable to find any WP:RS that indicate that this company passes WP:CORP. Leuko 21:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created to provide information on S-TEC which is a well known entity in General Aviation. The only previous article with mention of S-TEC was about the Daewoo S-TEC engine. The parent company, Meggitt has an article in Wikipedia. I feel it is appropriate to create this article to demonstrate that there is more than just an engine called S-TEC. Handment 21:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Merge It is possible to include this information as a subheading of Meggitt. Handment 21:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I have added a reference from an independent journal, Aviation Consumer, which confirms S-TEC's dominant market position. -- Black Falcon 23:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 06:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to the journal source noted above, I have added a news source, bringing the total to 4. -- Black Falcon 07:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Two of the 4 are independent and substantial.DGG 04:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One non-independent reference is used to site where the company is located. The company asserts its location is as published, why would this be disputed? [33] is one link of hundreds from the FAA that state the company's location (with more unrleated material). The other non-independent link is to support that the company is a part of the bigger company. Both company's websites make this claim. Why should this be disputed? Neither reference could be deemed independent.63.64.214.151 14:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William E. Bennett[edit]

William E. Bennett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject is non-notable per WP:PROF Mwelch 09:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Notability seems to be that he was elected to a slngle term on a local school board and then was a long-time respected professor. Admittedly was notable within the small town in which he university is located that his death was mentioned in the local paper and notable enough within his university that his death was mentioned in that university's alumni newsletter. Nonetheless, I'm not sure such local notability truly satisfies WP:N. Article says he "published articles" but gives no indication of what articles/are they well know/etc. Note that the last two items listed as "References" are not actually references to Bennett at all. One is a reference to a different person, who is quoted in the article. The other is a reference to Bennett's church. Neither of these "references" mentions Bennett himself in any way. Mwelch 09:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 13:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established, fails WP:PROF by a wide margin, per nom. Pete.Hurd 13:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Reads like an obituary. Of no widespread interest. Irene Ringworm 16:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It reads like an obituary because it was largely copied from the obituary. I found one academic article from the mid-70s, in Southern Review, and that's about it. I agree that WP:PROF is not met. Brianyoumans 18:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as copyvio (WP:CSD general critera #12). Too similar to the obit. —David Eppstein 04:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I think as a general reule any article ending with details of the funeral and the survivors can be presumed to be a copyvio from the obit, or at least composed carelessly enough for the sources to be looked at very acutely.DGG 04:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article doesn't need deleted, it just needs work. The bulk of the man's published work was likely pre-Internet, so let's not jump to conclusions and assume he was nobody just because Google doesn't immediately turn up a ton of relevant citations. The article does read like an obit and needs to be rewritten. Also, the quote about being missed by his "smoking buddies" was vandalism and has been removed. --66.38.55.37 01:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate WrestleZone Tournament[edit]

Ultimate WrestleZone Tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable website poll. Proposed deletion removed, so I'm placing it under AFD.  Oakster  Talk  09:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongest Possible Delete It's just a poll on a website. It's clearly being used as an advertisement. TJ Spyke 23:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I'll have to give the creator the benefit of the doubt and assume s/he is simply a statistician because I would have some strong words for any fansite editor putting material like this on Wikipedia Suriel1981 02:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. MarcK 08:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um WHAT? What in the hell is wrong with you people?>!?! It's just a bracket for a tournament that a very reputable wrestling website is doing. It's simply for people to get a visual feel of how the tournament is going. Frankly I could careless if it gets deleted. The tournament is almost over. Also, an explanation of the non-notable poll crap would be nice. The notice of deletion needs work. You need to explain more about WHY an article has been nominated. Also please show me where it says I can't have something like this up. MystiKalLimitz02 2:23, 31 March 2007
  • Comment To be fair here, I can see from your user contribution history that you've visited Wikipedia:Introduction. On the "Learn More About Editing" page there it advises you to visit WP:5P and WP:NOT to check out policies. The following are reasons why the this article should be deleted WP:NOT#SOAP point 2; WP:NOT#IINFO point 5; and WP:N "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." Suriel1981 13:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, is there any basis for your statement of the website's reputation? Suriel1981 13:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong As for those points, this is why they're wrong about my article. WP:NOT#SOAP point 2 is about self-promotion. With this article, there is no self-promotion. I had nothing to do with the setting up of this tournament and had nothing to do with the results. I just posted them for the people who created it so they could have a visual feel of what was going on in the tournament. As for WP:NOT#IINFO point 5; It does have merrit but in my defense, I'm a college student who has very little time and I did plan on updating the article to have more stuff about the website it came from. I just needed a little more time than what you guys seem to want to give. And as for the last thing about the notability. I think that's very subjective. It's all in what the user thinks is important. My article is non-biased. There isn't just one person deciding who wins what. I know I need to add more stuff to make it Wikipedia friendly and if given that chance I will. I didn't know a tournament would cause such fuss. It's not like I'm one of those guys editing other peoples stuff about important things and adding in immature sexual references to stuff.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cassie Alsfeld[edit]

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

Person does not meet Wikipedia criteria for notability. Dcflyer 10:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Subject is a non-notable college student in a university election. -- Dcflyer 10:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep as major improvements made to ensure compliance of verifiability. - Mailer Diablo 15:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rajan Sankaran[edit]

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

Despite confident assertions to the contrary in the last AfD, the article still doesn't assert notability, and no evidence for his notability has ever been provided. Indeed, it's practically at speedy delete level at the moment because of this. Certainly, if there's actual evidence that fits WP:RS and so on that shows he's notable, and we can use them to improve the article, he shouldn't be deleted, but no such evidence exists in the article, and, even in the last AfD, none was ever provided.

Allow me to summarise the current article, because it might help anyone objecting to the deletion see why it needs improved:

Rajan Sankaran is educated as a homeopath, and has a business he inherited from his father. He developed a few theories about homeopathy, and self-publishes books [34] (note the company site is a subpage of his website) and has a computer program for sale [35]. He has learned an effective way to get information from patients - just like every new practitioner of any form of medicine, conventional or alternative, does after a time.

If there's more about him that makes him unambiguously notable, please, please, add it to the article. Because the current article is not showing it. Adam Cuerden talk 06:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE FROM NOMINATOR: Since this nomination (and after most of the votes), Abridged has improved the article significantly. The deletes and comments will need judged to see if they still apply. Adam Cuerden talk 19:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Seems notable. Thanks RaveenS 13:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It had its chance to improve since the last AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom's reasoning. An issue was raised on AN/I about another homeopath - can we trust pseudoscientific references when a person's notability is only demonstrated by references within that area? I'm not sure present notability guidelines address this problem. However, this is a clear delete - nearly all sources come straight from the author as self-publications. Skinwalker 15:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination --Roswell native 03:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not reliable soruces--Sefringle 04:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Weak keep To determine notability among homeopaths, we judge in comparison with other homeopaths, just like all similar fields. We are not judging his medical credentials or his scientific knowledge. If he publishes more books than the others, and they take the books seriously enough to review them, then he's N. I don't think books of the sort he seems to be writing would earn him a positive reputation among ordinary physicians, but each group is entitled to their own standards.DGG 04:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't suppose you have links to reviews? Adam Cuerden talk 22:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Reviews are used as references now, which is what I wanted 'em for anyway. Adam Cuerden talk 01:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs work. Give it a chance. (and by the way, What's up with deletion of pages on homeopaths? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Vithoulkas (Second nomination) [36] I find this a bit strange and unexpected in an inclusive project like Wikipedia) The bottom line, however, is that this case meets criteria for notability described in Wikipedia:Notability (people)#special cases under "creative professionals: scientists, academics, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals":
  • The person has received notable awards or honors--NO
  • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors--YES
  • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique--YES, new miasms and kingdoms analysis
  • The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work (YES, see bibiolography) which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews (YES--many book reviews cited in the ext links section. All of his books have been reviewed in major homeopathic journals). Abridged 19:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arr, just needs massive improvement, then? Adam Cuerden talk 19:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Majorly (o rly?) 10:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep A very notable homeopath. His books are widely distributed and influential[37]. He lectures to sold-out audiences around the world. He is frequently cited in other publications in his field. His writings have been incorporated into the main homeopathic databases. Note that he's far more notable than Anthony Campbell, a virtually unknown critic of homeopathy that Adam Cuerden, Skinwalker and others have supported in an AFD. It is especially fascinating that the points they used to support Campbell (i.e. editor of a homeopathic journal, prominent member of an association, author of a number of books) are, in Sankaran's case not given any validity. The only discernible difference between the two (other than Sankaran being obviously more well-known and respected) is that one has criticized homeopathy and one has promoted it. There has been an obvious effort to remove articles about extremely well-known and well-regarded homeopaths (the AFD for George Vithoulkas was a striking, even breathtaking example) and to promote articles of insignificant critics. --Lee Hunter 16:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. DGG has a good point in that we probably should be comparing notability to the notability of others in the field. But this begs the question then: despite insistence otherwise, would this actually make notability subjective? --Dennisthe2 18:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep following improvements to article. Notability needs to be assessed as against other homeopaths, not the medical profession generally. This person appears sufficiently notable in that field. WjBscribe 20:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Lee, there seems to be a systemic predilection to homeopathy.Bakaman 17:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Creation of a disambiguation page. -- lucasbfr talk 17:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Social Gaming[edit]

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

contested prod. This article was originally an advert for a LAN center. The mention of the center was removed with the prod, but now it only looks like an unsourced article consisting of original research. The article is orphaned -- lucasbfr talk 10:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment good job. I think it looks good now. I say that this could probably be closed if an Admin sees it and is ok with the way it looks now. Can't see any controversy with it and it seems like a likely search phrase for any of the ones now listed. Slavlin 02:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It can probably be speedy closed since the original nomination reason no longer applies. Koweja 02:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe an AFD can only be speedy kept if there are no votes for deletion and the nominator has withdrawn his nomination. —Mitaphane ?|! 02:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Remember that these are not decided by headcount/votes. There is no official policy I am aware of for keeping a discussion open just because, espcially when the circumstances have changed. Slavlin 16:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig -- Sounds like a plan! MrMacMan 22:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fine with me, my problem was about the original article, this one has nothing to do with the previous one. I will go bold and speedy close the AfD. -- lucasbfr talk 17:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Kiron Lenses. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kino precision[edit]

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

This seems like nonsense or advertising, it is also biased as it claims that this company is "legendary" without providing any other information. The format of this page is a disaster, the writer seems to need some help if this is a serious article. Unfortunately, I think that even with the proper formatting it will be very difficult to make this article seem notable. I vote to delete. Vaniac 11:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, potentially db as spam or empty.Cantras 18:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination was incomplete. Listed now. --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator would like to suggest a merge between Kino precision and Kiron Lenses rather than a deletion of this article.
  • Merge to Kiron Lenses and redirect It seems backwards to list a company under one of the brand names that went on its products but that can be addressed later. Fg2 01:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Kiron lenses. Herostratus 16:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amaya (TV series character)[edit]

Amaya (TV series character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Insufficently notable TV characters. No assertion of real world context or notability with respect to the show itself. Unsourced. Contested prod. MER-C 10:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Do Not Want JuJube 11:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WP:FICTION the subject does not warrant a separate article from the main TV series. WP:FICTION says that it can have an article only if encyclopedic treatment (as outlined at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)) on the character causes the main TV series article on the work itself to become long. These articles only re-hash plot information with only one line of out-of-world context. That, and no secondary sources are establishing notability. --maclean 17:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Colquhoun[edit]

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

totally non-notable, student who runs an amateur football team Placidcasual345 11:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Career to Remember (Recess episode)[edit]

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

Nothing here indicates notability. There has been ample opportunity to establish it but no one has. Postcard Cathy 12:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - article contains nothing more than what could be inferred from the title. So tagged. MER-C 12:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Great State Fair[edit]

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

As with many other articles for this show, notability has not been established. Postcard Cathy 12:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Hastings (canadian Public Health physician)[edit]

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

Strong keep because of his contributions to public health. Besides, have to wonder about an AfD where nominator doesn't list reasons why he/she nominated the article for deletion! Postcard Cathy 14:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep My standard of notability is lower for people who lived before the Internet age; he certainly seems to have been a public figure. By the way, I redirected the article to its correct title, and will move the AFD box. YechielMan 16:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added a reference to him from the Canadian Encyclopedia. --Eastmain 16:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus whatsoever. It would seem to be a plausible search term, whether or not it is an accurate description of what happened. Redirecting to one or the other article is not an option, since both have been called by this title. Cúchullain t/c 23:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish genocide[edit]

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

This is a Dab page, bad faithly named,there are two links in the page ehich all of them are not related with the name. Must.T C 18:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator.Must.T C 12:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inappropriate usage of words. Artaxiad 19:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ditto above. Use of this as a dab page is really a stretch. Can I create a dab at "Dumb people" and say "well, it can refer to Mr. X, Mr. Y or Mrs. Z"? There was an actual article of two paragraphs at "Kurdish Genocide", which basically resulted in a delete after an AfD three months ago, this redirect was created four days after the AfD was closed by the creator of that article. Dabs are supposed to be for non-controversial stuff, the page really has no content as the nominator said.. Baristarim 02:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Makalp denizTC 06:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Barış & Makalp E104421 14:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete It's not an article.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 05:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sourced for both usages. Turkish POV pushing again; reminds me of this case.--Domitius 06:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rhetoric and staw-man, please show one major news organization referring to the human rights of Kurds in Turkey as "Kurdish Genocide" - WP:OR, undue weight and most common name are all stacked up against this. Baristarim 21:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per norm --Rayis 09:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' notable and has/will be improved on sources by WikiProject Kurdistan soon. Ozgur Gerilla 11:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is sourced as an academic opinion for certain events, by two WP:INDY scholars. See the destination of the redirect at Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey#Genocide allegations, where the following sources are provided:
    1. Fernandes, Desmond (Winter 1998-1999). "The Kurdish Genocide in Turkey, 1924–1998". Armenian Forum 1 (No.4): 57-107.
    2. Filner, Bob (2004). "Congressional Record", The Kurdish Question in U.S. Foreign Policy: A Documentary Sourcebook by Lokman I. Meho. Praeger/Greenwood. ISBN 0-313-31435-7.
I can't help noticing that "American genocide" exists in two redirects: Native American genocide and American Indian genocide. NikoSilver 12:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those events are commonly known as "Native American genocide" or "American Indian genocide" and not as an "American genocide". -- Cat chi? 12:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're not proposing to rename to Native Kurdish Genocide are you? NikoSilver 12:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Depends. How is the term used academically? -- Cat chi? 13:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For how it is used academically check the two sources above. A book titled "Kurdish Genocide", and an author mentioning a "Kurdish cultural genocide". I also suspect that no one would seriously argue for RfD if there were an American genocide redirect. NikoSilver 14:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What did I say about not using the word genocide leisurely? Please do not mention Armenian genocide unless you can point out relevant and plausible way for a connection. -- Cat chi? 15:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You call three independent academic sources "leisurely"? Including Mark Levene? The Turkish pov-push in (their) Armenian Genocide is not "relevant and plausible way for connection" to the current Turkish (again) pov-push for (their, again) Kurdish Genocide? And to think there are books calling Anatolia "a modern Zone of Genocide"... Or did you mistype Armenian for American (which first you brought up as comparable)? Is there really a point when such lame arguments start to bring the feeling of shame, or is this hopeless? You also removed my citation and my quotes on false grounds. Where does this stop? NikoSilver 16:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I can. Wikipedia is to abide by WP:NPOV unlike academic sources. Unless a terminology is in widespread usage, it cannot and should not be a redirect. I have not seen an overwhelming usage of "Kurdish genocide" to refer to "Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey". Even if it is under overwhelming usage we avoid certain usages. Just like how Terrorist organization of Kurdistan Workers party or Turkish Cypriot Genocide is wrong to have as redirects. -- Cat chi? 17:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, nice subpage... (no comments). NikoSilver 12:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stay on topic. Your point? -- Cat chi? 12:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that I frankly detest organized POV push on most Turkish issues; the Armenian Genocide being a great example. I'm off the soapbox now. NikoSilver 12:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not Turkish (I do not claim to be from any nationality/ethnicity - though I have been "declared" Turkish as well as other nationalities/ethnicities). I detest vote-stacking. -- Cat chi? 13:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly Niko, you have no right to be talking about organised POV pushing... --A.Garnet 14:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly Alf, neither do any of you; and yes, I am not an elephant. NikoSilver 14:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd ask Yannismarou to type 'Kurdish genocide' in google and see what the majority of links point to. --A.Garnet 14:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. It is still much better known as an Al-anfal campaign. Any "Kurdish genocide" text does mention "Al-anfal campaign" (I haven't checked every url on the web) -- Cat chi? 15:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Inaccurate. The term also refers to the Dersim massacre. That is why I propose the redirect to this article.--Yannismarou 16:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WRONG - it refers nearly exclusively to Al-Anfal campaign, I invite all those keep voters to show even one major news organization referring to the human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey as "Kurdish Genocide" - WP:OR and undue weight are clearly at cause here. Baristarim 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not only the news organizations, Baris, that we are interested in. Have a look at Google Book and the relevant bibliography.--Yannismarou 09:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be accompanied by a clear and precise citation, normally written as a footnote, a Harvard reference, or an embedded link; other methods, including a direct description of the source in the article text, are also acceptable.
I do not think this is proper to be discussed here. Also, unless you enjoy blocks, I suggest you to avoid WP:NPA violations in the future. -- Cat chi? 16:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep' this phrase is in quite common usage even if some people disagree with the existence of a Kurdish Genocide. AlexiusComnenus 17:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting people commonly referance to human rights in Turkey as genocide? -- Cat chi? 19:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I invite all those keep voters to show even one major news organization referring to the human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey as "Kurdish Genocide" - WP:OR and undue weight are clearly at cause here. Baristarim 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Gets lots of google hits so it is common. --alidoostzadeh 18:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting people commonly referance to human rights in Turkey as genocide? -- Cat chi? 19:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I invite all those keep voters to show even one major news organization referring to the human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey as "Kurdish Genocide" - WP:OR and undue weight are clearly at cause here. Baristarim 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per NikoSilver. Also, as far as I know this was suggested once for deletion already and failed.   /FunkyFly.talk_  18:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Déjà vu, anyone? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 20:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Miskin 02:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I invite all those keep voters to show even one major news organization referring to the human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey as "Kurdish Genocide" - WP:OR and undue weight are clearly at cause here. Baristarim 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Are you guys voting as a 'revenge' for something in the past. Also, are we supposed to take the following one as a joke: "To vandalise and add Greek POV: This section lists articles that we dont really like. Please change them the way you want. Turkey, Istanbul, Turks, Turkish military." I cannot believe how you guys can agree to have a disambiguation page of a genocide with one of the items being Human rights in X. There should be a limit to things. denizTC 20:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually no, Deniz. The relevance in that article is the sourced genocide section. That section used to be an independent article called Kurdish Genocide (Turkey), but after a Turkish outburst it was merged into that article even though the relevant AFDs did not result in such a consensus (an unprecedented move, to my knowledge at least) and it was agreed that the redirects and/or a dab page should remain. This was later affirmed at this RFD which is how this disambiguation page came about. Concession after concession have been made and those people with "sympathetic tendencies towards Turkish nationalist views" on the issue, but they keep coming back for more.--Domitius 21:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Funny that the first AfD was proposed by an administrator who is English, not Turkish.. Take the rhetoric somewhere else please. Baristarim 21:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • As far as I know, a non-Greek non-Turk created this article, which you hastily tried to eliminate. Now nationality is suddenly important to you again, how quaint.--Domitius 21:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Aha. Not relevant to this AfD, so please stop Trolling. When I put it up for AfD, I honestly didn't do it out of such considerations, I honestly thought that it was a Fork and the title was OR. I said in my nom "merfe (if possible) any meaningful content to Cyprus dispute". I also proposed another AfD that day. I am trying to make Wikipedia the most academic as possible, it has nothing to do with "elimination". Again, please stop trolling, your comments in all these pages is nothing but trolling, with lame rhetoric "TR POV-pushing", "we have seen this before". Stick to the topic and adress the issues with regards to wiki policies. Baristarim 21:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would like the closing administrator to take a look at the AfD of "Kurdish Genocide" [38] - I think that it is shameful that so many Greek editors are showing up one after another in some sort of a pie-throwing contest. I completely second what Deniz said above. Closing administrator should also note that the real deal behind this is a debate going on at Pontic Greek Genocide which has been going on for months. Come on guys, we have been over this and I felt that we had gone past this already, what is going on? Baristarim 21:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually the relevance of Greek opinion on Kurdish issues is well-known. Hell, Ocalan was actually hiding in the Greek Embassy in Kenya when he was caught. Cooking up conspiracy theories to discredit large numbers of opinions is more shameful in my humble opinion.--Domitius 21:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Conspiracy theory? Vote-stacking was proven in that AfD - as I said, to keep this AfD focused, it was only a note to the closing admin to check the AfD of the article "KG" (this one was created afterwards, and as such this AfD is the first one for the one with the small "g") Baristarim 21:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is truly shameful is the suggestion that Greek editors should not exercise their right to vote on any article they see fit. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 21:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any editor of any nationality can edit here. Anyway, the (ir)relevancy of Greeks is not important. I think you guys should not vote with anything other than the article in your mind. Please once again take a look what you are voting for, a disambiguation page for Kurdish genocide with one of the items being Human rights of Kurdish people in X. denizTC 22:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit-conflict) Of course you can vote - but Domitius's suggestion and implication in his vote is also shameful, trying to discredit the Turkish users with words like "TR POV-pushing" and "we have seen this before", when the original AfD was proposed by an admin who is British. As I said, vote along - but I would like the closing administrator to take a look at the vote-stacking that was done in the last AfD and the debate at the PGG article. I invite any of the keep voters to show a press release from any major news organization or et al which refer to the human rights of Kurds in Turkey as "Kurdish genocide" - if not, it is WP:OR and undue weight.. Baristarim 21:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per
  • ISBN 1564321088 A Human rights watch, New York, 1993,
  • "On the “Little Matter” of the Kurdish Genocide in Turkey, 1924-2001’October 2001, p. 45-60" and
  • "2007 - Perspectives on the Armenian, Assyrian, Pontic Greek and Kurdish Genocides" (Stockholm, Apec Press),
  • Desmond Fernandes “The Kurdish Genocide in Turkey”.

Im sure the article will get a lot of attention if let be and thus improvement, but that is not a reason to delete it. Using euphemistic words is semantic games and POV and usually the intend of the aggressors. Sensorhip and silencing is not what wikipedia is about, otherwise it would not be open to the public. Aristovoul0s 11:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But being a serious encyclopedia is. There are no "agressors" Aristo, as I have stated before, the original AfD was proposed by an admin who is British, not Turkish. That report you have just cited was the only one present in the article to begin with, and this was discussed before - it is not about censorship, but it is also making sure that Wikipedia is not a platform to propogate minority opinions. WP:OR, Undue weight and most common name are definitely applicable in this case. I have asked all of the keep voters to show even one major news media release calling the human rights of Kurds in Turkey as "Kurdish genocide", and it has yet to happen. And nobody is fooling anyone Aristo, the only reason why there is such a debate here and why certain editors are interested here are because of the debate at Pontic Greek Genocide, thus my comment above to the administrator about this activity bordering on disruption and the turning of Wikipedia to a national battleground. Again, it is really not cool people. How many Turkish editors show up at Greece-related AfDs and consistently vote in a way that would be perceived as "getting one over the Turks"? Come on, I had really thought that we were past this between TR-GR editors in Wikipedia.. Baristarim 14:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Baris, I really don't agree with the logic that it is not "cool" if Greek users vote here, and that Greeks are "getting over the Turks". I think we already had that discussion, and I really don't think it helps reopening it. I believe that we should focus on arguments and on the dab itself, which I see was also a subject of discussion here. Therefore, both the article's AfD and the dab's RfD have a long history where not only Greeks and Turks but other nationalities' users have been involved. Thanks!--Yannismarou 15:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you are right. Point well taken. Baristarim 16:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is merely a disambiguation page at present, and can usefully remain such. I express no view as to whether the Turkish-Kurdish civil war was (or involved) genocide. If there are other alleged genoicides against the Kurds. they can of course be added. Peterkingiron 21:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But by having Human rights of Kurds in Turkey in that disambiguation page, we are asserting that "Human Rights of Kurds in Turkey" is a "Kurdish genocide". That does not make sense, I guess what is meant is that there was a genocide against Kurdish people in Turkey. So there is an assertion about that. Also is this any different than making disambiguation pages "X genocide" with items like Human rights of X in Y, where X can be Indian, aborigines/natives in Y, many peoples in Africa and Americas, Y, you name it, US, UK, France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, etc? Do we have such disambiguation pages? Why do we have this? I am not saying that Kurdish people have had no problems in Turkey, but they had presidents, prime ministers, many ministers, many many MPs (probably overrepresented) in Turkey, as well. This is not true in the cases I just mentioned. The problems stemmed in earlier years because of the abolishment of caliphacy and sultanate. Nowadays, it's because of Kenan Evren junta and Turkey-PKK conflict, and also the prevalent feudalism in the region. I don't know much about Anfal campaign, I cannot state whether it can be called a genocide or not. Currently we have basically only Desmond Fernandes who calls what happneded in Turkey a genocide. Unfortunately he does not have a Wiki-article yet. A Google search shows us that "Desmond Fernandes is the Coordinator of the Institute of Tourism and Development Studies, De Montfort University, Bedford, England"
I checked the four items Aristovoulos listed above, the last three are all works of Desmond Fernandes. The first one is about Iraq. denizTC 22:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you again. I just found this on [39], it is relevant:
About Desmond Fernandes: Desmond Fernandes is the author of ‘The Kurdish Genocide in Turkey’ (which is to be published in 2007 by Apec Press, Stockholm) and has written a number of articles on genocide, Turkish state terror, tourism and the ‘Kurdish Question’. He was a Senior Lecturer in Human Geography at De Montfort University in Bedford from 1994 to 2006, specialising in Genocide Studies, Sustainable Development, Globalisation and Imperialism. He is currently a member of the Consortium for Research on Terrorology and Political Violence (CRTPV). CRTPV is a consortium of academics operating under the auspices of NASPIR (The Network of Activist Scholars of Politics and International Relations) and the Public Interest Research Network (PIRN) on issues relating to the ‘War on Terror’.
Apparently there is only one scholar in the whole world calling it a genocide, and he calls it a cultural genocide. denizTC 22:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Complete BS, this is a soapbox article, go to Turkish Republican Library (TBMM Kutuphanesi) and see primary, PRIMARY documents. Any person dying in Turkey is -for some reason- classified as genocide by western scholars. Actually, only 2 scholars just say that Turks killed kurds while the World Genocide Foundation (or whatever) does not recognize this at all. Korrybean 02:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Clearly there is consensus that there was genocide under Saddam, but I'm not sure if it is appropriate to link Turkey to this. Turkey denies existence of Kurds (calling them Mountain Turks), but unless mainstream sources connect Turkey to actual genocide, it is inappropriate. Nevertheless the title is most often used in connection with atrocities committed by the Saddam regime, so a redirect is proper. Khorshid 03:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Turkey does not DENY existence of Kurds. As far as I know, Kenan Evren is the only (ex)government official who referred to Kurds as Mountain Turks, and he hasn't been a government official since 1991. I don't think there is a government policy of labeling Kurds as Mountain Turks. All the ethnicities are under one umbrella term, Turkish, which refers to being a citizen of Turkey. You might be referring to that. denizTC 03:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are probably right about the lack of government policy on "Mountain Turks", but from what I have read (and I am far from an expert on Turkish matters) government of Turkey does recognise the existence of Kurdish (and Armenian?) ethnicity, so they are only "Turks". This would be similar to French policy in France for immigrant populations, with the exception that Kurds are obviously not immigrants. But also in France there is no official recognition of Breton language, but in Brittany the French government does not stop the use of the indigenous language. But anyway, I am not saying that "Kurdish genocide" should be used in connection with Turkey. I only suggest a redirect to the Saddam genocide of Kurds. Khorshid 04:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a disambiguation page and I don't see any POV in it to be deleted. ROOB323 09:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Genocide is a very harsh word. Delete per Cat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caglarkoca (talk • contribs)
  • keep It will be useful to show that wikipedia cant be taken seriously in issues like this. 88.233.27.139 15:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Anonymous user's only edit [40] Baristarim 16:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And a Turkish user to boot. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • ? what? We are trying to build a serious encyclopedia Kekrops, please do not use it for ordinary discussion. Baristarim 16:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am simply noting that the user with the single edit was Turkish. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yeah, I figured. But we are wikipedians first and foremost, remember? Such banter is not appropriate, doesn't matter from who it is coming from - that's why I put that note. I suggest that you take a chill pill Kekrops and be more serious. Thanks Baristarim 18:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • And yet, you have a penchant for noting the nationality of users voting in AFDs at every opportunity. Please refrain from commenting on my seriousness or lack thereof; it isn't appreciated. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Ok, however I have only made it an issue in the original AfD and this one. Many impartial users had agreed that there was something really bizarre going on in the original AfD. If I hadn't brought it up it would have been even more bizarre. In any case, I don't want to continue this discussion since it doesn't bring anything new to the AfD. However, I will refrain from commenting on your editing - sorry if you took offense.. Baristarim 18:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's stop this war now. Should we remove the last comments? (you can remove this one) I would rather talk about anon's reasoning: "It will be useful to show that wikipedia cant be taken seriously in issues like this". Bur it's up to her/him however s/he votes and for whatever reason. 18:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Ok.. Kekrops? Baristarim 18:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't believe in removing any comments. I always mean everything I say, write and do. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Users are deleting the sourced section where the second link of that dab page directs (in the article about Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey). I hope this is not in an attempt to alter the result of this poll by leading users to non-existing information. NikoSilver 19:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not at all. That debate had been going on for months at that article, has nothing to do with this AfD. Baristarim 19:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Don't delete the section where the dab page directs. It is considered an unauthorized de-facto deletion of an article under debate for deletion. NikoSilver 19:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (no comment) :) Baristarim 19:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Useful redirect, reasonable search term. Didn't we just have an AfD on this? Tom Harrison Talk 01:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • No, this is not about the redirect. Currently it is a dab page. Discussion centers on the validity of the dab, keep it as a redirect, keep/delete it. Baristarim 02:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have changed my comment accordingly. Tom Harrison Talk 02:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey#Kurdish genocide claims? Tom Harrison Talk 12:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect or disambiguation page. It is a likely search term, and would make research on either of these topics easier.The Myotis 22:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But redirect where? That is also the other problem.. It very rarely refers to the Human right of Kurds in Turkey and much more to the Al-Anfal campaign.. Baristarim 23:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then, maybe, to both of them per the RfD.--Yannismarou 12:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Al-anfal Mdozturk 13:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it is not an article and no attempt is being made to start one. The dab redirects are POV, should not redirect to article sections, and are not true dabs in any case. I also don't see why it should be replaced with a redirect; that would also be POV, though creation of such a redirect could be supported with reliable sources and would be OK in that case. There are articles and article sections discussing the historical material, so there is no need to leave this page up with instructions to improve it. Mike Christie (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The so-called genocide is not accepted by any scholar of any kind. None of the countries recognized such a genocide. There are no substantial evidence in the article to support the claims of a genocide against Kurds. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not place to create pseudo genocides. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog, to write someone's opinion. --Scientia Potentia 12:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:N, Prester John 18:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phineas Gage (band)[edit]

Phineas Gage (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Page about a band but google hits turn up for another with same name. If this page must be deleted, confirm here. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 05:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I feel the article correctly and accuratly depicts and Orlando death metal act, and the links that are continously provided make the article incorrect thus I removed them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Apullin (talk • contribs).

Comment, upon further review, the links point to a bifferent band with the same name. This page needs to be rewritten, if the current version must be deleted. See [41] BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 05:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I placed the initial speedy tag as this seemed to be a local band of little note. A google search revealed many hits, but upon closer inspection, these were mostly for another band named Phineas Gage. If this article is kept, it should at least be moved to Phineas Gage (death metal band) and replaced with a dab. Otherwise, the article needs to be fundamentally rewritten, hence deletion is appropriate for now. Feeeshboy 05:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Phinius Gage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (note the spelling) also describes itself as a band so we can just redirect it to there. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 05:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is only one Phineas Gage and it's the band I roadied for in Texas in college. Otto4711 12:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, there are many unsigned bands with the same name, this band name is not owned by any label in existance so that does not disqualify any of the bands who do use the name. This band you roadied for, is probably now defunct like the other one which was brought up. The bottom line is, this tab was not occupied, and now it is listed with the correct and accurate information about a band name Phineas Gage out of Orlando Fl. Thus there is no grounds for deletion.

Believe it or not, I was making a joke. Otto4711 02:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Having a myspace page is not an indicator of notability. --Sparklism 22:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect per consensus at WP:EPISODE. Cúchullain t/c 22:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randall's Reform[edit]

Randall's_Reform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Fails to establish notability. 13:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Postcard Cathy (talk • contribs) 2007/03/28 13:00:31

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no prejudice against redirecting pending further development. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some Friend[edit]

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

Despite sufficient time, the author and other editors have failed to establish notability. Postcard Cathy 14:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • An article on a television show episode is perfectly fine, except when it has little or no information. Keep the article, but place a stub template at the bottom of it. A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 18:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an episode of a television series. It's pretty easily established that it could be expanded the same as any other television series's episodes can be expanded. So it's a stub. Stub isn't a reason for deletion. At the most, redirect to List of Recess episodes pending further expansion. FrozenPurpleCube 20:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable television series, the consensus is to improve these articles, not delete them. Matthew 20:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a consensus to improve and not delete articles like this at WP:EPISODE. You can redirect them if you want, as well. These Recess episodes are being completed, but slowly. - Peregrine Fisher 20:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possibly redirect just like all the other episodes. See detailed discussion every few articles.DGG 19:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as redirect → List of Recess episodes#Season 3: 1999-2000. The target section has more information than the current independent article. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space Cadet (Recess episode)[edit]

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

Seriously fails to establish notability. Postcard Cathy 13:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - article contains nothing more than what could be inferred from the title. So tagged. MER-C 12:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A large number of stubs about Recess episodes have been nominated for deletion at the same time. I would suggest combining these several nominations into one. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reason given as to why we should care. Moreschi Request a recording? 16:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an episode of a television series. It's pretty easily established that it could be expanded the same as any other television series's episodes can be expanded. So it's a stub. Stub isn't a reason for deletion. At the most, redirect to List of Recess episodes pending further expansion. FrozenPurpleCube 19:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An article just telling what episode of a television it was on does not belong in Wikipedia, until it can get more details. ChaosAkita 21:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no serious bar to providing more information about this episode, it's merely a case of nobody bothering to do it. FrozenPurpleCube 22:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: correction, that wasn't a speedy keep; it was just a keep on which someone voted speedy keep. However the comment about consistent decisions still applies. Mike Christie (talk) 12:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as redirect → List of Recess episodes#Season 3: 1999-2000. The target section has more information than the current independent article. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stand Up Randall (Recess episode)[edit]

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

Another Recess article that has failed to establish notability. Postcard Cathy 13:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep per precedent set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Great State Fair; article to be expanded with episode description from List of Recess episodes#Season 6: 2001. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrifying Tales of Recess[edit]

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

One in a long string of articles for Recess show that fails to establish notability. Postcard Cathy 13:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep as redirect → List of Recess episodes#Season 3: 1999-2000. The target section has more information than the current independent article. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That Stinking Feeling (Recess episode)[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability and has had a long time to improve the article but hasn't. Postcard Cathy 13:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep per precedent set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Great State Fair; article to be expanded with episode description from List of Recess episodes#Season 5: 2000 - 2001. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The A.V. Kid[edit]

The_A.V._Kid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

article fails to establish notability. Postcard Cathy 13:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep as redirect → List of Recess episodes#Season 3: 1999-2000. The target section has more information than the current independent article. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Barnaby Boys (Recess episode)[edit]

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

fails to establish notability. Postcard Cathy 13:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Recess episodes#Season 3: 1999-2000. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bet (Recess episode)[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability - the article has been around for some time yet author has failed to improve upon this mere statement of fact. Postcard Cathy 13:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Recess episodes#Season 2: 1998-1999. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Break Up (Recess episode)[edit]

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

author has had sufficient time to establish notability yet has not done so. Postcard Cathy 13:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Recess episodes#Season 2: 1998-1999. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Challenge (Recess episode)[edit]

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

author has failed to establish notability despite sufficient time to have done so since the article's creation. Postcard Cathy 13:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Recess episodes#Season 5: 2000 - 2001. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Coolest Heatwave Ever[edit]

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

Author hasn't established notability despite sufficient amount of time to have done so. Postcard Cathy 13:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Recess episodes#Season 2: 1998-1999. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Girl was Trouble (Recess episode)[edit]

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

Despite sufficient time to work on article, it fails to establish notability. Postcard Cathy 13:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Recess episodes#Season 1: 1997-1998. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Big Kid[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability. Postcard Cathy 14:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Recess episodes#Season 2: 1998-1999. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Ball (Recess episode)[edit]

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

Notability has yet to be established despite sufficient amount of time for author and other editors to do so. Postcard Cathy 14:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Recess episodes#Season 5: 2000 - 2001. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Principals of Golf[edit]

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

Despite sufficient amount of time, this article fails to establish notability. Postcard Cathy 13:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete like all the other episodes on this list. A collective AFD would also have been OK by me. YechielMan 16:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A collected AfD would have been a godsend to me! FrozenPurpleCube 20:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Recess episodes#Season 3: 1999-2000. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ratings Game (Recess episode)[edit]

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

author fails to establish notability. Postcard Cathy 14:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Recess episodes#Season 3: 1999-2000. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Shiner (Recess episode)[edit]

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

Author fails to establish notability despite sufficient amount of time to have done so. Postcard Cathy 14:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Recess episodes#Season 2: 1998-1999. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Substitute (Recess episode)[edit]

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

Despite sufficient amount of time to do so, the author has failed to establish notability. Postcard Cathy 14:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Recess episodes#Season 1: 1997-1998. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Finster with Love[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability. Postcard Cathy 12:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of Recess episodes#Season 5: 2000 - 2001. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 03:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tucked In Mikey[edit]

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

As with many other Recess Episode articles, it fails to show us why the article is notable. Postcard Cathy 12:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per nomination. Harryboyles 13:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Child (Recess episode)[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability. Postcard Cathy 13:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - article contains nothing more than what could be inferred from the title. So tagged. MER-C 12:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woodhaven Lakes[edit]

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

Non-notable place with unverified claim of world's largest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EagleFan (talk • contribs) 18:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Non-notable with unverified claim. EagleFan 18:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Oakshade. EagleFan, this "unverified claim," as you put it, was referenced when you nominated this for deletion. -Seinfreak37 16:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, not true. The only source was the private organization's own website. Hardly an independent source and does not meat wiki standards. The new source is sketchy at best, with the word "considered" in the referenced statement. EagleFan 16:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I am correct. See the page when you made the afd. There is a link source provided just after the claim in question. Now, a second source has been provided, one from the city, one from the state. -Seinfreak37 17:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The "world's largest campsite" claim seems to check out as per Seinfreak37, and even discounting that it seems big enough to count as a de facto community at least as notable as plenty of others (over 10000 Google hits excluding Wikipedia & mirrors). - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Hewlett-Packard for two reasons: (a) so someone can merge summary details if needed, (b) would serve as useful redirect. Otherwise would have been delete. --Bubba hotep 20:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HP Pavilion dv8000[edit]

HP Pavilion dv8000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Insufficiently notable products. Article comprises mostly of an unsourced list of specifications, which Wikipedia is not. Contested prod. MER-C 11:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to the 1337 Wikipedia - maybe they can understand what the heck this is talking about. YechielMan 16:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There exists coverage in secondary sources ([44], [45] for example), but one is likely to find that sort of information on any laptop produced by a major manufacturer. If there's anything useful in this article, we could merge it to HP Pavilion (computer). Otherwise, Delete. JavaTenor 18:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Secondary sources establish that it's notable. The nominator's other concern is a reason to add to and improve the article, not to delete it. Fg2 01:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete individual computer models are rarely notable unloess there is something out of the ordinary to say. of course one can find "sources" since they tend to all be reviewed, but that doesnt make for notability.DGG 04:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Hp. DCUnitedFan2011 12:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - list of specs, not an article +Hexagon1 (t) 09:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phineas Gage (band)[edit]

Phineas Gage (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Page about a band but google hits turn up for another with same name. If this page must be deleted, confirm here. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 05:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I feel the article correctly and accuratly depicts and Orlando death metal act, and the links that are continously provided make the article incorrect thus I removed them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Apullin (talk • contribs).

Comment, upon further review, the links point to a bifferent band with the same name. This page needs to be rewritten, if the current version must be deleted. See [46] BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 05:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I placed the initial speedy tag as this seemed to be a local band of little note. A google search revealed many hits, but upon closer inspection, these were mostly for another band named Phineas Gage. If this article is kept, it should at least be moved to Phineas Gage (death metal band) and replaced with a dab. Otherwise, the article needs to be fundamentally rewritten, hence deletion is appropriate for now. Feeeshboy 05:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Phinius Gage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (note the spelling) also describes itself as a band so we can just redirect it to there. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 05:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is only one Phineas Gage and it's the band I roadied for in Texas in college. Otto4711 12:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, there are many unsigned bands with the same name, this band name is not owned by any label in existance so that does not disqualify any of the bands who do use the name. This band you roadied for, is probably now defunct like the other one which was brought up. The bottom line is, this tab was not occupied, and now it is listed with the correct and accurate information about a band name Phineas Gage out of Orlando Fl. Thus there is no grounds for deletion.

Believe it or not, I was making a joke. Otto4711 02:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Having a myspace page is not an indicator of notability. --Sparklism 22:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History Killer[edit]

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

Non-notable product. There are hundreds of history erasers and registry cleaners. We do not have articles about all of them. Also, I couldnt find a notable site advocating it except for a large number of shareware download sites. soum (0_o) 12:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No assertion of notability. Fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Article reads like an ad.--Bryson 15:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly fails the usual notability criterias, at first I considered {{db-spam}}ing it to be honest. -- lucasbfr talk 15:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Far stronger arguments were made for deletion of this article than those to keep it- including that the criteria for inclusion is unclear, that the list is problematic to source to the high standard that would be necessary, and that it raises serious WP:BLP issues even if carefully maintained. WjBscribe 23:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/No longer identified[edit]

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/No longer identified (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article had an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/No longer identified. When challenged at deletion review the closer stated that he made an error in closing. So it is being relisted for more discussion. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion on deletion. However, if kept it should be moved to a new title, sub-pages (with a / in them) are not appropriate in article space. GRBerry 12:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep and suggest moving to List of ex-gay people. Otto4711 14:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vague definition, currently almost barren once I'd removed all the unsourced/badly sourced entries, but still a magnet for further ones once attention has moved on. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also note that if the list was renamed to list of ex-gay people, the list would go down to one entry, since Tatu don't count as ex-gay as they claim never to have been gay in the first place. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have restored your cuts, added sources for the ones without sources and removed the only living person who is unsourced. If you don't like the name List of ex-gay people then move it to List of people who formerly identified as LGBT. I remain at a loss to understand how "For people who were once identified as LGBT but no longer are" is in any way vague. It requires editor to be able to answer and source two questions: Was the person at one time identified as LGBT? If no, then don't add. If yes, then go to question two Does the person now identify as heterosexual? If no, then don't add. If yes, then add and source. Not that complicated really. Otto4711 15:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the fact that this violates WP:BLP, specifically Presumption in favor of privacy. Unless these actors and actresses are notable for once being gay, they violate the "Is it notable, verifiable and important to the article? If not, leave it out." bit of WP:BLP. The standard for information is higher when dealing with Biographical information, and this list violates that due to the fact that the information is rarely, if ever relevant to the person's notability. The only actresses I can think of off-hand who've made issue of their sexual preferences are Rosie O'Donnell and Ellen Degeneres. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 16:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If a person makes a public statement that they are gay and then later makes a public statement that they are not, there is no implication of their privacy. And with all due respect, your ignorance about who is or isn't gay or who has or hasn't made an "issue" of their sexuality has no bearing on this discussion. The fact that you characterize the list as containing "actors and actresses" indicates to me that you didn't even bother to fully read the list before commenting. The list as it now stands consists of one actor/singer, two musicians, a professional "reparative therapist," an evangelical minister, a journalist, a writer and a retail heir. If you bother to read some of the linked articles, you would realize that their identification as formerly gay is notable, verifiable and important. Some of the people on the list made their careers denouncing homosexuality. Others make their living performing therapy designed to turn gay men straight and writing books and delivering lectures on the topic. Otto4711 16:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cheerful Reply Hey, have you read WP:BLP, specifically the portion I pointed out? Still applies. As has been pointed out below, most of the list don't mention it in the article itself, which makes it non-applicable here. Likewise, if they've formerly denounced or otherwise attacked the LBGT community in the past that makes it MORE important that this be examined very, very carefully. My comments about it being non-notable applied specifically to Anne Heche and Tatu, in regards to the fact that Anne Heche's sexuality is not former, and Tatu are on record as never having been Lesbian. If Anne Heche's sexuality can't be sufficiently covered in her own damned article, why does it deserve a full paragraph in a topic which doesn't apply per the established criteria?Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 19:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As-Is - After reviewing the article in question, as well as the sources, I think the most responsible course of action is to remove the list due to possibly inaccurate material. Here are my concerns regarding the article, which need to be addressed promptly so as not to violate WP policy towards biographies of living persons:

1. In most cases, the main pages for the individuals do not mention the past homosexuality. This should be a prerequisite to appearing on the list.
2. The title of the article (and proposed titles) imply that the individuals self identified (ie. came out) as an alternative sexuality. As noted below, this is not the case for most people on the list (at least according to the sources provided).
-Robert Graves is only mentioned (and it is not sourced) for having "homosexual experiences in his youth". In my mind, this does not immediately make him gay, especially since no elaboration is given as to these experiences.
-Ted Haggard has never to the best of my knowledge identified as anything other than heterosexual. While it might be tempting to infer from his recent claims to be "completely heterosexual" that he once was something else, I don't believe we can make this leap.
-Russell Miller's "flirt[ing] with bisexuality" does not make him a bisexual anymore than my flirting with pot makes me a pothead.
-Lou Reed's supposed bisexuality is based around claims made by another, and was denied by Reed himself (based on what I can infer from the notes on the article in question and a bit of googling).
-t.A.T.u. "were never lesbians in the first place". This comes directly from the source given supporting their transformation.
-Worsthorne's article (when read carefully) does not state that the journalist ever identified as homosexual. It instead references how he and many of his peers preferred the simplicity of same sex company during the course of their education. Given the very abstract tone of the article, I don't feel comftorable labeling Worsthorne as any sexuality without corresponding accounts.
3. None of the sources (aside from the t.A.T.u. article and Cohen's webpage) put me at ease about the claims they support. I mentioned me concerns with the vaugeness of Worsthorne's piece. I don't have information regarding the specifice passages in the Aldrich book or New Idea article which support the claims about Bowie and Miller (respectively). I don't fully understand the reference supporting the claim about Reed. Graves has no citation at all. Finally, news articles about Haggard that I have read do nothing more than print speculation regarding Haggard's previous orientation.
4. My final concern regards the "hot" nature of this topic. Without multiple reliable references for each claim, we put ourselves in serious risk of seriously offending and damaging the images of the individuals named. While I don't think we face any libel issues (so long as we are merely repeating what others have said) I certainly do not want to ruin any lives (or, in the case of Graves, memories) by giving rise to false sensationalism.
Taking the above into stock, the only individual who I feel comftorable leaving on the list is Cohen. Since his page already contains the information, I don't see any need to duplicate it here. Given that, I offer my suggestion of delete, as given above. →Bobby← 16:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too many potential WP:BLP issues here, plus it's very difficult to really verify what is truth and what is rumor, or whether certain individuals were ever actually gay to begin with (as noted above, TATU being a good example). 23skidoo 17:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I know I'm rowing against the tide here, but I feel I have to say something. ALL biographical information is "prone to BLP issues," even the least contentious claims you could think of. That alone is not a reason to delete, being 'prone' to problems violates no wikipedia policy. IF this list satisfies WP:V then there is no choice other to keep. I agree it's a mess in current form, so I won't vote keep, but if it is deleted, I would please ask that it be done without prejudice so that a fully-sourced version comporting to BLP and verifiability guidelines would not be simply speedied out of existance. This list is not POV, not OR and not unallowable so long as it relies on published information and reliable sources. The fact that, as 23skidoo noted "[...]difficult to really verify what is truth[...]" is not a real problem, Wikipedia is not concerned with empirical truth, only what can be verified through reliable sources. Wintermut3 19:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this article is kept, it has to be re-titled to something that's not a subpage. I have no other opinion on this matter. JuJube 20:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The policy page states:
"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."
In my mind, the article's content cleary constitutes unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. As a result, it seems to me like the offending material should be deleted (as Samuel Blanning attempted to do earlier). I propose we set a time period by which time sources must be provided for any currently questionable claims. If community consensus is that the article does not meet BLP standards by the end of that time, I further suggest removing any questionable material, and continuing the AfD discussion based on a page history snapshot. If nobody objects, I'd like to set the deadline for 16:00 (UTC) tomorrow (Friday, 3-30). →Bobby← 20:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jimbo's oft-repeated opinion that we can do without random "I'm sure I heard it somewhere" crap about living individuals. This is inadequately cited, and even if cited fails to answer the question of why we would care. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is just too much people. The diversity of people and issues listed (e.g. Tatu, oh please..) and possible BLP issues make this article simply to vague and problematic. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, it needs sourcing: remove unsourced living people, and after you've done that, go to all the various lists of people belonging to (or formerly belonging to) various religious and political groups and do the same. If you think sexual orientation is "crap", others think that religion and politics are too, and membership in or adherance to certain religious or political groups is illegal in some places, and may not be very nice, so it could be defamatory as well. Carlossuarez46 03:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • exactly we are very careful about changed political or religious identification as a classification for living people who did not specifically so identify themselves. As pointed out by the many examples above, this list is not unambiguous. DGG 04:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. This list looks like little more than an attempt to force people to participate in a socio-political conflict. —SlamDiego 05:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I think the wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we shouldn't make articles like the list of divorced or married people, gays, etc. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 05:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete As Bobby pointed out, this list is a mish-mash of people who have publicly denied they were gay, not renounced they were gay. I originally nominated this list because it is a nightmare to source, because it isn't really notable, and because of the BLP concerns brought up above. (btw, thankyou very much for not bothering to tell me it was at DRV) I'd like to comment on the subtitle of the article though - the list of actual LGB people is split by alphabet because of size, and whoever created this article must just have been following precedent. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having found sources for a number of the items through a simple Google search, I contend that your claim that sourcing is a nightmare is a bit on the hyperbolic side. Given the amount of ink that's regularly spilled when someone comes out or when they go back in, contending that the topic isn't notable is ludicrous. Otto4711 16:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added a source to the last unsourced item, but rename to List of people who formerly identified as LGBT. If we do not they may be added to List of LGBT people over and over, this is the place to clear such misconceptions. --FateClub 21:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of trivia about the suspected sexuality of a semi-random sampling of celebrities. While the individual bullets on this page might be theoretically sourcable, this is not a topic about which others have written independent scholarly works. We have no sources on which to base this page. Rossami (talk) 08:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, no sources at all, except of course for the sources that are in the article for example. Otto4711 16:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. Hoax, and not the only one by this user. Herostratus 13:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franz google[edit]

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

Obvious hoax FisherQueen (Talk) 13:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - yep, it's a hoax. None of the names look remotely Icelandic, for one thing. BTLizard 13:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as blatant nonsense AlfPhotoman 13:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom Tnomad 13:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this isn't blatant nonsense. i have sources from both the Australian Music Examinations Board Curriculum and Queensland Education Music Extension Curriculum (2005 edition). I will post details of both these books, including ISBN numbers etc etc tomoro when i can get the books from my teacher. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timmyboy120 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. Hoax. Take Susan I of Iceland... please. Herostratus 13:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toccata for Autoharp[edit]

Toccata for Autoharp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I believe this article to be a hoax. FisherQueen (Talk) 13:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Franz does not Google. Not in Grove's, if nopt a hoax then not notable. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if Franz google falls then this must fall with him! BTLizard 13:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense, school inside joke, see also author's contribution to article talk page, which I quote: "REEEH!" NawlinWiki 19:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael acquilano[edit]

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

Originally listed as a speedy deletion for no claim of notability. I replaced the speedy with a PROD because I didn't feel this met the speedy threshold. Article was deprod'd by the creator. Essentially, there is nothing about this particular individual that meets WP:BIO at this time. My opinion is that the article should be deleted, but I want to afford it a community debate.Isotope23 13:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • SPEEDY DELETE - This is a joke page. Look at the author's list of other "contributions".--Ng.j 15:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just go ahead and do it. It's really obvious that this guy's not notable and probably never will be. YechielMan 16:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY DELETE, hoax admitted. Herostratus 02:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bëlmak[edit]

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

Unverifiable, probably hoax, but certainly fails WP:ATT. The claim that Longstaff died when taking the picture seems hardly believable since he died when he was 89 (not to discriminate octogenarians, but not many of them will be doing a one-man expedition in a remote area of Bhutan at that age...). Prod removed without improvements (except for adding the picture). Fram 13:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable. I'd say BJAODN, but it's not that funny. YechielMan 16:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make it go away. It scares us, it does. Nasty big fangs. Besides.... uh I don't think that there are a lot of Gorilla-size creatures that have never been photographed... Hoax. Herostratus 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Adequately covered in Category:Fictional twins.Cúchullain t/c 22:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of twins in fiction[edit]

Trivia. Happens all the time in stories, generally not all that important. Characters listed are entirely unrelated. >Radiant< 14:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of unseen characters[edit]

Trivia. Unmaintainable. Large list of largely-unimportant characters that aren't even remotely related. Old nomination here >Radiant< 14:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redirect to unseen character. The list is original research, or if you prefer, WP:SYN. It has no place in Wikipedia. YechielMan 16:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there's no discrimination between significant unseen characters like Columbo's wife, and completely obscure characters that were mentioned in one episode of a sitcom. Croxley 04:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this can't possibly be managed, also lacking in sources +Hexagon1 (t) 09:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unmaintainable and absurdly diffuse. Collabi 10:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Morton[edit]

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

Nonnotable writer, no sources cited. NawlinWiki 14:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. YechielMan 16:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Have found an ISBN labeled book that was mentioned in article by this author. No indication of strong sales, but hat's another issue and my lunch break is over --Auto(talk / contribs) 16:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are several million such a year. Assignment of an ISBN -- or listing on amazon--is the very model of an indiscriminate source. DGG 04:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long Island Rugby Club[edit]

Long Island Rugby Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is a cut and paste of this page[47]. I will rewrite it, but I want to see if it passes notability guidelines first. I have no opinion on deletion. Citicat 14:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article can be speedied under CSD G12 (copyvio), and with 400 nonwiki ghits, the subject is not worth an article anyway. YechielMan 15:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete for copyvio; and a regular delete on top of that for WP:N unless the article has other sources. --Auto(talk / contribs) 16:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. Cúchullain t/c 22:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luboš Motl[edit]

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

This is an article about a living person with no notable accomplishments. Lubos Motl set up this article by himself (user Lumidek who created this article is identified as Lubos Motl). Then, the article was created on the Czech wikipedia based on this article. Lubos Motl claims to have published articles in Czech press, however his letters to the editors are of no or minor importance and are mostly published on web servers or by minor media. Dahramon 14:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the first AfD nomination resulted in a "Keep". It closed in January 2006.

  • Delete Luboš Motl as autobiographical. --Ng.j 15:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. As I write, all of User:Dahramon's 4 edits are relate to Luboš Motl, three to this AfD and one to removing his name from Matrix string theory. Hmmm. There are lots of people who strongly dislike Dr Motl; I suspect we'll see lots of them voting here. CWC 17:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, I don't like the idea of autobiography, however I think he's notable enough. Apple••w••o••r••m•• 17:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His actual physics work seems notable, and I would say that a physicist "prepared ti defend the Bogdanov brothers' papers in public" is notable all the more, in a perverse way.DGG 19:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Luboš Motl's accomplishments are mostly self-reported or originate in references leading back to the Wikipedia article on him. All PhD.s are expected to publish articles.--This is a result of compliance with academic standards and is not enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article without a substantial peer review. His self-made claims to authorship of Matrix string theory are not backed up by his authorship of the key paper that the article refers to. His authorship is ascertained, again, based on claims made on his numerous autobiographical pages and own blogs. There is only a minimal evidence of peer review of his theoretical work on the internet. There is no evidence of Luboš Motl's practical/experimental accomplishments. --Dahramon 05:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— Dahramon (talk • contribs) has made no edits outside this topic as of 13:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC). CWC[reply]
"all PhDs are expected to publish articles" yes, and the N as an academic will depend on the number and quality and citedness. The necessary peer review of accomplishments is precisely that found in the peer review of the articles, and the later review of the body of work by academic peer committees.
The review of his work was performed by the Harvard Physics Department when they appointed him. WP just records it. I note that it was as Assistant Professor, so this is not quite automatic. DGG 03:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The page only got worse since the last VfD. WP does not need to be the place where personal conflicts get expressed and there doesn't seem (yet) to be not much of notability outside of them. Pavel Vozenilek 09:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Two recent String Theory text books contain endorsements from Motl. This would not have been sought if they did not consider him notable. Cgoakley 09:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep - slightly notable, also AfD initiatior also seems to be a puppet account with a personal agenda +Hexagon1 (t) 09:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This guy is not very distinguished. For a physicist to be noted he should have won a significant prize or as a popularizer physicist should at least have some notable popular work. It's not clear that he has either a significant readership or important contributions to the field. Viz 20:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cgoakley, appears to be notable within his field and meets WP:BIO guidelines. RFerreira 08:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Mikhail[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:NOTABILITY (myspace does not confer notability). I can't find evidence records have charted; record label appears to have only published this artist; non-wiki g-hits are myspace, sales sites, or trivial articles. Kathy A. 15:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete clearly fails WP:MUSIC. Its borderline speedy deletable as spam. Gwernol 17:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references to masturbation[edit]

Cultural references to masturbation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An extremely indiscriminate "pop culture" trivia spinoff article that basically seeks to document every single passing reference to masturbation known to man. Includes such important tidbits as "The TV show Family Guy makes references to masturbation in at least five episodes," and a huge, completely speculative list of songs that may or may not be about masturbation, all of which is original research as well. Krimpet (talk/review) 15:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Original research, and no encyclopedic value. --Auto(talk / contribs) 16:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Auto suggests, its original research. The article is also unmaintainable and inherently WP:NPOV: how do we decides what counts as a cultural reference, and how do we decide if something is or is not a reference to masturbation? Gwernol 17:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's another of those lovely "popular culture" articles. YechielMan 17:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apparently just saying the word counts as a reference, so this is too indiscriminate. Croxley 04:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete writing down what one sees is not necessarily OR, but can be very unnotable.DGG 04:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Otto4711 05:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it and the main article will get flooded with these references in no time. If it has maintainers now they won't last long. Pavel Vozenilek 09:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If references pop up that shouldn't be there, be bold and remove them. Krimpet (talk/review) 17:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being bold gets one pretty tired after some time and getting inevitable 3RR is a great morale booster. I would't want to be the maintainer for this article. Pavel Vozenilek 19:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted - found the same article previously AfD'd twice here - G4. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 16:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Paul Turner[edit]

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

Hoax. Relevant Google hits == 0. Comes close to but just skirts G1 nonsense. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 15:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redvers, This page is not a hoax. www.turnerzworld.com. Alexander Turner is the CEO of turnerzworld Corporation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobjane (talk • contribs)

Comment The website in question mentions Mr Turner zero times. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 16:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, It doesn't, I will have an editor fix that, though you can do a WHOIS on the domain name. Bobjane 16:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Wizardman 05:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Hopkovitz[edit]

Chad Hopkovitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley (Tortoise)[edit]

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

Non notable tortoise, not even notable on the show itself. Masaruemoto 16:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Shaking head) Delete. Who thinks of this stuff?? YechielMan 17:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's a category "Famous tortoises"?!? Caknuck 18:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major celebrities, every one of them. Masaruemoto 19:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 20:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rye Neck Middle School[edit]

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

Just some middle school. No claim of notability. No third party sources. Found because of nonsense being added. Prodded by me, mass-deprodded by anon. Delete. Mak (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom: no assertion of notability, no reliable sources, no third-party coverage, no article. Moreschi Request a recording? 17:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 23:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Moreschi's points --Xarr 07:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's not just some school. I went there and I thought it was a great school. And it is very notable because it recieved many titles and has a very high state test score average--Sing66
    • Then add something to the article with appropriate citations to prove this , until then it is just another non notable school --Xarr 17:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has some good information in it, isn't poorly written and vandalism gets removed. I don't see any reason to delete.Noroton 00:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since notability is suggested on several counts, but a merge to the appropriate locality would be acceptable as well, in accordance with WP:LOCAL guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 03:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the Kenyan connection is notable and interesting. I see no benefit to Wikipedia to be gained by deleting this article. TerriersFan 02:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it's just a sister school, there is still absolutely no claim of notability or any references. Mak (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Range Eleven[edit]

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

No third party coverage to rely on so the content is as far as I can tell an unverifiable first-hand account. They have two CDs but they seem to be self-released and the web finds no trace of them. Pascal.Tesson 16:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Scanning their website indicates that they're an unsigned local band. Herostratus 16:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep --Bubba hotep 20:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to keep an idiot busy for hours[edit]

How to keep an idiot busy for hours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

User:Michaelbusch has prodded this article and clearly wants it deleted because it's a silly joke. I'm not sure, especially because it survived a previous AFD, so I'll let you decide. No vote. YechielMan 17:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per previous AFD. My only concern is whether the title can be changed to something else ... and on behalf of everyone here I'll give my friend a kick in the pants who looked over my shoulder and suggested "Redirect to Wikipedia". ;-) 23skidoo 18:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep You may as well withdraw the nom, for now. As far as I can see, the PROD is baseless. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 19:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The prior AfD ended with "either keep or no consensus" as the reason. For this, though the source OF the joke is attributed, there is nothing compatible with WP:ATT which would support its notability or importance to be contained in WP. Slavlin 19:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well-known type of joke, with references. NawlinWiki 19:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No assertion of WP:N.--Bryson 21:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as well-known joke. Spacepotato 22:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment i will refrain from taking a position because i do not have any opinion on whether jokes like this should be included in wikipedia; however, if they are to be included, this joke is certainly sufficiently widespread to pass judgment. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to keep an idiot busy for hours? Let him create an In Popular Culture article on Wikipedia. Plasticbottle 01:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep more like waste his time on afd's for stuff that clearly is notable.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Baraldi[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC - the artist listed is the bassist for a minor band and his page doesn't mention anything notable that can't be found on the band's page. Mary quite contrary (hai?) 17:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete sympathy for the subject's broken wrist aside, this article clearly fails WP:MUSIC as stated by the nominator. Gwernol 17:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 19:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Football League[edit]

International Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No articles or information about this league found on Google 99DBSIMLR 17:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 20:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zarabatana Platform[edit]

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

First-person advert for a games development project. No assertion of notability. -- RHaworth 18:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep --Bubba hotep 20:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPIXO In Action: Mission in Snowdriftland[edit]

UPIXO In Action: Mission in Snowdriftland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non notable video game. Tikiwont 13:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can list a ton of video games that aren't notable yet have Wikipedia pages consisting of like 2 lines of text anyway, what especially makes this one not notable? MrDrake 13:54, 21 March 2007 (GMT)
You may be right about other non notable video games in Wikipedia, but the question here is, if there exists any independent non-trivial coverage, that would make this Nintendo marketing game notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tikiwont (talk • contribs) 14:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
If you see other worse video game articles, nominate them! The existance of worse articles doesn't mean this one gets to stay, though. See also WP:INN. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I actually searched for 'UPIXO in Action' as per the first article line. For 'Mission in Snowdriftland' there are indeed many more links and I'm open to change my mind if some good sources can be selected therefrom. If kept the article should be renamed. --Tikiwont 16:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why, if that's the actual name of the game? We shouldn't go around renaming articles for the sole reason of making Google searches more intuitively easy. RGTraynor 17:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NAME#Use common names of persons and things. Mission in Snowdriftland is far more common, printed in large on the inactive website, and part of the http adress.--Tikiwont 23:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RGTraynor. Not the best of articles about the most notable of games, but certainly not the worst. I have fully excised the unsourced and trivial "Trivia" section. Also, here are some possible sources (mostly reviews): [48][49][50][51][52]. -- Black Falcon 22:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 18:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: MIS is more than a cheap flash game that some nerd whipped up in his spare time. The resulting title was top-notch in animation, controls, made small waves on the Internet...and was really fun to play. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheListUpdater (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. No references or assertion of notability, essentially a dicdef. No problem with recreating if sources are provided and notability established.Cúchullain t/c 22:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religio Romana[edit]

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

A Latin term meaning "Roman Religion" that this stub claims is also the name of a revisionist NeoPagan group. Was Prod'd then Deprod'd. Fails all sourceing policies such as WP:ATT, WP:RS and WP:V. It makes no assertion of notability and sources were produced on "Roman religion" it would then violate WP:SYN and WP:OR. Finally it fails the notability guidline for organizations. NeoFreak 18:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if sources that show the existence of this modern movement are provided. I'll try to find some. —Ashley Y 20:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question So delete as is? NeoFreak 20:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Abstain as is. —Ashley Y 20:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you are Abstaining right now? NeoFreak 20:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this is a dicdef. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 00:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I fixed it up a little. What do you think? - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 06:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you added a bunch of unsourced and original research. I've removed it. NeoFreak 11:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seems like you aren't giving people a chance to clean this up. Finding references that meet attribution requirements takes some time, and it's starting to look like you are treating the article (and anyone trying to improve it) like a Whac-A-Mole.--Vidkun 13:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am trying to put up as much information/sourcing as I can find so that people can make a deletion decision based on more complete evidence. Note that I have not voted. The text I added is sourced from the articles linked. There is no original research here. I have also seen the religion mentioned in published books, I just don't happen to have any of them on my desk at the moment. I would go look them up for you, but I have work that needs to be done offline. Did you check to see whether the article was verifiable/notable before you nominated it for deletion? What did you turn up? - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 13:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you find attributable material then go ahead and add it. Adding material from unrealiable sources or just plain old unattributed material is not constructive in building an article. We already have articles on Roman religion and Roman mythology. There is no material here (or has there ever been) on a NeoPagan revisionst group that supports any reliable sources or that can be verified. If this article is deleted and you later find material about the NeoPagan group that is suitable for inclusion then start the article again, no good information is being lost. NeoFreak 16:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I understand that. Perhaps you would generate less antagonism if you would provide an explanation of why the sources are inadequate before deleting the information. Also, I believe that it is generally appropriate, when you come across unsourced text on Wikipedia, to make an attempt to source it before deleting it, and to accompany your deletion/deletion nom with an explanation of the avenues you pursued. There is a lot of verifiable information on Wikipedia that is just improperly sourced, so just the fact that the sources an article cites are inadequate isn't enough to justify deleting it. (The fact that the only information I can find on Religio Romana is self-published on the internet is enough, so delete. I can't find enough in books for a stub - it's not even mentioned in Which Witch is Which.) - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 18:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm sorry, it's not my intention to be antagonistic. I did try to find some sources but neither of us had any luck. I also explained why I made the reversions I did in my edit summaries. If you have any problems with my behaivor don't be afraid to address them with me on my talk page, I want to try and keep the discussion here on track. NeoFreak 19:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term "revisionist" in the nom, and the extremely aggressive behaviour of the nominator make me question whether this is in fact a good faith AfD. A quick glance at a few of the non-English wikipedias show that the entry is in need of a translation from another language, not deletion. - WeniWidiWiki 20:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying the article should be kept on a character assement of myself instead of a review of relavent policy? Thanks for your opinion. NeoFreak 21:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am inferring that your aggressive demeanor indicates you are operating with some sort of agenda which overrides your judgment. Again, the group in question is not a primarily American (english speaking) group. - WeniWidiWiki 21:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aggresvie? Hmm, I'd agree with that, I treasure Wikipedia and I'm very aggressive in protecting it. Wether or not my aggressive efforts are "biased" and renders me incapable of nominating an article for deletion is up to debate I suppose. If you have other language wikipedia sources I'd love to see them. NeoFreak 21:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I am reluctant to delete any page for something which might be a religion, but the sourcing is very weak. if this in in the other WPs, then perhaps there are some sources there. But it did not help for various parties to delete the admittedly pathetic external links during the course of the AfD. I've restored them. If they lead to any real sources, the article should be kept. External link as such do not have to be independent RSs--links to an organization home page and so on are acceptable there. DGG 22:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The links did in fact belong in the external links section (not a ref section) thanks for catching that and moving them over. I'm curious on what grounds that are rooted in policy you think this article in its current form should be kept. NeoFreak 22:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As i said "weak" keep, I agree it is debatable, I certainly expect further sourcing. DGG 03:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You expect further sourcing for it to be kept yet you are advocating that it be kept in its current state? I'm afraid I don;t understand your position. NeoFreak 03:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. articles get improved at AfD. I will sometimes say either weak keep, but I'll change it if nothing more is added when challenged, or the opposite, Delete unless something comes in.--and so do other eds. It's not a matter of the !votes. The criterion is sourceable. I do not advocate deleting articles where the author hasn't found the material, just of deleting them if there appears to be no material to find. If this is real, I think it would be notable. Opinions about this can vary, and they do. DGG 05:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. You and I disagree on wether or not this subject sourcable I suppose. It can be confusing when an editor makes "conditional" stances in AfD. I find it best to discuss the article as is but that's just a personal preference I suppose. Thanks for clearing t up. NeoFreak 14:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No article contents, merely a def. +Hexagon1 (t) 09:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete while a majority of editors indicated that the article should be kept, there was no compelling arguments/references provided to substantiate the claims of notability. I'll be willing to restore the article conditional on notability being established by secondary sources that substantiate the claim of "champion" and/or "olympic coach". Gnangarra 13:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian King[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete. No references show the person is notable enough to merit inclusion. Delete Ragib 17:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep King is well known in strength training and circles (trains numerous Olympic athletes) and has numerous interviews online. See Google search results.[53]. He also operates King Sports International [54]. Also as per WP:BIO under Special Cases, King qualifies as a creative professional - as he is an author of both books [55] and articles in fitness magazines [56]. The article is in desperate need of expansion - not deletion. Yankees76 17:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Google is only returning promotion or self-promotion sites, and clearly a lot of advertisement. Does the status of an highly advertised athlete on the web meets the criterion for notability? None of the big claims about him (apart from the fact that he has a fair web presence by virtue of the advertisement and promotionals) could be verified as fact so far. I have posted a lot of requests to get help expansion of the article. But, so far nothing came up, and there is no reason to believe that something will come up. Delete, then? Aditya Kabir 04:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Yankees76. If the Google is only returning self-promotion site then do we need to use Google as primary search engine? It's still providing information about Ian King.So I assume it can be expanded and gone in stubby --NAHID 10:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC) The article still conveys some valuable information. The links provided by Yankees76 meets the criteria to keep the article--NAHID 18:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Google gives a very rough idea about notability. If someone is certainly notable, then 3rd party sources should be available. Since there isn't probably any systemic bias, Google should at least provide 3rd party sources besides self promotional ones. By the way, please do not vote multiple times. Thanks. --Ragib 21:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I have asked quite a few participants on the bodybuilding projects to substantiate the claims on article, as well as the project talk page. All I got back was assurance that something will come up. Nothing did. There is no reason to believe that anything but more promotional websites will be all that supports the subject. Not verifiable, hardly notable, and remains very much fancruft. I tried saving it, and failed. No one is interested in expanding or substantiating the article. Aditya Kabir 15:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again multiple vote for deletion in above section NAHID 22:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, dear. A comment to refute someone else's potisiton and declaring a delete position are not the same. And, besides, this is not a voting box. Aditya Kabir 04:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Umm, I should've made another comment.Your comment supported for deletion. Don't forget that.May be you also forget, this is not a voting box--NAHID 17:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I researched this and all the above links are self promotional even his suppose to be web site has nothing to do with him per say. Not noted as an above average trainer as If he qualifies then I do as well so were will it end...Delete not supported.--Cleanupman 15:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\talk 22:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A very quick Google search shows the subject is the author of 3 books in his field and is respected in the field of bodybuilding. He may not be an 'important' athlete by some standards, but he is notable by Wiki standards. I am adding some links. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 01:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How so? The Wiki standard tells us that the notability criterion shared by many is - A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject (WP:NN). And, that independent sources may not include Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works should be someone else writing about the subject (amazon.com as vendor fairly misses to be an independent source). Besides, the specific notability guideline for biographies tells us that for a general bio the subject should have a credible independent biography, for athletes the subject may be competitors who have played in a fully professional league or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport, or competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports (this was claimed of the subject by never verified), and for writers/journalists the subject may be regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors (WP:BIO). Cheers. Aditya Kabir 03:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aditya Kabir, I realise you have indicated the page needs to be deleted, but please don't downgrade the article to a single line again. This author's book is independently published and the author information given there is sufficient to cite as reference material for the minimal claims that had been made about this person by the editor who wrote the article. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 05:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about hiding unnecessary information (I didn't delete them, though), but how does the information on where he lives and if he is married adds to his notability? And while you take a postion for keep, please, refrain from removing tags that ask for citation (also, please, refrain from putting back the same weblink twice). Remember, most books are independently published, but are not independently cited. A citation from the vendor of the book makes neither the book nor the author notable. Aditya Kabir 14:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a comment on your grave allegation of downgrading an article during deletion discussion on Talk:Ian King. I DID NOT downgrade it, or else I wouldn't have linked it to other articles or asked others to upgrade it. Aditya Kabir 18:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trainer of Olympic athletes? Which athletes? Aditya Kabir 14:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know. [57] says he did. Lets leave the article alone so the contributors can figure that out. John Vandenberg 21:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just make sure that a vendor of the subject's book (i.e. amazon.com) doesn't become the sole source of his training of world class athletes and so on. And, I apologize for downgrading the article. I really hope someone figures something about the subject, apart from the books he has written. Aditya Kabir 18:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 18:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is not an acceptable reason for deletion that, based on one's personal understandiung of the subject, one doesn't think it notable. The qy is whether other people do and say so in RSs.DGG 04:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, since I was the only user debating for a delete, I think it was directed against me and my understanding. I am hurt. For one - I never claimed to know anything about the subject. But, that doesn't mean that I don't understand wikipedia notability standards, and I don't understand promotional sites. Unfortunately, I work in an advertising agency (affiliated with JWT) and there is a possibility that while you may know everything about the subject, I may be more knowledgeable about promotional work (though not necessarily so). As long the wikipedia standards of establishing notability is followed I have no problems with the subject. This is not a personal vendetta against a person unknown to me (apart from the fact that he is well advertised). I haver already quoted all the guidelines that stand against the article, and none of the people who know much better than I do have been able to provide anything that meets those criterion (apart from more promotional stuff, including those of a vendor of the book written by the subject). May be I haven't noticed that wikipedia is a democracy now, and AfDs have turned into voting boxes. Sorry, again for all the trouble. Keep whatever the people wants. Aditya Kabir 18:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Current quality of article has nothing to do with notability of subject. Seems to be well known ...maelgwntalk 07:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I reckon he's notable - he shot my brother twice in the legs and nearly strangled him in 2001. He deserved it though, was trying to kidnap him for ransom. But Mr King was man enough to drive him to hospital and didn't notify police - they decided to call it even.WunNation 09:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)strike comment by indef blocked user Gnangarra 13:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per DDG above. Lankiveil 09:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Changed to keep as per WunNation above. My, what amazing notability. Aditya Kabir 18:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DXRAW 03:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote, so you need to explain your reasons if you want this opinion to count. --Ragib 03:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was RESULT. Cúchullain t/c 22:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Wright (politician)[edit]

Richard Wright (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Losing political candidate does not meet the standards for notability. JakeZ 22:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This cannot be compared to the Roy C. Strickland article. This is a mere stub. The Roy Strickland article is concise, thorough, and wery well-written. There is no comparison. Strickland ran for office in two states. He was a pioneer of the LA GOP. No comparison, as I see it. In addition, Strickland has an impressive business career.

Billy Hathorn 01:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. You've misunderstood me. I'm not saying the articles are directly comparable. One of the arguments posed by two of the editors in favor of keeping Strickland is that all major party candidates for U.S. Congress should be considered automatically notable, regardless of other notability criteria. If Strickland has other item of notability, then that's applicable in his debate, but it's beside the point that I'm addressing here. The point here is that if that specific argument gains traction and indeed seems to be a consensus among editors, then that sentiment does directly affect this one. I've started a new topic on the talk page of WP:BIO to solicit input there on the issue. Mwelch 06:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The problem with this article is sourcing, but there is no doubt that multiple reliable non-trivial sources exist for the runner-up in a major election. Dhaluza 10:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsuccessful Congressional candidates are not inherently notable, and the article makes absolutely no assertion of notability beyond this. Caknuck 18:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Do the Democrats typically nominate completely non-notable people to run for the US House of Representatives? Or is it just necessary to delete all stubs? I have to admit I haven't found anything on a quick google search right now, but that's because of his very common name. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 18:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd agree we could keep an article here if reliable sources were provided. Since there's nothing much here currently, it's no great loss to delete it. Open to recreation if sources are found. Notability is arguable, but it's not reasonable to keep an article in place with no sources. EdJohnston 19:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I deleted his 2006 campaign website from the article because it's a dead link. EdJohnston 19:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I'm overly curious now. Has ANYONE managed to find any proof of this fellow's existence outside of the campaign? His 2006 campaign site wasn't even in the Wayback Machine, so I couldn't look for clues there. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment He seems to own a chain of medical clinics, and attended BYU. [58] --Dhartung | Talk 02:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NN also-ran. --Dhartung | Talk 02:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - Okay, he's an owner of a chain of 11 medical clinics and he ran for office. I haven't checked what that means to WP:N, but I'd have to suspect he fails the notability test of "will anyone in 100 years need this information?". I'm also satisfied that the AfD's not rushed, as this article was created Dec 2005 and nothing worthwhile has been added since. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 100 year test is not a generally accepted criterion--I think if it were formally proposed now it would be soundly rejected, as it makes no sense whatsoever. WP is not intended for the 22nd century, but is an encyclopedia intended for current use now, and whatever part is still relevant in 100 years will be of historical interest only.We are likely to have far more sophisticated reference sources by then.
  • Keep I accept the major party candidate rationale, because it implies that the item will be sourceable, though the eds. here may not yet have succeeded. DGG 19:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infant Sorrow[edit]

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

lack of explanation or notability Djdickmutt 19:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to naat. I have left a note with Webkami who volunteered to do the grunt work of the merge below. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Praise of Muhammad in poetry[edit]

Praise of Muhammad in poetry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Under a more NPOV title, like Muhammad in poetry or Muhammad in literature, this could well be a reasonably good, encyclopedically valuable article. However, at the moment, the article is just one unsources paragraph and several quotes from poetry, and it has been in its current state for pretty long. Therefore, delete, but without prejudice to it being recreated if sufficient material from reliable secondary sources is found on this topic. Beit Or 19:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — It's clearly not move-worthy, and doesn't appear encyclopedic, as the text consists primarily of a series of poetic excerpts without a critique. — RJH (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and/or move as a legitimate encyclopedic topic that can be significantly expanded upon. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 23:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Move. Definitely needs article rename lest it be WP:POVFORK. This article as it is has little value beyond sycophancy (or in reverse defaming and vandalism) Is there any neutral poetry on Muhammad?.--ZayZayEM 05:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Merge with Naat (commonly known name of Praise of Muhammad in poetry). --Webkami 07:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment: I can do a merge and put a redirect to Naat if consensus is reached. --Webkami 07:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Naat. As it stands, the title itself is POV. Yaf 17:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear POV fork--Sefringle 03:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Naat.--80.71.122.118 09:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Naat: This doesnt deserve an article on its own, these poems are not notable. --Matt57 00:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge - per nom +Hexagon1 (t) 09:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Naat. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 22:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Naat. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted as copyvio and not a chance in hell to survive even if rewritten (not one reliable source). Fram 09:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bleak (comic book)[edit]

Bleak (comic book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Comic book that won't be published for another 2 days; no indic. of notability NawlinWiki 19:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Like most comic books and books for that matter they are predated because they come out after they are published. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hibbs8 (talk • contribs).


Am I correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hibbs8 (talk • contribs).

  • Comment The issue is not so much that it hasn't come out yet... but more that it doesn't appear to meet WP:BK. -- Ben 20:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's a bigger problem here. It looks like the text of the article is straight off of the publisher's web page. Please see WP:COPYVIO -- Ben 20:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The author of the comic might be the creator of the publishing company. [59] and [60]. Not much from google on sullenearth otherwise. -- Ben 23:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete copyvio - so tagged. Otto4711 03:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPeedy--ZayZayEM 05:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clarification (since it was requested): WP:NOT#MEMORIAL arose from the 9/11 attacks, when it was determined that Wikipedia was not the proper place for the list of the dead from a tragedy. This seems to fall under that. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties of the Beslan school hostage crisis[edit]

Casualties of the Beslan school hostage crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Violation of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. --Nyp 19:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is encyclopedic information that would make the Beslan school hostage crisis article overly long if included in the main article.User:Gorgeous Ferns 19:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looking at the list had an impact on how I viewed the event, rather than just looking at the number of people that died.--Ng.j 21:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep WP:NOT#PAPER. this is not a memorial; it is rather legitimate encyclopedic information, if of questionable value and notability, for which it has not been nominated. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 23:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. I'm sure there are better places for this information. --Dhartung | Talk 02:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is without any doubt encyclopedic information that could helps people who are interested about this tragedy to have exact numbers and names of victims. How old the victim were, how many fathers, mothers, preteen childred died there, how many family members died there. It's also useful for book writers or journalists who want to write articles about terrorist's attacks to have these exact information. And most important thing, it helps to fully understand extent of this tragedy. Without list of victims information about Beslan school hostage crisis is simply incomplete. And very last thing. The main article contains the list of terrorists. Is this OK ? This is not 'memorial' ? Because for some people those terorists are heros. So murders can have their memorial ? If there is the list of terrorists then what's wrong with the list of their victims ? What's the difference between these two lists ? --Timmy_A 2:00PM, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It is not necessary to have a directory of each person who died in a tragedy to appreciate the magnitude of the tragedy. Summary information in the main article is sufficient. Wikipedia is not a memorial. We do not generally have the names and life stories of everyone killed in a plane crash, or in terrorist attacks or in wars. Edison 20:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I feel for the vitctims and their relatives, this is not encyclopedic. If this is included, we should create similar lists for Casualties of the Titanic, Causualties of the september 11 2001 attacks, Causalties of the second world war. This would get out of hand. Wikipedia is not a memorial.Dr bab 21:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chanted from Weak Keep to Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial for "departed friends and relatives" but this was an event that received worldwide attention. The persons listed are non-notable --FateClub 23:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP is not a memorial. I am not interested seeing many such a lists sprouting around because "X is also here". Pavel Vozenilek 09:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just the kind of list that a paper encyclopedia couldn't fit, but that makes WP truly exceptional in coverage of recent events. Smmurphy(Talk) 04:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, as WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is pretty concrete as to why this sort of thing is not encyclopedic, and also for the fact that victims are not notable themselves. The "keep" arguments are all variations of I like it. Tarc 21:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. cs 19:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it will be difficult for anyone to do research without listing of names and over time this will become even more difficult. 148.63.236.141 02:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Also, this information is not encyclopedic. --Dariusk 03:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOT#MEMORIAL say: "Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.". Obviously, this is very notable case; and it is important to have all relevant data. This information is encyclopedic. Biophys 03:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 21:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Piscura[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non notable independent wrestler, no evidendce of independent reliable sources, and fails WP:BIO even if there were One Night In Hackney303 18:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Little evidence of notability, no reliable sources. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 20:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - quick Google search. IMDB entry. Book on Amazon. DVDs in the wrestling section. Therefore, I guess notability is there - even if I personally think that wrestling is not ;-) However, I think he passes WP:Bio. HagenUK 20:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • From WP:BIO: "has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The fact that he has written books and been in some DVDs does not automatically establish notability. Have his books/DVDs been reviewed? Has anyone other than IMDB written a bio for him? The IMDB bio was written by "Josh", so he might have written it himself. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I see what you are saying and this is actually a pretty tough call. Josh is all over the place, but not in any major source. However, I give him the benefit of the doubt and think that he is notable enough to pass WP:Bio just by the skin of his teeth. However, I totally understand the nomination and why you support it. It is a close call. HagenUK 19:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But has he been the subject of any source besides the possibly self-written IMDB bio? Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 18:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Saying his book is slightly incorrect, it's a book in which he's briefly quoted twice according to this. One Night In Hackney303 17:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 19:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionaly, with exception to his official and MySpace pages, he has profiles at Obsessed with wrestling, The Slam Report, The Dojo of Wrestling Truth and has been featured in a news article by the Akron Beacon Journal [61].
  • Comment OWW is nothing more than a glorified fan site, and as this link proves it isn't a reliable or independent source for indy wrestlers. The other links (one of which is a blog!) do not contain enough information for an encyclopedic article to be created. One Night In Hackney303 12:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Australian apartheid[edit]

Allegations of Australian apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Poorly sourced. One source merely warns of a potential new apartheid. Another looks at the influence Australia may have had on South African apatheid 55 years ago. Also, rather oddly named. —Ashley Y 20:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that notable information could be deleted within two days because it isn't well sourced enough. This is clearly notable article, because Australia's policies inspired those of South Africa-- this is in the historical record, too. Even if it was 55 years ago, it's notable for two reasons:

  1. Encyclopedias are supposed to cover the past in just as much detail as the present, when it comes to politics.
  2. The allegation is still used against Australian society today, even though it's blatantly false in my opinion. (this is comparible to the allegation of economic apartheid in the United States. to me it is blatantly false, but it is a politically notable accusation given the history involved.)

It is hypocrisy to delete this article and keep the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article. So, because this is notable, the answer is to add to it, and source it, just like any other article. We shouldn't delete it because it stifles a potentially notable article from emerging. Keep.--Urthogie 20:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Judging by Urthogie's comments, it seems the name is at least wrong. I'm not sure what the title of the article would be, but "Allegations of Australian apartheid" definitely seems odd, if this is basically a historical issue. I'm not sure what the sources are for any article though; I guess the question is whether a person should be able to make several articles and then say they'll source them later. My experience with article deletions is limited, so I don't really know. Weak Delete --Mackan79 20:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should vote for a move, then (something which is typically discussed on the talk page, not on the AFD).--Urthogie 21:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see where we'd move it. I think others are right that the material is already covered elsewhere. Mackan79 13:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Garrie, it's two days old, this article.--Urthogie
Which is why I said merge it back to where it came from. Not Delete. It should have stayed at Allegations of apartheid until it was bursting out of it's little section - not popped over to a new article as soon as you found one real reference and two tangential ones. It was a stretch for me not to say something along the lines of what Cyberjunkie said below. It is interesting to claim that a country which at one time had forced miscegenation, might also be alleged to hold apartheid laws. Garrie 04:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Peta, this is not a vote. Please give a reason. JRG 08:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly a biased fork of the parent article. Lankiveil 09:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep I wonder at some possible POV in the opinions that it doesn't matter because it was long ago. The stage to take a section into a new article is an editing consideration. I think that stubs are a good way to build articles, and the only reason for deleting this is if it were intended to remove allstubbs from WP. I do not think there is the least consensus on thatDGG 20:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point isn't that what's old doesn't matter but that the material should be discussed under a more accurate title, as it seems to already be. Mackan79 19:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absolute nonsense; biased fork. michael talk 09:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (1) No real content in the article and (2) Pure rubbish, the Australian government is EXTREMELY supportive of the Aboriginal minority +Hexagon1 (t) 09:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deflower delete. DS 22:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virginal coordinate system[edit]

WP:CB __Just plain Bill 20:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just went searching for "celestial virgin" and most or all of the hits had to do with the constellation Virgo, only faintly related to the system "described" in this article. Can you put some links to the seemingly relevant results here, please? __Just plain Bill 00:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even searching for "celestial virgin" coordinate returns mostly or entirely stuff about Virgo. Anville 14:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that celestial virgin has to do with constellation Virgo. I knew that there is a noon virgin (intersection between autumnal meridian (12h) and equator (0°)) in Virgo. Cosmium 18:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creation I created these articles about celestial virgin because virgin on celestial sphere is the intersection between celestial meridian and celestial equator. Cosmium 18:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hairy arm[edit]

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

I couldn't find this anywhere on Google. If not a hoax, at least staggeringly obscure JianLi 20:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. Unsourced. Could be made up, or it could be a neologism specific only to a particular industry. If sources are added to make this more than an obscure dicdef, I might be persuaded to revise my vote. 23skidoo 22:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as what appears to be a hoax. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 23:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for solving a long-standing mystery! This is weird, but I was watching a Roger Corman comedy film Munchies a while ago and for no reason there was a shot of a "Hairy Arm"! It was strange and none of us could work out the significance... but now it all makes sense! Thank you Wikipedia. Thank you Hairy arm article. (True story) Croxley 03:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hairy update I have added a reliable source to the article, it took a lot of searching but that confirms it's a genuine term used in film-making. Croxley 04:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, so it's probably not a hoax. But I still have concerns about notability, if you had to go through that much trouble to find it. Does anybody know the relevant criterion for inclusion? --JianLi 00:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article was created in 2001, when wikipedia was more lax about sources. I think it's reasonable to consider the author himself a source. -Haikon 11:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it were a well-recognised phenomena there would be multiple sources everywhere. But it isn't so there aren't, so fails notability. A1octopus 15:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability. In every other film term glossary I've found, there has been no mention of "hairy arm" (see [62], [63], and [64]). I can't find one reliable source about the subject, and there's even the question as to whether to reference posted on the page fulfills WP:RS. But even if it did, the page still fails WP:N as multiple (i.e. more than one) references are needed to keep a page. Rockstar915 05:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, while (IMO) one reference is enough for a barely-there stub (but definitely not for anything better), I do not see any evidence that this term is in widespread use. Maybe its used within a certain section, but overall, it fails the notability criterion. --soum (0_o) 06:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physical nullification[edit]

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

As explained at WikiProject Physics Talk, this page is an exercise in Original Research on a non-notable topic. Google returns 17 hits on "physical nullification", not including WP and mirrors, most of which don't refer to this topic (e.g., "the physical nullification and conjugal rape experienced by many women in the West"). Without a source indicating that Robert Forward's idea was directly based on Isaac Asimov's, then collecting them together is OR. The same goes for the part about wormholes — it's OR because we have no evidence that Forward said any of it, and it probably just stems from the imagination of 66.16.45.2 (talk · contribs), trying to connect an old SF idea with something more modern.

If you cut out the OR, there's not enough left to merit an article. The subject is without foundation in modern science (as JRSpriggs says, "The positive energy of matter and radiation is balanced by the gravitational potential energy which is negative. There is no basis for believing that any other kind of negative energy is possible. The article is pure speculation."). It's non-science, and it's not even widely known or visible non-science, the basic criterion of WP:FRINGE. Anville 20:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails WP:OR.--Bryson 21:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The concept was in fact first suggested, in some detail, by E.E. (Doc) Smith in his "Lensman" series of Sci-Fi novels. But this article fails WP:OR--Anthony.bradbury 23:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I understand nothing about the article but I'd like to thank the WikiProject Physics people for quickly answering my call on this one. I don't have any reason to doubt their assessment of this page as complete bunk (that was my initial feeling also). Pascal.Tesson 01:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is more an essay than an article, and its much of its material is covered in a much better and more concise from at exotic matter. The deciding factor on deletion vs. redirection is that "physical nullification" is a neologism apparently devised by the creator of the article, making that title itself OR. --EMS | Talk 03:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus - default keep -- Bubba hotep 21:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SCENE Music Festival[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be too notable. Granted, it does have some semi-famous bands that have played for it, but how notable can a festival be (outside of the town and surrounding area) if it's only performed in clubs and pubs? SeizureDog 12:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing debate: M (Media and music) ◄Zahakiel► 15:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Knowledge would be lost by deleting this entry. It has good references in the external links and it seems notable enough to keep. - JNighthawk 13:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable enough for an entry, and doesn't even assert to be beyond "bands have played in clubs in this town". Voretus 15:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Artaxiad 21:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per this source and a few others available in Google News and a regular Google search. I will attempt to improve the article now by incorporating the sources. -- Black Falcon 21:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have rewrriten most of the article (see diff); more importantly, I've added 4 sources, of which 3 are independent of SCENE Music Festival. Please compare the version at the time of AFD to the current version. I believe the changes suffice to justify continued inclusion of the article. -- Black Falcon 22:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 20:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, no consensus. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lind[edit]

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

Flunks WP:MUSIC; no references; only reliable source produced was half a sentence at the end of a college newspaper mentioning the existence of a tour, which is the very epitome of "trivial" in the WP:MUSIC standard. THF 20:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating related articles for similar WP:MUSIC failure:

The Ducky Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The War Back Home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Compulsive Fuck Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Death or Jail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
--THF 20:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. He actually isn't signed because he is in negotiating with a new company after his last one expired last month. AxYoung 21:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Seriously, these pages have been up for over six months. And if you want to delete them then go ahead. But you will never convince me that when one were to google "Mark Lind" + "punk" and "Ducky Boys" + "punk" and got 11,000 and 71,000 results respectively, there isn't some of notability out there. You also can't tell me that a band that has toured with major bands like Dropkick Murphys and Rancid doesn't have respect in the music community. I am in no way a member of the band, nor personally know any member of the band or Mark himself. I simply am interested in their music and their strong following within the Boston Area. But if it will delight the Wikipedia "Gods" to delete this article, please go right ahead. AxYoung 21:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. P.S. If you were to google Sailors Grave Records, which recently folded, you would see that a number of their bands, like Bombshell Rocks and Angel City Outcasts but there is no mention of Mark Lind. AxYoung 21:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We're talking about a band that has been of some prominence in the Boston punk scene since the mid to late 90's here. To debate the significance over what is boiling down to the fact that the record label they/he was on going under is ridiculous. Nhbelongstome 22:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment. I can't even believe this is being argued. Mark Lind is one of the most talented musicians Boston has ever seen. Considering the massive amount of talent that has come out of this city, THAT is saying something. To even consider removing his Wikipedia page is ludicrous. Same goes for the band's he has been in. - Kato (that's right, I said it) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.192.65.44 (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Through google searches, amazon searches, and a trip to the local record store, the original person that recommended these articles for deletion should have been stopped in their tracks. It's fairly obvious that each of these entries warrants a spot on the "highly regarded" wikipedia site. Quit wasting your time on these entries and move on to pages that deserve to be deleted.SkaTroma 08:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's absurd to think that anyone would want to delete an artist as important to the Boston Punk Scene as Mark Lind. As stated above... do a google search and take note of all the results. This also would apply to Marks band the Ducky Boys. Seriously, to delete this artist and his former band The Ducky Boys, would undermine the credibility of Wikipedia in general. This also would be a slap in the face to any and all artists who take a DIY approach to music. The fact that Lind has mantained C.D. sales in a very competitive market, even after problems with his label, is a testament to his "Notability". If Linds status as a "signed artist" due to a "hiccup" from Sailors Grave records is your basis for deletion, then you realy ought to re examine your policy. I would think that a 12 year recored of putting out succesful releases, not to mention influencing many other young Boston bands alone would warrent inclusion in Wikipedia. I won't even go into the other "notables" Mark has performed with. That would take up quite a bit more space. The staff of Wikipedia needs to reconsider this ill advised deletion.Skv260 21:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)ssm — Skv260 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Weak Keep Despite not meeting the absolute letter of WP:Music a few clicks around the Internet do seem to confirm that this chap is (at least) fairly famous (if only in the Eastern USA) and does have a large number of appreciative fans. I would therefore contest that he is therefore just about notable enough for an article. A1octopus 12:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability is objective, and not subjective. If this guy is so famous, where are the reliable sources that permit a Wikipedia article? It's not just WP:Music this guy flunks, it's WP:BIO and WP:N more generally. -- THF 12:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swanson Middle School[edit]

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

This article is very poorly written. It is biased and shows no sign of notability. Furthermore no sources are cited and I could not find published sources confirming much of what is said in the article. Vaniac 21:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I know - just my personal 'policy' - a big school is generally notable to its local community, even if not to a wider community. As I say, I'd still go with delete this one, as IMO it's unexpandable. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 23:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found some potentially libelous material among the gush. Much of the article as it remains was written by the same person who stuck in the personal attacks. The picture isn't bad. Maybe there's another article where it can go. Noroton 23:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Look at Arlington Public Schools. Hardly any information there. People who want to create schools articles should first make them sections of school district articles unless they're going to bother to put in more than a few paragraphs of material. If the school district articles get too long, they can calve off "Arlington Public Schools elementary schools" or "---- middle schools". Start a school article when you've got the information. Noroton 23:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo Malcovati[edit]

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

Living writer with only one book and no other claim to notability. A prod tag has been removed three times, twice by different anons and once by the original creator of the article User:Giovanni.manganello (in his third edit ever since he created the article 7 months ago). All three gave similar reasons in the edit summary, and may be the same person. Side note: User:Complainer claims to be Leonardo Malcovati, and has edited the article moderately. Giovanni and Complainer have both been informed after I added the Prod for the first time. Overall I doubt the notability, hence delete. Chris 73 | Talk 21:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No assertion of WP:N.--Bryson 21:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If a {{prod}} is removed, it should not be restored. {{prod}} is only for uncontroversial deletions. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since the article expressly links his notability to authorship of a particular book, I have focused on that by extension, and found nothing that would meet even the threshold standards of Wikipedia:Notability (books). The book returns zero results for a Worldcat search[65], ranks at close to a million at Amazon, is not found through google books, does not appear to have won any awards, and so on. Under these circumstances, if the book is not notable by our standards, then the author is certainly not.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep with a suggestion to merge to Niggor. Although there are a few sources out there, they are in the native language. I believe we have had two keep votes from speakers of that language, and as Herostratus says, the answer is in sourcing. Bubba hotep 21:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monteniggers[edit]

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

NN band, appears to fail WP:MUSIC, but I am not sure. I am also nominating the following page becuase he is a member of the group.

Niggor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
—Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the deletion, per WP:MUSIC. This band fulfills criteria number 1, 3, 6, 10 and 11 for the Musicians/ensembles notability. Sideshow Bob 19:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both unless reliable sources can be provided. --Onorem 19:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Sideshow Bob. This band was a notable band in Montenegro and Igor Lazic Niggor is a notable singer of Montenegro, a true fact. --CG 00:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I guess. Not sourced - the solution for that is sourcing, not deletion... Assuming the material is true, they seem to meed WP:MUSIC. Herostratus 16:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both unless links to non-trivial third party sources are added before the end of this AfD debate. A1octopus 16:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smallest number paradox[edit]

Smallest number paradox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(1) Original research, by the original page author's own statement, and by a lack any of google hits at all. (2) This really fails to identify any genuine paradox; the reasoning is not cogent. Michael Hardy 21:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Zeno's paradoxes, which put it more clearly and accurately 4000 years previously. (The "smallest integer" is either 1 or 0 depending on your point of view, anyway.) But keep as a redirect as I could imagine someone searching on this term. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Neither 0 nor 1 is the smallest integer, but 1 is the smallest positive integer (unless you define positive so as to include 0). Michael Hardy 00:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is no more than a restatement of Zeno's paradox, only less cogently. Nothing new here. Lose it, please.--Anthony.bradbury 23:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please allow me to fix this, just have to reword some stuff and it makes sense again. Eminence Grise 18:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Eminence Grise[reply]
    • After you do that, there's still another problem. You yourself seem to have said this is original research. Are you unaware that original research is forbidden on Wikipedia, so that in itself is considered grounds for deletion? Michael Hardy 01:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR restatement of Zeno's paradox. It isn't really fixable per Michael Hardy. Smmurphy(Talk) 05:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clear case of OR. --Pjacobi 09:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RogueNinja 18:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seamans, Yancy[edit]

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

Only claim of notability is that he is a "program officer" for a charitable organization. Has apparently written some scholarly papers, but there really is no notability claim in this article. Elmer Clark 22:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable, and article consists almost entirely of weblinks.--Anthony.bradbury 22:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info Wiki[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable wiki. There's a clear COI (the article creator is the creator of the website, he even links to his only WP userpage). Not a large wiki either and doesn't appear to meet WP:WEB and WP:ATT (its own statistics page says it has "19 pages that are probably legitimate content". PROD was removed by anon. Delete as failing WP:ATT and WP:WEB. Wickethewok 22:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The site has 3 users in toto ([66]) and clicking random article, has about 8 undeveloped articles. Zero hits for a Google link search. Thus very unlikely there is any attribution in reliable sources to be found.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. It should have been speedied -- no assertion of notability (A7). utcursch | talk 05:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As clear case of Speedy as can possibly be. Utterly non-notable something hosted on editthis.info. 19 pages "probably legitimate content", 24 articles in main space altogether, 3 users (only 2 of which have contributions, and only 1 of which has a user page)... -- Ekjon Lok 20:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DXRAW 03:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFD is not a vote. If you would like to see the article retained, you must provide some sort of justification based in Wikipedia policy and/or guidelines. Wickethewok 02:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. WjBscribe 23:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Girl Gone Bad[edit]

Good Girl Gone Bad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not only is this album, as of today, not yet titled (see [67] and [68]), but the editor who created the article did so by cutting and pasting the contents of Rihanna's third album into this new title. The redirect is useless because this is not, and never as been (as far as I can tell), the title of the album. Extraordinary Machine 22:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay, the title has been confirmed on Rihanna's official website, and it is indeed Good Girl Gone Bad. I know I probably should have checked this, but I also know we're not trying to "scoop" other websites and publications for the latest updates, so it was better to err on the side of caution and exclude unsourced speculation about a future product. Another admin should probably close this... Extraordinary Machine 20:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone Tell Sam Jackson He's My Bro[edit]

Just a YouTube video that has no assertion of notability. It does not have the coverage of multiple, non-trivial works that WP:WEB requires. Hbdragon88 22:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete --Bubba hotep 22:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegan Community Players[edit]

Allegan Community Players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable theatre group. So they're pretty old, hardly a big deal. Just about every theatre group is going to be the oldest in some geographic location. All this really is is a list of people, 99% of them completely non-notable. A couple semi-famous people may have been associated with them over the years, but no one is famous for their association with the group. The bar where Tom Wopat washed dishes when he was in college is not notable from its association with Tom Wopat, and the same goes for this little group. R. fiend 21:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing debate: O (Org., corp., or product). ◄Zahakiel► 21:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Despite what the "non-notable" nominator says, this theater group is notable to warrant an article. The group is of significant historic note and interest being distiguished as the oldest continuing theater group in the whole state of Michigan. It is of value to researchers and theater buffs alike and the fact that some noted individuals were members of this group is notable in and of itself. Cliff Robertson can hardly be called a "semi-famous" actor, he is an Academy Award winner! And the bizarre example of Tom Wopat washing dishes in a bar is as irrelevent to this vote as is a bartender editing Wikipedia. I would love to see more information added to the article but my keep vote is not dependent on that. It's a keeper. Dwain 01:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about some sources that assert historical importance. Don't confuse notability with importance, if no sources are available then an article fails to meet notability standards. --Daniel J. Leivick 14:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not inherited. Having once been part of group -- long before having been famous -- doesn't impart any notability to the group. --Calton | Talk 13:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that this Calton is a troll. I am engaged in an argument with this user over another article and he is following me to "get back at me". This proves that this user is incapable of editing Wikipedia intelligently. He lies by the way just to let you all know. Bad troll! Dwain 17:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Argument" implies an exchange of views, as opposed to, say, a vaguely coherent ranting monologue. So, no, there's no "argument" going on. --Calton | Talk 08:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. Some of our regular articles contain a list of names, but this usually occurs when all or most of the names are notable enough to have their own articles. If this one were ever to be made into a proper encyclopedic article, it would have to lose the list of names. Since there's really nothing here right now except those names and a few links to web sites, I'm voting to delete. EdJohnston 03:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 22:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It does not appear that anyone has bothered to provide notice to the article's creator and any significant contributors. This is considered to civil under WP guidelines, but is seldom honored in practiced. This should be the responsibility of those initiating the AfD. If this not done by tomorrow I will do it myself, if I am able. Edivorce 20:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has always puzzled me that it should not be required in all cases. The prod template provides a simple way to do it, and so could they one for afd.
  • Weak keep under the assumption ist can be sourced. If it is as notable as claimed, there will surely be reviews. A list of productions would have made more sense than an undifferentiated list of cast members, but that's a editing question. Ifno sources are found quickly, delete.DGG 22:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Basically an adequately sourced stub and a questionable list. If the list is not appropriate the solution is to edit the article, not to delete the whole thing. Thank you DGG for providing notice. Edivorce 17:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This embarrassment to Wikipedia doesn't even rise to the level of a stub, and if I wanted a listing of names of people I've never heard of and never will hear of I'd use the local phone directory. WP:LOCAL applies unless someone turns up something other than mere existence. --Calton | Talk 13:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Zero secondary sources. —Cryptic 00:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting to have two Japanese speaking non-Japanese. Maybe there is some sort of "connection" between Calton and Cryptic. Hmmm. A lot to ponder there. Dwain 15:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dwain, it would be sensible for you to remove the personal attacks against Calton that you posted above. EdJohnston 17:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't hold your breath. --Calton | Talk 19:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The stub is sourced from a little write up on a theater directory website, but it doesn't look like an actual article can be sourced. This AfD has been around for a long time and no one has added anything to establish notability. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of independent non-trivial sources. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Shimeru 18:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Interconnectivity[edit]

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

Unreferenced, no secondary sources are likely to exist on the topic, completely OR concept, only linked from I Heart Huckabees and redirects. Croctotheface 22:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete nn. and OR +Hexagon1 (t) 09:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too deep a level of detail for a run of the mill movie, covered in the I ♥ Huckabees article. If an editor wants to add a bit more detail on the concept into the I ♥ Huckabees article, OK, but we don't need a whole separate article. Herostratus 17:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Allwright[edit]

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

Another non-notable junior footballer. Playing for a national U/17 side is not sufficient by itself to assert notability. Mattinbgn/ talk 22:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article says he's due internationally for trials within four weeks - maybe it should be kept till then? but definately, revisited.Garrie 01:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment with all due respect to Mr. Allwright, the newspaper article referenced indicates he can't get a contract with an A-League club which would be the bare minimum to establish notability. Once again, if at a later date, he was to be picked up by Dundee United or another professional club, the article could be recreated. The editor who created the article may consider saving a copy of this article on his/her user page to recreate if necessary. --Mattinbgn/ talk 02:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the author, I've saved a copy at User:Fedgin/Joel Allwright and will consider replacing when/once any further news develops. Fedgin | Talk 08:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 09:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This player does not meet any of the requirements of WP:BIO i.e. he has no professional experience and U-17 is a boys' level, not a notable one. Article could always be recreated if his trial with Dundee United comes to anything, but there's no point hanging on because it may well not, or even if it does he might be sent to the youth team rather than being added to the first team squad, in which case he still wouldn't meet WP:BIO requirements ChrisTheDude 09:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete U-17 players are not notable; if he ever becomes a full professional an article can be creatd about him then. Qwghlm 11:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable yet. playing on regional league and a nation school boy team. Matthew_hk tc 17:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Matthewhk. Stifle (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep substantially rewritten version. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ada Dietz[edit]

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

Non-notable math crank not recognized by professional establishment. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or rebuild from the ground up. Dietz claimed that one could use polynomials in multiple variables to represent weaving patterns. This is hardly crankery. On the other hand, the article's substantive claims (such as that Dietz was "famous as a rebel against the mathematical establishment") are simply false. There does not appear to be enough solid information available to turn this entry into at least a stub. Michael Slone (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. Although she may not have been primarily an academic, the article claims notability on the basis of her academic contributions, so I believe this is appropriate for that list. —David Eppstein 03:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that a professional mathematician requested PlanetMath to add an entry on Dietz shows that she is notable in the field of mathematics. Of course the establishment will always be slow to accept those outside the mainstream. Just look at Kurt Heegner's life story. Let's not forget that this is Wikipedia. When a single line is "simply false," we can just delete that one line. Information on Dietz'z life story is a little hard to find, but I think we can get the ball rolling without running afoul of the "no-original-research" fanatics. PrimeFan 21:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think my requesting an entry on Dietz shows that she is notable in the field of mathematics. I stumbled upon a few pages on Dietz online and requested the entry because I was hoping someone might have some information on her or her method of using polynomials to design weave patterns. I do not believe that Dietz is notable as a mathematician and can find no evidence that Dietz herself made claims to being a mathematician. Michael Slone (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really think we need some information than the entry request, though I suppose we could link to even that at

[69]. If you know about her, you must know about her from somewhere.DGG 23:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep ,rebuild from the ground up, and she's not an academic so why is she listed here?. It's unfortunate that she is listed as a mathematician because her enduring contibution seems to be a novel method for coming up with weaving patterns. As per the sources listed on the page she obviously had some math background, but her accomplishments are recognized primarily by weavers and her methods are still in use a half century later. The nomination claim that she is a "math crank" suggests that little effort was made to contextualize her work. This woman never made claims to revolutionize math, she simply combined her education with a hobby to design novel woven patterns. Irene Ringworm 23:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless substantial sources discovered to verify that she meets WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See recent edits which offer multiple periodical sources as per WP:BIO. An annotated volume of her work is still in print a half-century later. Irene Ringworm 21:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Irene Ringworm has said, this seems to meet the demand of WP:BIO for multiple independent published sources. And I think the article clearly documents her notability as a pioneer of the connection between mathematics and weaving patterns; see e.g. Grünbaum and Shephard, Satins and Twills, Mathematics Magazine, 1980 for a discussion of the sparsity of works on the mathematics of weaving (unfortunately ignorant of Dietz' work). —David Eppstein 21:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The others who've voiced their opinions here and those who've edited the article have pretty much debunked the nominator's reason pretty much word for word. Ada Dietz is a notable weaver with a mathematical background who is gradually being recognized by the mathematical establishment. Robert Happelberg 22:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a good example of the AFD process working properly. I can see why the nominator was concerned, as the version proposed for deletion is rather dubious ("famous as a rebel" etc.), but the article has been substantially improved. --C S (Talk) 05:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like Chan-Ho said, the article has been corrected and improved since the deletion nomination. However, kudos to the nominator for behaving maturely in the face of disagreement. CompositeFan 17:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close by nom.

Covad[edit]

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

Provides no source, no attempt to establish notability and fails WP:CORP BJTalk 22:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Close. BJ, what in blazes are you doing?! this is one of the largest CLECs in the United States - possibly the largest! --Dennisthe2 23:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 23:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is at best a stub, but that does not by any stretch justify a speedy delete of this article. I'll provide significance forthwith. Skybunny 00:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the 16th-largest ISP in the USA would seem to qualify as notable. Stifle (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What were you thinking? It doesn't fail WP:CORP and it has sources.--Paloma Walker 05:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel Bryant 23:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Thorn[edit]

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

Blatant hoax Mattinbgn/ talk 22:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, although "Specky Magee" is a genuine publication. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unattributed, putative hoax. Can't find this Ben Thorn, targetting with multiple different facts from article, though there is apparently a well known musician by the same name.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 00:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 02:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax. It's a bit of a giveaway that the creator is Beno93, which probably means he's a 14 year old called Ben (Thorn). Croxley 03:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a hoax, and not a funny or clever one, either. Booo! Lankiveil 09:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. As above, blatant hoax/joke. Sarah 11:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. howcheng {chat} 16:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael S. Greco[edit]

Michael S. Greco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Past president of the American Bar Association, but only for one year. All sources are American Bar association (i.e. not independent). Guy (Help!) 23:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I already received permission from WP:ANI to write this. I'll provide indep sources soon.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 23:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article is only one day old! Shouldn't it be accorded some tolerance? —SlamDiego 03:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been around for a while, this version is new, but it's reposted (rewritten from new sources). Guy (Help!) 08:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but please leave open for the full five days to see if Ed can find these sources. I can't. -Amarkov moo! 04:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely. No hurry at all. Guy (Help!) 08:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I don't see a case for this individual meeting WP:BIO, but I'll give Ed a few days to make a case here.--Isotope23 13:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update, I've added 2 more indep sources, I'll go check my databases for more.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 13:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional sources are continually being added: please reconsider.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 15:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If these refs were in at the time, I'd not have nominated it. I would not object to a speedy close. Ed's work is sound, although a lot of the sources are Greco says X rather than about Greco they do in aggregate establish the profile of the individual. Guy (Help!) 17:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Having been president of the major professional association is strong evidence of notability. In most professions, the term is limited to one year, so there's nothing off about that. There are quite enough sources. It should have been obvious from even the first stub that the subject was clearly notable and that sources would be available. Its verifiability, not verified. 22:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, looks good now. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important Keep, ABA presidents only maintain office for one year, so the above is not unusual. Greco was the first American Bar Association President in history born outside of the United States. A friend & professor at Yale Law School, Ron Sullivan, Jr., told me that Greco's work has been critical, particularly the commission on the Renaissance of Idealism in the Legal Profession, his Task Force on Domestic Surveillance, and the Task Force on Hurricane Katrina -- all are nationally recognized (can be Googled for further review). The blue ribbon task force on presidential signing statements and Commission on Civic Education and the Separation of Powers to which he appointed supreme court justices O'Connor and Ginsberg, and Theodore Sorenson, are now discussed in law school curriculums, including at Yale. Greco continues to tour internationally as a speaker on these and other issues and may be considering a run for office according to sources.

However more needs to be added to this article, this Wikipedia article is incomplete; Google readings of Greco's background and activities reveal much more to supplement this article.- Mitchell

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

The result was transwiki'd to Wiktionary, then deleted. ♠PMC♠ 20:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boston slang[edit]

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

Already nominated once before, with no consensus. I outlined some of my concerns with the article earlier this month on the talk page. The entire article is original research and completely lacks any citations (it's been tagged as unreferenced since December 2005), and full of useless entries like "Wake - Red Sox pitcher Tim Wakefield". Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information also apply here, I think. I don't even want to transwiki this, simply because it's so full of OR and, I suspect, inaccurate. --Miskwito 23:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom --Miskwito 23:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep and cleanup some of these look unreferenceable and should be removed. however, as a whole the concept of the page appears to be acceptable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 23:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. Enough is legitimate. Fg2 01:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need this page I needed some reference to a term I heard and google pointed me here. While here I did some editing, as there were some glaring errors and omissions. You want to delete an srticle because you "suspect" it is inacurate? NO way.Sulldogga
    • I want to delete it because it's unreferenced and almost entirely original research, both of which are in clear violation of Wikipedia policies. Other people have made good points here about massive cleanup being possibly better than outright deletion (I don't know that I agree, simply because I think this type of thing is likely to always have a lot of original research in it by its nature, and because Wikipedia is not a dictionary). But their arguments address the problem of lack of citations and original research fairly well, while I don't really see a clear argument against deletion from you. --Miskwito 02:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would seem this article is more appropriate for wiktionary than the current wiki, however I want to know what your source is for its supposed inaccuracy. From what I see (and I haven't reviewed it all), it is relatively accurate with a bit of cleanup needed. sulldogga
  • Delete - Aside from being unreferenced original research, it also is simply a dictionary disguised as an article. -- Whpq 20:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The arguments for keeping given in the prev. AfD remain valid. Many of the objections raised there, which were mainly related to the inclusion or exclusion of certain entries, seem to have been addressed. The collection of these on a page is more than a dictdef. DGG 22:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Lack of references. Possibly original research. Fails WP:A. Stifle (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:OR, plus it's dictionary content. --Dariusk 03:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Davi[edit]

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

Article does not cite sources that qualify the subject's notability. HeartsThatHate 23:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While the bands might be notable, there is not enough here (with references) to establish the individual's notability. CosmoNuevo 10:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless references are added to verify notability. Stifle (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close. These articles were created by the sockpuppet of a user known for creating hoax articles. I've blocked both the sock and the puppetmaster indefinitely. Grandmasterka 00:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Israel ochoa[edit]

Israel ochoa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Step In (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unbroken (israel ochoa album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hoax. He doesn't exist on AllMusic and the IMDb link provided does not back up the page's claims. Also claims to have had a premiere on TRL when that's not the case. Prod removed by another editor whose last edit was in August 2006 to the movie that the author claims Ochoa to have been in. JuJube 23:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. As Butseriously states, verifiability is not the sole criterion for the inclusion of an article. Being included on a list, however reliable it may be, is not a sufficient assertion of notability. yandman 13:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accreditation Governing Commission of the United States of America[edit]

Accreditation Governing Commission of the United States of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP. Unnotable company. This group is not a authoritized United States accreditor, and thus its accreditation is meaningless.[70] That means this is a company. Unnotable, undescriptive, no claims of notability, etc. The website is registered to "John Doe" and has no phone number, email address, or mail address. How can you have an article without sources? Arbustoo 23:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment' If so, and this is referrred to, we have all the more reason to source and keep the article. DGG 04:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What do you mean if? The link I supplied above[71] shows this is not a legimate accreditor. Thus, it is an accreditation mill. An article about an accreditation mill is worthless if the article just says what its not and lacks WP:RS telling what it is. It already appears on List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning, and that's good enough. Delete as NN. Arbustoo 14:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe this company is notable within its category; the article is a stub and needs to be added to, not deleted. --Orange Mike 16:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What are you sources for proving it is "notable within its category"? I disagree that it appears notable, hence the afd. Please offer to proof to assert this. Arbustoo 21:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 15:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a single source and nothing that points to notability. Pax:Vobiscum 19:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Sources have been there from the very first, though not visible unless the article was looked at carefully--which I did not do last night. I have just reformatted them for increased visibility, and there should be no more question. Expansion wouldn't hurt, but that's an editing question. it should be obvious that a notable purported accreditor is as worthy of an article as a real one--and the article serves a real purpose, for it can now be linked to if some diploma milll or the like should list it as a source.DGG 22:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: How do you expand it when there are no sources for it? The website is registered to "John Doe" and there is no names, addresses or phone numbers. Is this a scam? Is it real? The "sources" are simply two lists that say its no a recognized accreditor. According to WP:CORP, we should have multiple non-trival sources. Feel free to find and add the sources. Until then it is clearly not notable. Its claims and mention on two lists does not mean it is wikiworthy. Arbustoo 01:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I share Arbustoo's view that this organization is an accreditation mill. I created the article to provide documentation of the claims made by this outfit and the evidence for listing it as an "unrecognized accreditation association of higher learning." Several diploma mills claim authenticity based on accreditation by them (for example, see this page), so an article about their status could be helpful to people who might otherwise be taken in by a diploma mill. Additionally, I do not trust List of unrecognized accreditation associations of higher learning, because I have found some legitimate organizations listed there with red links (for example, American Council on Education was listed there). In my opinion, it would be an improvement if every red link on the list were replaced by an article. Minor issue: I'm dismayed that several other contributors failed to notice the references in the article I created (they were displayed in the text in the format "[1][2]") -- many Wikipedia articles use this format to display URL references, and I thought this was an acceptable (albeit minimalistic) method of listing sources.--orlady 00:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment it being put on list does not mean 1) it notable or 2) we have enough sources for a balanced article. Those two reasons must be considered when explaining vote or keep. WP:CORP says a notable article is multiple non trival sources about the subject. Arbustoo 01:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I did notice the links you provided but, like Arbustoo pointed out, they cannot be considered "non-trivial sources". What we need is articles or books written about the subject. Pax:Vobiscum 08:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Major diploma mills that currently claim this entity as the source of their authority to grant degrees include Capitol University and University of NorthWest. Some diploma mills that formerly claimed accreditation by this outfit now say that accreditation is irrelevant (for example, see University of Northern Washington).--orlady 14:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment But that doesn't matter unless there are sources, and the current references are just mentions of the name. I'm not trying to say that the organization doesn't exist, I'm saying that if there are no non-trivial sources of information (such as books, articles about the organization), the article must be deleted per official policy. Pax:Vobiscum 14:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Orlady, 1) we need RS sources for write an article. 2) Those "major diploma mills" don't even have wikipedia articles. This article can be recreated when there is enough to write about. Until then it fails to do any parties favors. There is a solid record of removing unnotable unaccredited places.[72] Please provide non-trival WP:RS or reconsider changing your vote. Arbustoo 17:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment further research shows "Accreditation Governing Commission of the United States of America" is not a registered business nor is a registered non profit. A search through the Chroncile of Higher Education and various news searches shows nothing. This is an unotable website. Fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Arbustoo 21:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment a domain check shows its website is registered to "Doe John" in ORLANDO, FL. Hardly anything we want to keep on wikipedia. Arbustoo 21:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP, which states that "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." If there were newspaper articles or govermental reports or court cases that actually discussed the subject, it might qualify, but the article does not pass WP:ATT at the moment. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisted for more opinions. Arbustoo 20:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourced There are two excellent official government sources from different states, and that is enough. DGG 07:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CORP states "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." It belong on two lists is trival. Arbustoo 23:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thats not a very good interpretation of the guideline. The government entities are authoritative and reliable sources on the matter of accreditation, and inclusion on this list is considered to be an official ruling. These lists (and these lists alone), are used by other institutions to determine the validity of credits - that alone makes these reliable sources. The WP:CORP guideline was intended to prevent using directory like listings of companies as reliables sources. Thats obviously not the case here - Keep for passing WP:V and WP:ORG as a diploma mill. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 01:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Just because it's true does not mean it belongs in Wikipedia. Inclusion on a list is trivial coverage. There's no notability here. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Entarian Dominion guild web site
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_29&oldid=1081100612"