Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 4 March 6 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul wesley weber[edit]

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

(Apparently) autobiographical article that doesn't assert notability of subject until it gets near the end. The "Henry Ford II Falcon Film Fest" sounds reputable, but doesn't come up with anything relevant in Google (not even changing the wording around a bit), and there is little for "City Boi" that shows its notability. Fourohfour 00:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vote, obviously, though if creator comes up with good case I'm happy to change this. Note that article wasn't tagged speedy (well, not by me at any rate). Fourohfour 00:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The article doesn't seem to have any notability, and being a film student does not make somebody notable. Seems to be a hobbyist movie maker. --Dennisthe2 00:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Vanity article about a non-notable person--양복42 02:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sources with assert or support notability. --Haemo 02:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This guy couldn't even be arsed to capitalise his own name in the title. TVshot 03:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per anything and everything above. ChristopherJones 04:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:N violation. Appleworm 09:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vain second year film student. Ohconfucius 10:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The reasons above explain this vote.
  • Delete Violation of WP:BIO and WP:NN, his middle and surname are not even capitalised!Tellyaddict 16:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete violates WP:BIO and WP:AUTO. Vanity. Only one Google search result. - Anas Talk? 16:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - great example of biased autobiography. Violates WP:AUTO, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOTE. - Pious7 17:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and other users. --Ozgod 20:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and other users. Bigtop 23:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and other users. (Small Comment: Short reason cause everybody else basically explained it) Nol888(Talk) 00:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete , not that I have to repeat it, per WP:N, WP:V and WP:BLP AlfPhotoman 01:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. I don't think WP:COI is a reason for deletion in general (the identity of the author has no necessary relationship with the quality of the article). -- Black Falcon 06:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jeff Defender 20:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knight and Dove[edit]

Article about an unpublished book series, created by the author "so when I do publish the book some people have an understanding of the book right away, and also to save me some time." An obvious deletion, but books aren't included in CSD#A7, and my prod was removed by the author. —Celithemis 00:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed, per everything in the nom. Thedreamdied 00:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this has to go. - Richardcavell 01:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:CRYSTAL applies here. --Haemo 02:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree, it shouldn't matter if it's not actually out if it's going to be printed in the near future.--LordJohnBaker12:07AM, 5 March 2007 (PST)
  • Delete Not even published? What is this, Miss Cleo? Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 05:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no question Balloonman 05:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable crystal ballery. Also, the author appears to be publishing the books himself. Maxamegalon2000 06:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete HE IS publishing it Himself, he's already had it sent to be so, but it's a personal friend who does book publishing and he said it'll take time because he gts hundreds of orders a month. The reason I made this page is so when it IS released people can use this as a reference point for my brothers novel if they want to, and so he can also add to it himself. There is no 'crystal ball' involved if it IS being published, who cares if it's the author or a huge company?DamianFoxx 01:11, 5 March 2007 (PST)
  • Published or not, it is not notable. Publishing a book does not make it him or the book notable until there are notable sources reporting on it.--210.49.152.114 07:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - an unpublished book does not a notable author make. WegianWarrior 07:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom StuartDouglas 14:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - clear and confessed case of Self Promotion see WP:COI. Also, this article violates pretty much every other policy I can even think of. I mean it's an article about a non-existent book that's future existence is only known to the guy who wrote it and his buddy(brother?) who wrote the article. - Arch NME 15:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unpublished books, just being used as a place for irrelevant info.Tellyaddict 16:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -as COI/self promotion.-Robotam 17:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No WP:NOTE and I doubt this person will keep the commitment to write the epic 13-book series. If it does ever become popular, someone other than the writer can make a new article then to ensure WP:NPOV. It's not written to Wikipedia standards and Wikipedia is not a place for things that might be notable later on (WP:CRYSTAL). - Pious7 17:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; no assertion of notability from any third-party sources, not even published yet. Fourohfour 20:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sophomore slump. Jersey Devil 06:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second album syndrome[edit]

Second album syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(taken from deletion prod) Neologism, unsourced (and my opinion) a worthless article, not sourced, untrue in places, not useful and maybe better off in a dictionary? Thedreamdied 00:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keepbut clean up and source (perhaps rename, there are two or three other names this goes by). It's a notable phenomenon, at least in terms of perception, and almost certainly sourceable. --Dhartung | Talk 00:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 4000+ hits for "sophomore slump" on Google News Archive. Probably a better, more generic term (hits include authors and sports rookies). --Dhartung | Talk 00:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I mistyped -- there is an article sophomore slump after all. Merge, or delete and redirect. --Dhartung | Talk 00:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • See my note below; "regression to the mean" is an even more comprehensive term for this concept. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, but nobody uses that term in this context. I don't think there's even a perfect concordance, as the point of "sophomore slump" is generally one of expectations rather than of actual quality. A sourced comment to the effect in the sophomore slump article could be appropriate, but let's not collapse all concepts to their logical endpoints. (Why not merge football and soccer into one article?) --Dhartung | Talk 03:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hard to go with this one, but the article has what feels like a lot of original research. I'll stay neutral until I can clear my head. --Dennisthe2 00:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to sophomore slump. That article needs a lot of work too, but I don't think a merge of this content is going to help it. —Celithemis 01:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - noteworthy enough term that it should have its own article, but boy does it need a rewrite. - Richardcavell 01:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect both this and sophomore slump to regression to the mean, the underlying principle of which both these topics are real life examples. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely unsourced. Term appears to have some scattered use, but nothing consistent (earlier drafts of this article vacillated between the current def and one that has the second album as the one that defines an artist's sound or career); best definition I found was here, but that looks like the writer's own definition rather than a commonly accepted one. No real objection to a redirect to sophomore slump, although I doubt it will see much use. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sophomore slump, a more generic and widespread term (over 15x more ghits) which appears to see use in many reliable sources. Krimpet 03:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Sophomore slump is a much more likely title, plus there's a source. John Reaves (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this seems notable enough! but it does need a re-write with references etc etc SMBarnZy 05:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sophomore slump not to Regression to the mean. The latter is a serious statistical phenomenon. The former is a little bit more pedistrian. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 06:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to sophomore slump. --Candy-Panda 07:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sophomore slump is an Americanism. Catchpole 13:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, it is an Americansim and I wouldn't have known what on earth it meant except for reading it here, but sophomore slump has many more ghits and a redirect solves the problem of not knowing the American term StuartDouglas 14:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Catchpole, I suggested redirecting to the better article, which happens to be more of an American term. I don't know if there's a British cognate that should be included there, unless it's this one. Regardless, there should only be one article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Al-Bargit 15:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Violation of WP:NEO and its just like a dictionary definition which is a violation of NN anyway.Tellyaddict 16:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirectto Sophomore slump .-Robotam 17:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the more common term, no need to merge any of this content. There are no sources listed and probably no sources this material came from; see WP:NOT#OR. - Pious7 17:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Merge and expand the appropriate section of Sophomore slump. - 192.75.101.66 18:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sophomore slump, which covers the idea just as well.-- danntm T C 18:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Sophomore slump. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If it can be referenced it should stay - Wikipedia already includes music industry lingo like One hit wonder. Although I wonder if this article should be merged into the One hit wonder article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ozgod (talk • contribs) 20:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Redirect Sophomore slump Meaningful username 22:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (WP:NEO). No objection to redirect, assuming Sophomore slump isn't also a violation. /Blaxthos 23:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sophomore slump, 8 months w/o sources, it likely won't get any. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a non-neologistic term (see this). Failing that, merge to sophomore slump. -- Black Falcon 06:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to sophomore slump, but if sources can't be found just redirect it. Darthgriz98 22:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep/Merge It really does need to cite its references, as it does seem to address the subject matter quite well (it is a very well known phenomena in popular music and widely commented upon) but currently reads like original research. LessHeard vanU 22:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete textbook original research Guy (Help!) 22:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g11 spam, author using the article to promote his nonnotable website. NawlinWiki 00:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool webcast[edit]

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

This seems like no more than an advertisement to a myspace page. Also the idea behind such an article is implausible, "cool" and "webcast" have their own entries and their sum is no more than the combination of their parts. I would have used "speedy deletion" but this article has already been edited by several and resisted a "prod" (deleted by an anonymous editor). Eldar 00:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:N and the references do not support the phrase. Jeepday 00:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. alphachimp 00:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gossick[edit]

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

Delete Non notable game element ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 00:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bucketsofg 21:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaim Richman[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. A search through Google reveals only self-published sources, no WP:RS. Leuko 00:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete per nom if no sources can be found. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article does not appear to be notable, again, maybe if reliable sources can be found... Hello32020 02:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Searches using Google, Yahoo, etc. reveal primarily self-published sources and unverifiable items, agreeing what Leuko stated. Fails reliable sources. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources so failing WP:RS and a failure of WP:BIO.Tellyaddict 16:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His books are available from Amazon.That should count for RS. Basing on number of references returned from Google. My vote will be to keep --Mqmpk 19:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep He does have a television show as noted in the article. --Ozgod 20:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It's really not a television show, its more of a podcast on a blog if you follow the link. Leuko 21:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Seicer. Montco 06:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have added a source from Frontline's webpage, about a documentary on the red heifer, in which Rabbi Richman was apparently prominently featured.—Carolfrog 06:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability - and little or no content in the article. NBeale 21:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although I'll reserve judgment until more sources are produced, Rabbi Richman and his controversial organization have gotten into the news often enough that I suspect notability can be established. Rabbi Richman has been controversial, not only for his efforts to rebuild a Third Temple on the Temple Mount, build ritual objects, find a Red Heifer, and prepare for its opening, but for various controversies along the way such as his efforts to protest the current ban on non-Muslim prayer on the Temple Mount, and raise money from prominent American Evangelical Christian figures who believe a third temple must happen before a Second Coming (See e.g. [1], [2]). Best, --Shirahadasha 02:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources found. --Shirahadasha 07:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability established based on sources found by Shirahadasha from the Jerusalem Post and US News & World Report. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 05:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. --Shirahadasha 03:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this nut. IZAK 12:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - abuse doesn't help the debate. However cranky his views they get notable coverage. I have added two books he has written that are sold by Amazon.com (one of which is referenced on The Knesset official site) and more mainstream media coverage. BlueValour 23:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ViridaeTalk 10:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foot in Mouth award[edit]

Foot in Mouth award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic list of quotes with almost no content attached, possible candidate for wikiquote but not here. Vicarious 01:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this award is widely quoted, and is probably the most notable award of its type. - Richardcavell 01:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Plain English Campaign. ObtuseAngle 01:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Bi 06:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I'm not opposed to a merge, I'm not sure what there is to merge, there's only one line of material in the article, the rest is quotes with brief intros. Vicarious 06:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of the award would be a good place to start, since the Plain English Campaign article doesn't even mention it. A list of winners wouldn't be out of place, and if the quotes can be sourced, they might even fit. ObtuseAngle 15:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as internationally famous, and expand and improve. SmokeyJoe 12:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per SmokeyJoe Jules1975 15:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A list of quotesm this does not belong on wikipedia.Tellyaddict 16:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and add the link (http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/footinmouth.htm) to Plain English Campaign#Further reading if it's really that important. All the article is is a near-exact copy of that page anyway. - Pious7 18:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, not much value here. /Blaxthos 23:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not much valuable content to merge. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 23:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not because of the current content (which indeed can mostly go), but because the award itself is notable enough to merit an entry with other content (btw sending the list of quotes to wikiquote is imho a good idea). Eldar 00:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This is the name that people know, rather than the name for the organization that gives the awards.DGG 05:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the following coverage in BBC, The Register, CBC, People's Daily, ABC, China Daily, and many more that could easily be found if desired. -- Black Falcon 07:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incorporated. The sources have been added to the article at various junctions. -- Black Falcon 07:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I never questioned that this was a real thing, but there are large amounts of material that are factual but still don't belong on wikipedia, namely the content on Wikipedia's many sister projects. Vicarious 03:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikiquote (I've changed my opinion). They're all quotes except the first sentence, but they do have notability. - Pious7 00:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we leave a redirect to Wikiquote? SmokeyJoe 01:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's apparently a real award and has gotten real coverage. Clearly meets notability. If this were a list of movies winning an award there would be little debate me thinks. --Hobit 02:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Sasquatch t|c 17:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Siu Wong[edit]

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

Non-notable. Minor actor. Peter Rehse 02:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: this article is almost a word-for-word replica of IMDB's mini biography. It needs a complete rewrite to remove potential copyright material and may qualify as a speedy per CSD G12. --Muchness 03:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I missed that - I tagged it as a speedy.Peter Rehse 03:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:11Z

Anna Shulgina[edit]

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

This article's subject is unverifiable; I can't find any mention of an Anna Shulgin or Shulgina that matches the article's description on Google, outside of Wikipedia mirrors. The article makes some extraordinary claims but provides no substantiating evidence. Even if substantiated, the subject's claim to notability is somewhat dubious. --Muchness 02:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (o rly?) 21:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snappy gum trick[edit]

Snappy gum trick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I put a notability tag on this article in October 2006, and there have been no improvements since then. Seems to be non-notable and unencyclopedic. →EdGl 03:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yeah kill it, that product is pretty much self-explanatory if you go and buy it. Guroadrunner 06:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a pretty popular prank. Article needs work, though. --Candy-Panda 07:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean-up the article, is a very popular trick toy.
  • Keep, there're over 50.000 Google hits for this keyword. Though the article violates WP:MOS and WP:CITE and WP:RS, it still worth keeping. Appleworm 14:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, your search above was for articles which had ANY of the three words "snappy", "gum" and/or "trick". When you search for the exact phrase "snappy gum trick" there are only 22 hits. Dugwiki 20:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; all this means is that (possibly) the trick isn't widely-known under that specific name. If that's the case, and a more widely-used name exists, the page could be moved, but the trick itself *is* a fairly widespread one. Fourohfour 21:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a classic gag, the encyclopedia could hardly be called encyclopedic without it, WP:IAR - Arch NME 16:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although potential merge candidate- does this warrant an article on its own? Still, I have seen these on several occasions, so it at least deserves some form of inclusion. Fourohfour 20:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending cleanup and references The gag itself is real and probably verifiable, and the article even has a good snapshot of an actual package with a snappy gum packet. It was also a classic gag staple in cartoons like Tom and Jerry. So I would lean toward keeping the article, but will point out that it will eventually need proper references and some cleanup. If the article is never properly referenced I might be forced to reconsider. Dugwiki 20:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dugwiki, keep in mind a notability tag has been sitting on this article for nearly half a year, and nobody has helped the article improve. I can certainly see an argument to keep the article, but I fear nobody will do anything about its poor state. →EdGl 22:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, ok, I didn't realize that the reference issue has been sitting there for over a year already. In that case, I'll revise my recommendation to Delete pending references Dugwiki 16:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ATT -- just because it's the oldest gag in the book doesn't trump attribution. I removed the "A better way..." portion, as it's completely original research. /Blaxthos 23:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has been tagged for quite some time now with no attempts to fix the notability and sourcing problems. Should be undeleted if someone comes forward who would be willing to work on the article. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 23:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I don't think the concept in itself is fully warranting of a full page. Suriel1981 00:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But merge where? It helps to let folks know where you think it should go. FrozenPurpleCube 06:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge. Possibly merge a sentence or two to Practical joke#Types of practical jokes. -- Black Falcon 07:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 17:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Programmer Dvorak[edit]

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

Non-notable minimal variation on the Dvorak keyboard. All content on this page originates from the same user; notability not asserted. No keyboards are manufactured with this layout, and all google hits seem to be for the creator's site, Wikipedia content, forums, or blogs. Krimpet 03:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up in the engineers' bull-pen one day. --Dhartung | Talk 03:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete failing references showing this has gained some notability, I would say this is not for Wikipedia. HowIBecameCivil 19:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; agree, we need third-party references asserting the notability of this layout; minor keyboard variants are ten-a-penny. Fourohfour 20:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. /Blaxthos 23:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, gets hundreds of ghits[8]. Appears to have numerous mentions and reviews of it. Mathmo Talk 05:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Use those google hits to attribute the facts in the article and I will change my mind. HowIBecameCivil 05:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Discounting Wikipedia and DMOZ mirrors, I count 66 ghits. Either way though, none of those hits appear to be reliable sources we can use for attribution, just blogs and forums. And there's still the trump card in this case IMO, that no keyboards are manufactured with this layout. Krimpet 05:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Keyboards do not need to be "manufactured" with a specific keyboard layout in order for that layout to be used. All that is required is that a table in the computer memory or the disk file storing the table be changed, so that the value that is registered when a particular key on the keyboard is pressed is the value that the layout calls for. Given that this layout is designed to be easier for computer programmers to use, it's unlikely that anyone who would be inclined to use the layout would not know how to implement it. See Dvorak_Simplified_Keyboard keyboard layout for a picture illustrating how people who use specialized keyboard layouts customize their keyboard keys with stickers to help them remember the layout.—Carolfrog 06:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ditto. I've used Dvorak off and on for years and NEVER considered buying a non-QWERTY keyboard. I dont care what the plastic says because I dont look at the keyboard when I type. Further, alternate layout keyboards are ridiculously expensive and you have almost no choice in the things you care about (extra function keys, clicky-ness, springy-ness, etc). These issues really matter to a person who is dorky enough to even consider an alternate layout, and someone that dorky who cares about the labels on the keys will probably just pop the keys off his favorite keyboard and reorder them. Whether there is a manufactured keyboard of this layout does not suggest notability in my mind. - grubber 16:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Google hits do appear to indicate that this is not "just another layout" and that it is being used. The fact that no keyboards are manufactured doesn't really make sense to me, as i explain above.... - grubber 16:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kahlen Rondot[edit]

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

This is a pisspoor article which deserves to be deleted. Largely unsourced biography (and so tagged since December 06) of ANTM runner up with a pedestrian modelling career subsequent to the show. All except one of her modelling credits appears to be as a direct result of her participation in ANTM. Ohconfucius 03:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. It's almost pure listcruft -- certainly not worthy of inclusion. alphachimp 00:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freemason businesses[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic listcruft. One has nothing to do with the other. MSJapan 03:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 08:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As the nom noted, it is unclear what being a Freemason has to do with founding a business. If the list is kept, it is going to need clean-up. Many of the persons listed have no mention of their Freemason status in their articles and I'm not sure if external links on this article meet the requirements of WP:V. janejellyroll 04:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. In addition: listcruft, can never be complete, going to run into major trouble with VP:V and WP:OR if expanded. WegianWarrior 07:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It definitely has problems with WP:ATT (which has relpaced WP:V and WP:OR) - There is not a single citation to show that these men were even Freemasons, much less that Freemasonry had some connection to their businesses. This comes across as a poor man's version of a conspiracy page. I think the intent is to imply that large corporations are in some way nefariously tied to Freemasonry (always a favorite with conspiracy fans), without actually saying what the connection is. At best, the info could be added to Freemason conspiracy theories , however it would need citations for that as well. Blueboar 18:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it is a directory, because the external links don't support the whole list, and don't qualify as reliable sources, because it is not encyclopedic. HowIBecameCivil 19:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Crufty trivia. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Dragomiloff 02:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian erotic poetry[edit]

Australian erotic poetry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. An essay based on personal opinion and original research. Spends most of its time arguing that there hardly is any Australian erotic poetry, which would suggest that we don't need an article on the topic. —Celithemis 04:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. ChristopherJones 04:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is largely original research. Further, it actually makes a strong case why this isn't notable as a topic. I quote verbatim: "Erotic poetry is so under repesented in Australian poetry anthologies that it could be said to be a non existent poetic form in Australia. The Penguin Book of Modern Verse, 1961 and the more recent The Penguin Book of Modern Australian Poetry (1991) contain no examples of erotic poetry. The National library of Australia until quite recently (2006) had no category called "erotic poetry Australian" Colin Leslie Dean and Collins, T. M. (Timothy Maurice), are the only two poets listed under the subject category "erotic poetry- Australian" in the National Library of Australia catalogue." Capitalistroadster 04:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 04:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Becuase there is very little Australian erotic poetry it is important to have an article on this subject. This argument is spurious it is like saying in the late 1700s that because there is little romantic poetry ie Wordsworth then Wikipedia should not have an article called romanitic poetry. This sort of argument will just hinder the presentation of new ideas genres and themes on Wikipedia and thus make it not up to date and at the cutting edge of new developments. This sort of argument could be applied to the net itself which is changeing every day and thus hinder Wikipedia fropm giveing up with current trends. The deletion of Australian erotic poetry will stop Wikipdedia from being at the forefront of what is happening in Australian poetry. Deleting this article would be like deleting an article on post modern Australian poetry or hyperlink Australian poetry -all underrepresented in Australia- and thus not giving a broad coverage of the current trends in Australian poetry. This article should not be deleted as it give the current trend and direction in Australian poetry. Just because some topic is new and novel and not at the moment have many represenatives is no reason why an article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamahucher (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. WP:OR, WP:N. And since when was Wikipedia supposed to be on the cutting edge of anything? Cutting-edge stuff is for research journals, not encyclopedias. Bi 04:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unrelated comment Just a note for future ref, WP:OR and WP:V have been superseded by WP:ATT, but there is no change to the underlying policy, just more what it's called and the way it's grouped. Orderinchaos78 10:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep I think it can be sourced, and I think the topic is N. I wish the author had done a better job of it in the first place.DGG 05:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This comment dont make sence. Articles on science,technology ie nanotechnology, Quantum mechanics,gravity state the current situation ie at the cutting edge of these areas. So why cant an article on Australian erotic poetry state the current trends in the area just like those in science — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamahucher (talk • contribs)
      • Indeed, just compare the number of publications talking about nanotechnology to the number of publications talking about Australian erotic poetry! Bi 05:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unintelligible bordering on patent nonsense, seems to actually argue against the topic's notability. Krimpet 05:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Contradictory? Article questions its own notability. As it stands, the article is pretty much original research and has no reliable sources. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research, and probably not notable either. Maxamegalon2000 06:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but add sources - article can be formed better. Just needs work. Interesting topic that seems moderately notable. Guroadrunner 07:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ATT, unless it can be rewritten. It would be more productive to rewrite them as two articles for the poets in question (Colin Leslie Dean and Collins, T. M. (Timothy Maurice)) which can then be appropriately referenced/filled out as Australian poets, and then group them under erotic poetry. It seems ultimately that categorisation, rather than a section article, would be more useful here. Orderinchaos78 10:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

more sources and references have been added

The suggestion for two articles makes no sense. There seems to be no good reason why there cant be an Australian erotic poetry article just as there would be no good reason why there cannot be a modern or post-modern poetry article. Why categorise the poets under Australian poets then sub categorise them under erotic poetry -makes no sense- why not just put the poets in an article dealing with Australian erotic poetry-there seems to be some unspoked issue with an article called Australian erotic poetry

  • Delete per nom. Quite a strange article altogether. StuartDouglas 14:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geee why does being a strange article mean it has to be deleted - this must be a purely subjective valuation . Others say the article is interesting. Tthere seems to be some unspoked issue with an article called Australian erotic poetry

GEEE you say no reliable sources yet one of my sources is straight out of the Wikipedia database- All this is getting a bit out of hand people are just pulling things out of the air to justify deleting the article It seems if someone gives a negitive valuation every one else just follows suit.I have come to the conclusion that the deletion of the article has little to do with its content but rather some other unspoken issue with the article. I draw this conclusion from viewing the range of contradictory comments: some say the article is nonsense other say it is interesting some say it is not notable other say it is moderatly notable some say it canot be sourced other say it can be sourced some say it should be rewritten other say it needs just a bit of work. All these contradictory reasons indicate to me that a lot of subjective feelings are going into the reasons for its deletion. An article cannot generate such a wide variety of opinions if it was fundamentaly flawed. A fundamentaly flawed article would have more consensus regarding reasons. Every time I answer an argument the gaol posts are moved . This indicates that people have it in their minds-for what ever reasons-that this article should be deleted and as such will just go on producing arguments no mater what counter arguments is presented-the goal posts will always be moved to accomadate their feelings about the article— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamahucher (talk • contribs)

Gamahucher, regardless of any other reasons, your article consists of your own personal analysis of the subject matter (or is written in a manner that blatantly gives that impression). That there may be other flaws does not obscure the fact that it's *blatantly* original research and inappropriate for that reason alone. Fourohfour 20:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; blatantly crosses the line separating an encyclopedia article from a dissertation/essay/analysis. In other words, it's original research and doesn't belong here, regardless of how good or bad it is. Fourohfour 20:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I think the issue should not be in the style it is written, but the notability and potential of the article. An article written like an essay about a notable subject should not be deleted, it should be corrected. This is not to say that the article is notable, or to assert any other opinion other than you should make sure you are deleting it for the right reason. Original research also- if it's notable, don't delete it, fill it with secondary research. SeanMD80talk | contribs 00:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have an article on erotic poetry yet, or even a separate article on Australian poetry -- just a section in Australian literature. Are you saying we should keep an article that's completely unacceptable from start to finish, just as a sort of work order for someone else to create something encyclopedic about this particular niche subject? I don't find that persuasive, to put it mildly. This isn't just an article that needs a quick copyedit, or some unencylopedic rhetoric trimmed away; it has deep WP:NPOV and WP:NOR problems and would need to be completely researched and rewritten from scratch. If other editors do that, they will be using up time that could be better spent on more urgently-needed subjects; if they don't, it will remain bad indefinitely and be of little or no help to the person who -- perhaps years from now -- undertakes to write an encyclopedic article on this topic.
    In any case, the issue is moot as long as no one has presented non-trivial secondary sources discussing Australian erotic poetry. —Celithemis 01:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No I am not saying you should try improve a completely unacceptable article into something better- if that is what everybody deems it. I just wanted to make sure that we weren't deleting this soley on the way it was written, because I had seen several weak keeps and one strong keep saying it was notable. I never suggested anything about its notability in my comment. SeanMD80talk | contribs 01:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the topic itself is fine, assuming of course an Australian tradition of erotic poetry can be found and sourced. So by the theory of AfD, this should be a cleanup and keep. But it's not clear that any of the actual current content can be saved. What I'd really like to vote is delete for now, but someone should write a good article on the topic. --Trovatore 07:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup. I have added a couple of sources and cleaned up some of the language. It still needs massive cleanup for NPOV and WP:ATT and rewriting, but I don't think that we should delete it just because we don't have an Australian Poetry or an erotic poetry article. Someone should write those ones, too. —Carolfrog 08:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still seems like a Delete to me - the new version is much better written and presented but the key problem - the almost total absence of any actual erotic Australian poetry (3 headings of four int he enw article have no content) - means that it still is forced into essay format and original research (e.g. "In the main, erotic poetry in Australia is a form of heresy"). StuartDouglas 09:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, basically an original research essay. Not encyclopædic. Lankiveil 11:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have added a link to colin leslie dean's erotic poetry that can be downloaded free. If this does not satify you i dont know what will-if the link is deleted after expecially asking for some examples of erotic poetry then I just throw up my hands- since it would then seem there are unspoked issue around the article topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamahucher (talk • contribs)

  • Comment The link that User:Gamahucher added goes to the website of Gamahucher Press, which exclusively publishes the works of Colin Leslie Dean. In the article as Gamahucher originally wrote it, Dean was the poet discussed most heavily. In fact, User:Gamahucher's entire edit history seems geared toward promoting this writer and his books; he has also added links to the articles on mathematics and dreamtime, and created new articles on Meaninglessness and Anti-poetry that are largely about Dean. There appears to be a conflict of interest here. —Celithemis 12:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually the anti-poetry page is much the same as the Erotic Poetry page - empty headings, an advert for Mr Dean's work and some original research to bulk it out. I've added an OR tag to the page to try and generate some discussion and discover if there is more to anti-poetry than Mr Deans. StuartDouglas 13:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with creating entries that adds to the knowledge pool even if they happen to be about one person-there is no universal law saying a person canot be multitalented. You obvious obsession in hunting down such minute detail about what entries have been placed speacks volumes about what may be just personal bias and hostilty or some other unsavory human disposition. A commentator asked for some erotic poetry erxamples so i give a link and all you can do is find some problem with it GEEE have you some big problem with the erotic

  • Comment The problem here isn't with the fact that it's one person, it's that you are basically using Wikipedia to promote someone the success of whom you have an apparent vasted interest in. Therefore you have an obvious Conflict of Interest as covered by conflict of interest as well as the other problems with the article. You seem to think that this all some personal bias on people's part, but that is not the case StuartDouglas 13:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous It like saying that because someone puts entries about Sir Richard Francis Burton in Wikipedia in such entries as anthroplogy poetry india arabian nights etc he has a vested interet in pushing him. This is all getting a bit silly and really speacks volumes about unspoken issues

  • Comment No, the problem isn't the gentleman being in several places, it's that you personally appear to publish Mr Deans; that he doesn't appear to be notable and that you have created multiple articles whose primary purpose is to link to your own site and which serve almost entirely to promote Mr Deans. If someone writes articles which mention Sir Richard Francis Burton in several places, that's fine - he is notable, he's a historical figure and no-one can be said to have a conflict of interest in writing about him. You seem to be using Wikipedia as a means of promoting or advertising someone you personally publish - and that's not what Wikipedia is for. StuartDouglas 13:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I donot publish mr dean I publish topics and themes he has contributed to. This article is not about mr dean it is about erotic poetry which he has contributed to. If mr dean happens to be multitalented why does that preculded the areas he has contributed to from excluision from WikipediaMr dean did not invent Australian erotic poetry -that was created by the National Library of Australia. Are you saying that because he is not a world famous person he cannot appear on Wikipedia. ARE YOU SAYING ONLY WORLD FAMOUS PEOPLE CAN APPEAR ON WIKIPEDIA. Are you saying that mr dean canot have any entries about areas he contributes to I think that is patently ridiculous We have moved from not notable to original research to not enough sources to no examples of erotic poetry to now conflict of interest. It seem you all just jump on the next badwaggon that comes along. What next will it be perhaps becuase the the article was written with my left foot that makes it illegitment. We have moved from attacking the article to now character assinating the author-where will this all end really getting silly and speacks volumes for unspoken issues. All this new bandwaggon of cohorts simpply because I was asked for some examples of erotic poetry. Get real you asked for it I did not give it till asked -so if I was pushing dean why wait to be asked and not just give the link initialy

  • Comment Please believe me that no-one here is attacking any authors, but as you rightly say the problems with this article cover non-notability, original research, not attribution and conflict of interest amongst others. For those reasons alone, it should be deleted. The article (and the others you have contributed to Wikipedia on Meaninglessness and Anti-poetry, plus contributions to Mathematics and Australian literature) are all without exception about Mr Deans and feature links to your own website which apparently publishes Mr Deans. A Google search for Colin Leslie Dean has virtually no hits which aren't either a link to your own website or links to web fora which feature new members praising Mr Dean, only to be shot down imemdiately by more established forum members for spamming and self-promotion. And while this is meant to be a calm discussion and not an argument, might I suggest that the reason you did not initially feature your web address was because on Australian Literature you were immediately edited for link spamming? StuartDouglas 14:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I wrote articles about Sir Richard Francis Burton and owned a bookshop that sold his book would that be vested interet and exclude me from writing such articles. Are you saying bookshop owners canot wriite articles which therir books deal will Get real . If you did not want examples of erotic poetry you should have not askedNo matter if I put a small quote from mr dean all this conflict of interest would still arise. I am afriad that you have set in your mind like some world leaders a course of action and no matter how your arguments are refuted you just keep moving the goal post each time . As I say your obsession with hunting mr dean on google really speacks volumes for an obsessive mind with untoward dispositions

  • Eh, OK. Here's a simple question which, leaving out the question of COI/OR/ATT, should make things crystal clear. Can you point to a set of verifiable, secondary sources (i.e. not ones which simply link to your website) which demonstrate that Mr Dean is in any way a notable poet and not, to quote a reply to one mysterious web forum post claiming Mr Dean was great, "some sort of self-published no-hoper who has no place in a forum for published poetry" [[10]]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StuartDouglas (talk • contribs) 14:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

go to the Auslit Resourse for Australian Literature website http://www.austlit.edu.au/ and type in colin leslie dean to see that he is a notable Australian erotic poet by being listed- you may need to subscribe or your library may give you access. And as I Say if you where around in 1790 you would delete an article on romantic poetry featureing Wordsworth- notablity is no criteria for value just as being disparaged is no criteri for inablity- I recall Galileo was disparged in his time to IMr dean is also in cambridges publication 2000 outstanding scholars of the 21st century as an Australian poet philosopher if you have a copy have a look- if that aint notable then nothing is . If you have access to worldcat-the library database you will see mr dean has books at such univserities as yale Harvard and the library of congress

  • Comment Sorry, but notability is what matters here. And as I can't access the link you included, perhaps you could cut and paste the relevant section. To stress again, no-one is out to get you or Mr Dean, but as things stand your contributions to Wikipedia appear to be entirely an attempt to gain publicity for a non-notable and self-published poet with no critical review. As for the 2000 Oustanding Scholars book, that seems to be a pay for inclusion scam, the site for which revolevsa roudn askign people to nominate as many people as they want for inclusion. Anyway, I;ve said more than enough - the AfD will end up in consensus I suspect StuartDouglas 15:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you harp on about notablity but i can see your moputh drop when you read this Mr dean is also in cambridges publication 2000 outstanding scholars of the 21st century as an Australian poet philosopher if you have a copy have a look- if that aint notable then nothing is . If you have access to worldcat-the library database you will see mr dean has books at such univserities as yale Harvard and the library of congress. Once again you change the goal posts. You want notablity i gave it to you and you just ignore it-once again unspoked issues 2000 outstanding scholars of the 21st century is not a pay for vanity publication you saying that really indicates you cant handle mr deans notablity and must try and proove to yourself by any illusion it cant be that he is notable I suppose you are going to say Yale Havard and the library of congress only put books in catalogue based upon vanity domination-GET REAL-you trying to dispage mr dean is reaching the hights of the ridiculous

Comment This AFD has turned into a bloodbath. The points that have been stated above are:
  • There is questions as to whether the two named poets are notable. I don't doubt they probably are, but Wikipedia is quite strong on *asserting* notability - i.e. you have to say in the article how the individual is notable. Cambridge's book as above may well be enough to do this so long as someone else is willing to vouch for this. I had taken this on face value, but it turns out it is simply a publisher called International Biographical Centre based in the town of Cambridge, England. The website is here. The publication is not in any state, local or university library in Western Australia and is not listed on the NLA catalogue. (Interestingly, Colin Leslie Dean's work can be found in most of the above)
  • The article this AfD is about, Australian erotic poetry, will probably be deleted per our attribution policy, which expressly states that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments." This article reads like an essay, and basically is one.

if you want library holdings as a giude to status As Isaid mr dean is in "Dictionary of international biography" the National Library of Australia has 3 entries and there are 227 entries ib library around australia. He is also in 2000 outstanding intellectuals of the 21st century and this is meantioned at the National Library of Australia. He is in international whos who in poetry and poets encyclopedia which is in the National Library of Australia. He is also in Whos who in the 21st century the National Library of Australia has and there are 16 entries for libraries in Australia

you all talk about original research not wanted but Wikipedias entry for International Biographical Centre is completly original research even with a long list of items foun on a google search. If it is good for one why not others-there is a bit of biased selection going on here

you say surprisingly mr dean is in a number of Australian libraries if you had of checked the sourse i give in the article you would have seen that-you all say I dont give sources, I do but you all dont even bother to look at them

  • Some editors have expressed a concern that there is a

conflict of interest as the name of the author (and main "keep" proponent on this AfD) is the same as the press which publishes one of the poets in question, and may thereby have a vested interest in promoting the work. I don't know if this is the case or not.

At all times it should be remembered this is an encyclopaedia and not a web host or publisher. As I suggested some time back in the debate, perhaps the solution is to create a category "Australian erotic poetry" and create two articles, one for each of these poets, and put them in the category. Any reliable independent sources (eg ADB if he has a listing there) could be used to construct a biography of the guy. Orderinchaos78 16:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you want notablity mr dean is also in these books from cambridge "2000 outstanding intellectuals of the 21st century", "Dictionary of international biography 32ed edition", "Whos who in the 21st century first edition" "international whos who in poetry and poets encyclopedia fourth edition, to name a few- any one care to check feel free YOU ALL ASKED FOR NOTABLITY AND VERIFIABLITY eat your words about an amatuer no-hoper never trust wannabes on the net forums they have not the ability to see ablity- particularly when it is not mainstream pulp

nevertheless as your link points out entry is based on merit and not a pay for entry-even if nominated you must have merit to be included - and they are not a vanity press even if entrants pay for bigger spreads they must have merit to be included -eat your words. As i say there is a lot of effort to disparage mr dean that borders on psychological obsession

  • Comment Eh, there's no need for this constant aggression - civility costs nothing and nothing said here is personal. Also, no - the article says it is superficially true to say that there is no need to pay, before making it clear that it is a vanity press where paid, larger entries are bulked out with worthless self-nominated entries. Any actual merit on the part of those included is wholly irrelevant and secondary to the fact that they have paid to get in.

One final point - I see that amongst your edits to Wikipedia is one where you edited an article on a CD of music called Erotic Poetry to include a copy and pasted section from this article [[12]], all about Mr Dean. Can you really deny that you are Mr Dean? Or that his article and every other edit you have made is designed to promote yourself? StuartDouglas 17:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you link specificaly says merit is required and there is no payment for entry -only for wanting a bigger spread or wanting to an award. But the article states merit is required and that payment is not required for entry. you contradict yourself and show your agenda when you say "the article says it is superficially true to say that there is no need to pay" then say,"they have paid to get in" I am courious you asked for examples of erotic poetry has any one gone to the link and download any free books of erotic poetry - you asked for examples so how about commenting on some. YES I pasted to the erotic poetry becuase it is obvious that this article wil be deleted so just trying to get some information about Australian erotic poetry on Wikipedia StuartDouglas has obviously a bee in his bonnet as he has intiated discussions on two of my entries Anti-poetry and Meaninglessness. These articles are not about colin leslie dean, but about areas that he happens to have contributed to It is not my problem that colin leslie dean is at the cuting edge of new ideas and new trends. There was a time when the only entry under "relativity" would have been Einstien. So dont blame colin leslie dean or accuse me of promoting him if he is one of the only ones in certian important areas -like Wordsworth or Einstein where at one stage

  • Keep. Seems to pass WP:V. Could use some cleanup and wikification, so it should be tagged accordingly and followed up upon, but not deleted. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is entirely original research, conflict of interest, non-reliable and non-notable, plus probably a vanity article to begin with. darkskyz 12:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am outstounded It seems wikipedia is no more than a poor mans encyclopedia brittanica. It seem to be aligible for entry in wik you must first be in encyclopedia brittanica -so why not just go to encyclopedia brittanica . So much for open sourcing and internet democarcy Once again mainstream takes control of the net Wik may as well just get payed monkeys typing AUTHORATIVE articles so it can sell them to the highest bidder ie encyclopedia brittanica. It seems all wik is is a watered down version of brittanica with articles which just reproduce briitanica written by amateurs who in effect just paraphrase more authorative sources.

  • Delete. Original research, dubious and certainly unestablished notability.Sarcasticidealist 01:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was G10 - NYC JD (make a motion) 02:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Leonie Wasson[edit]

Dr. Leonie Wasson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A fictional character supposedly played by a real person on an Australian program called the "Newington College Show. However, I can't find any evidence that the program exists. Appears to be a character on a non-existent tv show. ArglebargleIV 04:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Majorly (o rly?) 21:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Watner[edit]

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

Not WP:Notable in any way. Carl Watner may have written a number of books and articles, but nobody actually writes about him.

Also, I asked on the talk page about his notability in October 2006, and there was no response — which I think further confirms that this person is, in fact, not notable at all, and that the article is merely a promotional blurb. Bi 04:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, WP isn't a source for notability. I was just suggesting that there is Wikipedia precedent for Watner's being viewed as notable within the community. Other non-WP citations of Watner by notable figures include this one by Roderick Long, this one by Murray Rothbard, and this one by David Gordon (different D.G. from the one described here). There are also his fairly numerous peer-reviewed journal articles in such journals as the Journal of Libertarian Studies and his work in the Libertarian Forum. DickClarkMises 17:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Hans-Hermann Hoppe lists Watner's work as "essential [anarcho-capitalist] reading" here, a Cato Institute Handbook on Policy (2005) calls his book with McElroy "recommended reading" here, and an Independent Institute work notes a journal article of Watner's here. DickClarkMises 00:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, in each of these Watner is merely part of a list of authors. Bi 02:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are lists of works described by the list compilers as being important works in the realms of discourse about which the compilers are noted as experts. According to Wikipedia:Notability (academics), an academic is notable if "The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources," or if "The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field." The fact that notable, recognized authorities on libertarianism/anarchocapitalism have cited Watner's works as "essential" or "recommended" seems to clearly meet these conditions. DickClarkMises 16:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Watner is not an academic. He's not Prof. Watner or Dr. Watner, or whatever, he's just Watner. And WP:N says, "Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Bi 04:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Watner has been published in peer-reviewed academic journals. If you want to argue that he can't be called an "academic" unless he works at a school, I think think you are using an overly narrow definition of the word. The editor (Long) and the editorial board of the JLS are all academics and Watner's submitted articles have apparently passed muster with them. The same is true with other journals. To your second point, I don't think it is trivial for six recognized authorities (HHH, Cato, MNR, II, Long, and Gordon) in Watner's realm of discouse to say that his writings are "recommended" or "essential." To me that means that he is a reasonable subject to cover in an encylopedia that is not paper. And just to add to those above, here is a quotation of Watner by Long in a paper presented in 1995. This academic has notably criticized Watner's theoretical work. DickClarkMises 05:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would additionally note that Watner's article in the March 1973 Libertarian Forum was seemingly written as a response to some history of thought writing that Rothbard did. This is noteworthy for our purposes here because Rothbard was arguably both the foremost libertarian thinker (for a while anyway) and the editor of LF. This means that Rothbard more or less thought Watner's response to his own work was valuable and notable. DickClarkMises 17:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NOTE, unverified. Being cited in other Wikipedia articles is not valid criteria for keep, Wikipedia cannot reference itself.--– Dakota 16:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I think the most notable thing is that he's the editor and publisher of The Voluntaryist. That's a quarterly that has been published since 1982. [13] [14] He's THE major keeper of the flame for Voluntaryism. His journal and his writings are cited many times. Anarcho-capitalism 17:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the "citations" offered by DickClarkMises above. Long's reference to Watner is merely in the context of a summary of a magazine issue — if that counts as a "citation", then by jove, one may as well say that a journal's table of contents counts as a "citation"! Also, it's the references to Watner which need to be peer reviewed; and as far as I can see, Rothbard's and Gordon's essays haven't undergone any rigorous peer review process. (Well, Rothbard seems to be some sort of authority on libertarianism, but he mentions Watner only very briefly, as someone who discovered another work by someone else.) I don't think any of these add up to notability for Watner. Bi 18:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, Rothbard's essays have undergone extensive peer review. But that doesn't ever matter. That's not required for something to be notable. Watner is extremely notable as THE major voluntaryist of the late 20th and early 21st century. Anarcho-capitalism 18:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Watner is extremely notable as THE major voluntaryist of the late 20th and early 21st century." If so, then why do the references to him all seem so pathetic? Bi 18:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being the editor and publisher of The Voluntaryist since 1982 makes him notable. Anarcho-capitalism 18:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is bordering on argumentum ad nauseam. So let me put it this way: the fact that he's the publisher of The Voluntaryist is so notable that neither Long, Rothbard, nor Gordon even bothered to mention this very significant fact? Bi 02:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether anyone mentions it or not, it's true. He's the editor and publisher of the Voluntaryist.Anarcho-capitalism 02:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We're not questioning truth, we're questioning notability. Why does being editor and publisher of the Voluntaryist make him notable? There doesn't appear to be multiple, nontrivial, reputatable third party referrences to it. This is sounding suspiciously like WP:ILIKEIT. --RaiderAspect 11:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because The Voluntaryist is notable. There are large number of references to it. Take your pick in a Google search. It's in the mind of the beholder whether those references are trivial. I dont know what you mean by "reputable."Anarcho-capitalism 17:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Mind of the beholder"? There's a clear difference between an entire essay or an entire web site devoted to discussing a person, and just an occasional, random name drop. Give us a break. Bi 04:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Public persons are always notable. People(at least I do)want to know more about public persons and wikipedia is the prime source of finding information regarding people of little being published about. Wikipedia can afford to have these articles no one other have because it isn't a paper medium. Hence more information adds to the greatness of knowledge available. Lord Metroid 21:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOT a source for groundbreaking information that's not published elsewhere. Bi 02:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Other editors should note that the nominator for this AfD, User:Bi, is the proprietor of the this website which criticizes Neo-Tech, an organization with which Watner was/is associated. After presenting a number of notable references (while assuming good faith) I am concerned that this is a bad-faith nom by a critic of the subject. DickClarkMises 05:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And should I mention that DickClarkMises is a self-proclaimed libertarian, and therefore might have a vested interest in heightening the image of all things libertarian among Wikipedia? Dark accusations of bias such as yours are WP:UNCIVIL and bogus, and have no place in reasoned debate. Don't attack the person; attack the issue. Bi 06:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do note my political affinities on my userpage, but what I was objecting to as a Wikipedian is that you are applying what I consider to be an unusual standard to this case. I wasn't quite sure why you would persist in favoring this AfD after the verifiable sources above were known, so I looked at your userpage, where—to your credit—you disclose that you are the proprietor of the site I linked above. I may be a libertarian, but I hadn't read anything of Watner's before, met him, or heard him speak, although I had seen him cited in the literature during my time working as librarian at the Mises Institute. This is the reason that my first sources were from there, because I already knew the guy was mentioned in a few places at mises.org since I recalled having seen his name on the front cover of the Institute's quarterly JLS and elsewhere. DickClarkMises 14:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment So we are all biased. I think that is an important factor to take into consideration of the administrators when they decide the outcome of this nomination for deletion. Lord Metroid 10:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Noteable for all the above reasons. Another attempt by "Bi" to delete anything that has to do with Neo-Tech. He recently tried to get Frank R. Wallace deleted but was unsuccessful. Now he's trying his hardest to keep information out of that article by making frivolous arguments against the sources. He managed to get the Neo-Tech article deleted but it was voted to merge with the Wallace article. From the talk page of Yasuhiko Kimura it looks like he may be going after that one next. And yes as DickClarkMises pointed out Bi runs an anti Neo-Tech web site. JoeMystical 02:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Complaint JoeMystical is being blatantly WP:UNCIVIL. Bi 08:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, seeing that Brian Martin devoted an entire chapter to discussing Watner's voluntaryism, I think I'm gravitating towards a Weak Keep. Or maybe a merge with Voluntaryism, since I'm still not convinced that there's much else to Watner's notability other than his involvement in voluntaryism and The Voluntaryist. Bi 08:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC) (nominator)[reply]
I think merging Voluntaryism and Carl Watner would be a mistake. Watner is a notable scholar/writer who is not the first or most notable voluntaryist. There is no compelling reason why his article, a biography, should be merged with an article about a political philosophy that he supports. DickClarkMises 15:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Somewhat notable as a libertarian theorist per collaboration with Wendy McElroy and citation by Murray Rothbard. Published in Reason magazine and at least two of his books (the one with McElroy and the one published by Fox & Wilkes) published by non-vanity presses. However - lack of other independent sources on him may be a problem. I'm open to being convinced either way on whether to keep. Seems notable enough but we do have a WP:ATT requirement to meet if the article is kept. Dragomiloff 23:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. No valid reason for deletion given and possible bad-faith spa nom. MER-C 08:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Kelso[edit]

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

This is an attack article. Stratherian 05:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC) — Stratherian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep. From what I can see, there's at least one source with editorial oversight which talks specifically about him and his group. Anyone who has an issue with Wikipedia's "left-wing bias" is free to migrate to Conservapedia instead. Bi 05:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't encourage people to contribute to or read that overtly bias joke. Seriously, we don't want to actually drive away all the conservatives to there in the interest of keeping multiple points of view around or something. - Arch NME 16:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, it's not an attack article. John Reaves (talk) 05:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep I see nothing whatsoever that makes it an attack article, and no detectable bias. I do not think this article in particular has a left wing bias, and I do not think WP does in general. Various articles may have a political bias, in any direction.DGG 05:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, there's a couple of easily fixable POV nuances like how "White nationalist" is put in scare quotes, but it's far from an "attack article" and the guy seems to meet notability requirements. I smell a WP:POINT. Krimpet 05:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination. CJCurrie 05:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep for reasons listed above, plus take a look at some of the nominator's other AfD nominations. I don't think the nominator properly understands the different kinds of deletion and deletion criteria. I had to remove a speedy delete template from an article (namely Alex Kulbashian)that wasn't anywhere near speedy deletion criteria. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Clearly not an attack article. AnnieHall 06:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: Bad-faith nomination; article is clearly not an 'attack'. Give us a break with this. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Bad faith nom; clearly meets notability reqs. SkierRMH 08:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deletaeporn. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeoporn[edit]

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

Not only a neologism, but a neologism created yesterday. The author of this coinage is more qualified than most, and I agree with his sentiment, but a neologism with no history of use that's 2 days old at most is just not notable. Deranged bulbasaur 05:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per nom. WegianWarrior 07:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - neologism that was made up one day (i.e. yesterday). MER-C 08:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is very tempting as a speedy deletion candidiate, but it doesn't meet any specific criteria in WP:CSD. In practice, articles like this are speedied all the time, so why isn't the CSD changed to reflect actual community consensus? Deranged bulbasaur 09:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a neologism, this falls particularly flat. The first things I thought of were of a genre of pornography featuring dinosaurs, or maybe Neanderthals or ancient Egyptians — any of which would be more fun than what it actually turned up to be about. But I don't see this as being a speedy candidate, and it does try slightly to claim notability for this coinage by attributing it to an academic. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - As neo as a ~logism can be. Regarding the comment above, it is true that this does not appear to meet any specific articles for speedy deletion, but an administrator can (and should, in my view) speedily close this debate because, as stated in WP:SNOW, "If an issue doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process." I think that any editor other than maybe the author voting to "keep" this despite it's undeniable status as a recently created term for any policy-based reason is a remote possibility beyond any reasonable expectation. ◄Zahakiel► 15:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable neologism. Jules1975 15:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:08Z

Vedic City, Iowa[edit]

Vedic City, Iowa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Is this truly an incorporated location? --prev. speedy by other ed.,but I think discussion needed DGG 05:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I can't find any significant census information on it, there are no independent sources given, there is no assertion of notability, there is but a single link to promotional site, the zip code is that of Fairfield, and the article reads very much like something that should be deleted under CSD G11. Even if the area is incorporated, it doesn't satisfy WP:V, and is part of a large group of spam-like articles promoting Transcendental Meditation created by a variety of editors with significant COI issues (some are actually paid by Maharishi's university). --Philosophus T 05:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: AfD nominations are great for motivating people to find proper sources. --Philosophus T 23:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This seems more like a religious community than a city. Though I generally think cities are notable, it does not strike me that this should be considered as a city. One thinks of a city, especially in the United States, as a public institution, but this community seems to operate under private control judging by their adherence to specific religious mores. If the article is kept, the distiction needs to be clarified and the city related tags and categories removed. Deranged bulbasaur 05:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's listed by the Iowa League of Cities[15], the Des Moines Register calls it a city [16], the city of Fairfield (of which Maharishi Vedic City is a suburb), says it was incorporated in 2001 [17]... also, there couldn't be census information yet, as the census was in 2000, and the city wasn't incorporated until 2001. -- Jake 05:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In defense of my earlier comment, those sources seem to be using the colloquial meaning of city. If I am wrong and it is a city in the legal sense, meriting all the categorization and appurtenances of a city on wikipedia, count me baffled that "All of Vedic City follows a certain system - a lifestyle laid out by the Maharishi that combines Transcendental Meditation and specific architectural principles" per the Desmoines Register link. Deranged bulbasaur 05:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a city in the legal sense. Also, mandatory architectural styles for cities aren't that unusual - Taos, New Mexico has them, for example. You're not alone if finding it weird, though. -- Jake 11:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jake. It's listed in a few documents on the US Census Bureau site such as here (pop. 85). According to the document, the count is given for "governmental units" that have made formal requests. It also seems to be a recognized postal designation. Chicago Tribune story. The State of Iowa recognizes it as a city with a website. So I'd say yes. By the way, "city" is defined by statute, not by size.--Dhartung | Talk 05:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The route to incorporation appears to have been by petition to a state agency of the property owner/s, per the NYT[18], followed by a referendum. (More detail.) --Dhartung | Talk 06:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I noted below, this is very much about WP:V and WP:RS problems, not an issue of whether or not it is a city. The article is currently an advertisement, and contains no independent reliable sources. --Philosophus T 07:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me clarify that. It was an article with no independent reliable sources. Thanks Dhartung! --Philosophus T 07:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I note that incorporation is not required, and plenty of non-incorporated named communities have Wikipedia articles. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Indeed -- census-designated places are notable. But we also need to ensure it's an actual city for category etc. purposes.--Dhartung | Talk 06:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Err, the requirement is that it satisfy WP:V and WP:NPOV; that doesn't depend on whether the community is incorporated. What do we do if there is a census-designated place with no reliable sources about it? The article is currently an advertisement that uses a single, non-independent, unreliable source. Luckily, it appears there are other sources. But please list these, so that they can be used as the basis for the article rather than the advertisement. --Philosophus T 07:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How could we have a CDP that has no reliable source? They're designated by the census, by definition, and the census is as reliable a source as we'll ever have... -- Jake 11:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a CDP that wasn't around during the last census, so it appears that the census has hardly any information on it. --Philosophus T 23:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maharishi Vedic City has received quite a bit of national press coverage, including articles in the New York Times and the Washington Post.[19]. TimidGuy 12:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a real, incorporated city, and all incorporated cities are inherently notable. ObtuseAngle 15:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jake's research. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 15:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I concur with earlier supporting comments. Adm58 16:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the source Jake posted here, says it all--JForget 19:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep inherently notable, as long as it's not a WP:HOAX (google maps/satellite and census ensure so). /Blaxthos 23:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wow, the misinterpretations that are possible. I would have imagined fancruft associated with Star Trek Deep Space Nine use of 'vedic' to describe a Bajoran religious. Instead, it is simply both derived from Sanskrit? (sigh) Shenme 03:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm a lifelong Iowa resident and can testify that Vedic City is not a hoax. Jake's research is very compelling. Also I found a "Vedic City" section on the Fairfield Iowa Convention and Visitors Bureau website that confirms many of the basic facts about Vedic City. http://www.travelfairfieldiowa.com/vediccity --Smiller933 04:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • When referring to Jake's research, I forgot to also acknowledge Dhartung's contributions -- the 2005 Census document is very compelling for Keeping this article, in my opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smiller933 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per Jake and Dhartung. Real place. Inherently notable. --Oakshade 22:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:42Z

Marc Lemire[edit]

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

This is an attack article on a living person. Subject is not notable as there are no news articles, books etc used as sources. Stratherian 05:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC) — Stratherian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • o_O. Did you take a look at the references section? Keep, of course... —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for example, there is this news article in the citations section, and everything else looks well-cited, with WP:N and WP:V websites of prestigious organizations. Furthermore, if everything in the article is true, I'd consider this to be a very notable person. Therefore, deletion concerns should just revolve around whether the citations are good enough. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination. CJCurrie 05:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep but it does seem to need a POV overhaul. DGG 05:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the rest. Bi 05:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Jimbo Wales was involved in the re-write of this article and as he's the founder of the Wikipedia project I suspect he views this individual as noteworthy. AnnieHall 06:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems good enough to keep. Guroadrunner 07:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - probable bad faith nomination, a tad POV, but nothing fatal. SkierRMH 08:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator is trying to delete all articles about people involved with the Canadian white power movement, regardless of their notability. Spylab 13:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bad faith nom StuartDouglas 14:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:SNOW. - Anas Talk? 16:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep bad faith nom from probable sockpuppet Elizmr 19:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article about a notable far right-wing activist (he worked/associated also with one of the country's most notorious Neo-Nazi), well sourced.--JForget 19:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep possible bad-faith nomination. Subject is notable and article is well sourced. Not an attack page. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 00:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per inappropriate nomination. The nom also AfD'd the Jamie Kelso article and improperly tagged a number of others for speedy deletion. I have left a note on h(er|is) talk page to try to clarify the issue in case this is just a good-faith mistake. -- Black Falcon 07:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 sources, non notable, possible WP:COI issues. Dakota 17:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Jane Duff[edit]

Jessie Jane Duff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Promotional article. Has not been improved in one year since first nomination. Non-notable. Still contains no references or sources. Btl 05:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Useless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smbarnzy (talk • contribs) 05:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment The importance of this person should be considered with regards to the importance of the Draft Condi movement to get Condoleeza Rice to run for U.S. President Guroadrunner 05:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable hanger-on of a failed attempt to coax Condoleeza Rice into running for president. One of the substantial contributors is... (surprise!) User:Jessie Jane Duff. Krimpet 05:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 a failure of WP:CSD G11 and WP:CORP. alphachimp 00:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder Ranch[edit]

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

Notability? Guroadrunner 05:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable --RaiderAspect 11:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable. Nothing in the article asserts that the subject is notable or passes WP:CORP. A Google of this company reveals nothing to suggest notability. Jules1975 15:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. --Coredesat 05:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Penland[edit]

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

I want to keep his story out of personal interest, but it fails notability and the article is pretty messed up to begin with Guroadrunner 05:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it seems to fail notablity. --RaiderAspect 11:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Past commander of the Grand Army of the Republic. (as a patriotic organization, its 'commander' would be 'notable') his longevity would contribute to notability (longest lived commander of the GAR). Just because he's not spattered all over the web doesn't mean he's not 'notable'. Bo 14:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, after reconsider User:Bo's ideas. Appleworm 14:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced and referenced by end of this AfD. If he is notable there must be references somewhere AlfPhotoman 16:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any sourced, pertinent info and Redirect to Grand Army of the Republic. Once you filter out all of the heartwarming anecdotes and trivial biographical errata what you are left with is "Theodore Penland was commander of the GAR". Fails WP:BIO in large part due to a paucity of any verifiable information. Arkyan 16:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article, merge any information that can be attributed to a reliable source in the Grand Army of the Republic article. Fail notability in that no reliable sources are presented. HowIBecameCivil 19:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I change my vote to Merge and consolidate to Grand Army of the Republic as per Bo's statement Guroadrunner 22:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC) (original AfD nominator)[reply]
  • keep as is he is personally notable as an historic figure representing an era. the longevity combined with the GAR is N.DGG 05:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Lacks reliable sources. I'd also argue that by the time he was Commander the GAR was scarcely a notable organization. --RaiderAspect 02:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Draft Condi movement. --Coredesat 05:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Americans for Dr. Rice[edit]

Americans for Dr. Rice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Advertisment. No legit notability in article. No notability in any linked persons. No references or sources. External links are all promotional. Btl 06:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as content is redundant to Draft Condi Movement. Feeeshboy 06:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a Million plus google hits. Just tag it as unsourced to encourage proper editorial efforts. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 06:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A million? I count 183. Your count is off by about 3 orders of magnitude. --Calton | Talk 16:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let 'em get their publicity elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 16:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Feeeshboy. Seems to have a decent amount of coverage but content is redundant. Arkyan 16:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect --Dookama 01:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep She is N enough that this will not disappear. One of the comments above might be taken to indicate a political bias as a motive for deletion. DGG 05:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Draft Condi Movement as duplicative. Otto4711 16:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dakota 17:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freeorder[edit]

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

Notability, very few hits on Google, and the term is not found in online dictionary sources Guroadrunner 06:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this article has been tagged for a while and is still totally incomprehensible, at least to me. Feeeshboy 06:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The fact that it essentially asks the reader to find some reference material and find out for yourself defeats the purpose of Wikipedia. It's entirely unsourced and the information that I do find isn't much better. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as un-sourced and generally incomprehensible explanation of an obscure neologism. SkierRMH 08:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Yeah, what the heck? The onus is on the original author to ascertain his sources of his article. If he can't be bothered to find the exact source himself, then I can't be bothered to find it for him. Bi 09:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it's not notable too. Bi 09:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I can't even figure out what this is supposedly about. ObtuseAngle 04:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete No context, no decipherable content, indistinguishable from a hoax. most Ghits are mispellings from restaurant websites. Wintermut3 08:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Spontaneous order. It's a "neologism," if a word invented in 1970 can be said to be neo. Leif Smith is apparently one of very few people who use it.—Carolfrog 09:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is only one sentence which supposedly says what freeorder is. Unfortunately, it is incomprehensible. I tend to Speedy Delete as per A7 (no assertion of notability) --Rimshots 20:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Comesuntbob (talk · contribs) admits it's "mis-information". —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:03Z

Atomic Geo-Reference Standard[edit]

Atomic Geo-Reference Standard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Unverified, and apparently unverifiable technology. An editor points out that the timing of its advent and its supposed origins in XML suggest a hoax. I agree. Shunpiker 06:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete XML wasn't even invented until about 1997 so how could be based on XML and made in the 80's unless they mean SMGL. Either way no sources no verifiability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.49.152.114 (talk) 07:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as unverifiable and obviously factually inaccurate. Pardon the language, but it sure seems like someone is trying to bullshit information into the encyclopedia. /Blaxthos 23:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George_Noon[edit]

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

No news on his death, random text MatthiasG 06:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC) http://www.debakeydepartmentofsurgery.org/home/content.cfm?menu_id=43&pageview=fac_item&fac_pk=97&view=pt_brief doesn't mention it and I don't find anything on Google News. MatthiasG 06:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - incoherent vanity with no specific assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 08:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 17:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cuddlebuddy[edit]

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

The article has no sources and feels like original research. Neither of the external links uses the term cuddlebuddy, or even buddy; and the more encyclopedic of the two external links doesn't use the word cuddle either. Vicarious 06:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, this article was attached to the afd for cuddle party at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuddle party; the consensus was to keep cuddle party and a few votes to merge cuddlebuddy into it, although the comments on the cuddlebuddy talk page seem to disapprove of the merge and I think there's very little good content in this article to merge anyway. Vicarious 06:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR. Alternatively, redirect to cuddle party but there's nothing there to merge that's not original research. Arkyan 16:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article needs to be sourced, not deleted. Mystache 20:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The argument that an article needs to be sourced is not a good reason to keep it. If you believe an article should be kept because it can be sourced, then by all means source it and the issue is resolved. One cannot simply argue to keep an article expecting someone else is going to eventually get around to citing sources. The sources either exist or they do not, and this article has had sufficient time to be sourced. No one has done so thus far, and if no one will by the time this AFD has run its course it shoudl be deleted. Arkyan 22:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sounds like original research, No sources could be found when looking for them. A quote from the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Attribution, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Latulla 23:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:ATT /Blaxthos 23:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: It's 1) a dicdef but doesn't add anything to 'cuddle' and 'buddy' separately, and anyway 2) the meaning described is limited geographically. (Where I live it definitely does mean something beyond non-sexual cuddle.) Peter Grey 04:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The problem lies in the fact that it's a cultural phenomenon that has been largely ignored by mainstream media or other "reliable secondary sources." . . . Crap. I may have just argued myself into admitting that there aren't going to be any sources, and encyclopedically, we have to wait until there are. But I still want to keep it. Maybe we can find some sources. There might even be some about it being more sexual than non-sexual. I have to go to bed now, though.—Carolfrog 10:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep like a previous user said, it needs sourcing, not blasting. It's a topic that needs addressing - I'd never heard of it because I'd never really tried defining a relationship of that sort. SMC 11:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has been up since 2005, that's plenty of time to find sources (unless of course there ARE no sources). No sources = no article. Pax:Vobiscum 23:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. alphachimp 00:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hikorio the Peasant Prince[edit]

Hikorio the Peasant Prince (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Strangely enough, all of the Google hits for this manga relate to its Wikipedia article, making it potentially non-notable. Any manga experts know if its notable? Guroadrunner 07:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Google results. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Googling the author turns up only this Wikipedia entry and the home page of a 12-year-old. Most likely made up in school one day. —Celithemis 09:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB, WP:BIO and per Celithemis.--– Dakota 16:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Googled it myself, failed. Only links are to (copies of) WP article. Aside from this article, Googling "Jackson Hoult" only turns up the same page that Celithemis got. Fourohfour 20:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No references, and ( I suspect ) none can be found. WMMartin 15:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pretty sure it doesn't exist in any verifiable form. Shimeru 19:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless some experts on the genre can find sources. Maybe give the AfD some extra time for that, wouldn't hurt... - Denny 20:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete per celithemis. Smmurphy(Talk) 00:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unknown author Jackson Hoult does not seem to be in any Original English language manga author list nor does he turn up in any google results —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Squilibob (talk • contribs) 10:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, does not assert notability. NawlinWiki 19:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Deceased[edit]

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

Article about an unknown new band that hasn't released an album yet. Not to be confused with Deceased (band). Furthermore, the editor's username and the subject's obscurity suggests that the editor is bandmember Lazer Von Corpsegrinder, making this also a conflict of interest. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy delete - Yeah they aren't notable yet (although they could be later on in their careers). Kill this vanity article. Guroadrunner 07:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - unremarkable garage band. So tagged. MER-C 08:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD-A7 - No claim to notability, no notablity to be claimed. If the band goes on to sell by the million then this page can, of course, be put back. Until then No One Cares... A1octopus 12:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No claim to notability under WP:BAND. They have a MySpace page but that's all there should be at the moment. Come back in a year if they have sufficient independent press coverage at that point. --Cedderstk 16:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion by admin Rama's Arrow as the article falls under the criteria of CSD G12. Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 06:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Wassong[edit]

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

Direct copyvio of a biography on http://www.minyanville.com/ (scroll down) - notability questionable Guroadrunner 07:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The O (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Article makes claims of touring the UK and eastern US, although this is very doubtful and unproven. According to this link, their only CD release is home-made. Their website http://www.the-o.tv/ no longer active. Canley 08:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unnotable band. Kyriakos 20:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; article virtually NNs itself stating that "Little can be found about this band on the internet." Links do nothing to support case for notability. Fourohfour 20:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BAND. NawlinWiki 22:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership Initiatives and Marshall Bailly[edit]

Leadership Initiatives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Marshall Bailly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A philantropic organisation and its founder. Reads too much like an advert. Are they notable? -- RHaworth 08:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Who are you to decide merit? Leadership Initiatives holds office in Washington DC and has programs featured in three countries. They have recieved numerous endorsements from Congressmen and are beginning to expand their work rapidly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanluerding (talk • contribs) author of the articles.
    • We are the Wikipedia editors. Who else should decide what merits inclusion in Wikipedia? -- RHaworth 13:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 11:39Z

Muhammad saw[edit]

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

Obvious POV fork of Muhammad. On the article talk page, the creator all but admits this. I reconsidered the speedy because "screed" is specifically excluded. Deranged bulbasaur 09:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron bebe sukura[edit]

Does not seems to be notable Alex Bakharev 22:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO; a mere 71 Google hits. --Kevin Walter 14:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure the "google hits" test is useful in assessing a musician from Ghana, as many of the sources covering him may not be online. However, I'm currently agnostic on the question of this particular entry, pending further research. JavaTenor 20:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertion of notability. /Blaxthos 00:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common Cause (Commonwealth)[edit]

Common Cause (Commonwealth) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence that this group is at all notable. The google hits refer to it (most refer to other things) are all from its own website. At best it's the obscure work of a handful of people who have little presence outside the internet. Stringops 20:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nothing in Lexis-Nexis about such a group. Bucketsofg 21:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. non notable Brian | (Talk) 03:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What a surprise that this was nominated.RepublicUK 08:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The members of this organisation make it notable, all 4 of the most prominent republican movements in the commonwealth of nations. Here is some evidence of notability http://www.canadian-republic.ca/common_cause_media_release_04_06_05.html http://www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/news&events/news.htm http://www.republic.org.uk/commoncause/index.htm RepublicUK 08:50, 5 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, Quarl (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions Are these constitute organizations themselves notable enough to have wikipedia articles? (I didn't see them on a quick look). Bo 14:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Answer Yep, at least the Canadian organization is listed, so.... Bo 14:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Comment If they answer to the question above is 'No' then I'd suggest that the aggregate isn't notable either. If the answer to the above is 'Yes', then I'd suggest that aggregate is also notable. Bo 14:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Component Organizations are Notable, the fact they feel it helpful to form an alliance, and have done so is also 'notable'. Bo 14:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This won't be notable until it's externally WP:ATTributable /Blaxthos 00:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep' the sponsorship is probably sufficient for N . DGG 02:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted by User:Neil. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 10:59Z

Computer-Assisted EFL Writing Development[edit]

Computer-Assisted EFL Writing Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is an essay, and includes an introduction, and conclusion. It also may be original research as a synthesis of of the other sources cited in the reference. Note that this article also exists as an entry in wikibooks. Whpq 13:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MSJapan 21:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's analysis. /Blaxthos 00:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Buchwald[edit]

Don Buchwald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete Not notable enough. He may have been responsible for Howard Stern's contracts, but he isn't notable beyond that. What has the man done beyond that stuff? Keeping this article would be like keeping an article on (insert celebrity name)'s Lawyer.--Hndsmepete 05:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He seems notable enough and the article is accurate. Mikemoto 11:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claims to meeting WP:BIO, no reliable sources to meet WP:ATT. Nuttah68 17:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously non-notable. /Blaxthos 00:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 10:58Z

English porno film directors[edit]

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

Since this article was created it's been bogus. Note the references to "Ben Dover", and mafias. If you read the article carefully you'll basically notice that it's crap. It's been continuously edited, making it even worse from the original. "English porno film directors", is not a reference to individual directors, but a moronic article about Ben Dover and his mafia woman.

I hope this can be deleted asap.

Beelake 13:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One wonders who Beelake is! Also his motivation for wanting to suppress the truth and freedom of speech? Porn Gold by David Hebditch and Nick Anning two highly respected authors has also been suppressed it seems! The truth is that an investigation of Ben Dover and Mike Freeman and the raid on Videx Ltd will uncover corruption at extremely high levels. Where is "mafia women" mentioned? Mike Freeman, film director and former director of Videx Ltd http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/books.htm— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.83.9.8 (talk • contribs)

  • Strong Delete Poorly written, unsourced, original research, in which the title bears little resemblance to the content, and what content there is appears to be non-encycolpedic. StuartDouglas 14:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above. Meaningful username 22:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is essentially an essay (possibly in violation of WP:BLP) that is about something different than what the title suggests. It may even be a hoax. -- Black Falcon 08:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Worthless artcile, doesn't seem to make sense or be historically accurate. Borderline speedy delete for patent nonsense. A1octopus 19:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has commented on Porn Gold and perhaps to be fair they should read the references on Mike Freeman before commenting further. Porn Gold by David Hebditch and Nick Anning is a hardback and is available from libraries on request. It is also online to official librarians. Linda Pow, teacher.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki 20:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeek[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism; Violates WP:NFT.Hondasaregood 15:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per criterion G7: Blanked by author and sole contributor. Tagged as such. Huon 20:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

NOTE: This article was deleted in a second nomination.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, does need cleanup though. Jaranda wat's sup 06:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Nebeker Karhohs[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable. Sad story, but non-notable. Arbiteroftruth 06:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete: this page is notable. The type of cancer she had does not recieve enough attention publicly and adding faces to a disease helps others understand it more and realize its effect on the world community. Kayla is notable for more than just being a victim of a tragic disease, because there are several developing projects that she serves as an inspiration for. Similar to the Komen foundation for breast cancer there is a foundation named after Kayla that is being formed currently for glioblastoma multiforme. This information will of course be added to the Wikipedia article as it develops. Also, there is an annual concert called the Gala for Kayla that is going to be held this. Its first year was in 2006. Furthermore, notable is a very relative term. Granted she isn't in any movies and she isn't famous like Abe Lincoln, but what hasn't been reflected on the Kayla Nebeker Karhohs page is how she did have a great effect on those who were lucky enough to know her and those who have simply found out about her story. If you lived in Reno you would have heard about her. Google her name and look at all she has accomplished. The local news has done a story on her and several publications have done stories on her. I have read the guidelines expressing "What Wikipedia is Not" and I did not find her page in accordance with anything on that list that would deem her page inappropriate for wikipedia. I acknowledge more needs to be done to her page and encourage anyone who joins this discussion to add their input to it. Finally, I don't know how "notable" is defined, but I think that after anyone looks at the changes made to her page, they will see that for a 23 year old woman she accomplished a great deal on her own merits and that while it is sad she died an untimely death that is not the only thing that she is known for. karhohs 7:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Mr. Karhohs, I understand that the brain tumor that Ms. Karhohs had is a serious illness, but she is just not notable enough for Wikipedia, compared to this person, who was a BBC journalist with the same disease, and gained widespread notability for a BBC News blog that documented his battle on BBC's website. His death was reported by BBC as well, to a global audience. THAT is notability, Ms. Karhohs' article is, unfortunately, not. Arbiteroftruth 02:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move To Strike Karhohs' Vote- Conflict of interest clouds his decision. Arbiteroftruth 04:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Opposing move to strike. COI may exist, but the author is entitled to express an opinion. Also, AfD is technically not a vote, but a discussion. -- Black Falcon 08:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment- He should change his vote to a mere comment then. He should not vote. Arbiteroftruth 17:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply. Again, AfD is technically not a vote. WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette states, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." He has provided an argument and made a recommendation of "do not delete". It is recommended that editors should be cautious of participating in discussions about subjects that they are personally close to (such as people or companies), but when it comes to AfD, the author of an article should be given no more or less consideration than any other editor. -- Black Falcon 18:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you'd like a definition for notability, please read Wikipedia:Notability. ShadowHalo 09:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No apparent coverage by third-party sources. ShadowHalo 09:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete (duplicate nomination --Bi 15:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)) I have a large collection of thrid-party sources. I have TV broadcasts and lots of newspaper articles. I noticed the articles about her that were online have been removed from their websites. Would it do anything if I put them back up on the web? I would appreciate it if the people voting to delete this article would go further than a sentence and explain their argument more, so that I can work to remedy what the article is lacking. I read the notability article and do understand there is a certain threshold that must be met and I do understand it is an encyclopedia. However, if the threshold is made too high, then information will be lost. This article should not be deleted, because it is still growing. Soon the foundation and the concert will recieve a lot of third party attention and when it does I know someone will want to learn more about Kayla and why there is a foundation and a concert named after her. It would be awesome if this hypothetical person only had to go as far as wikipedia to find out all they want to know. Does someone need to write a biography about her in order to support the information that is currently in the article? Is there a certain amount of grace period that the article can exist while changes are still being made? If this article is going to be deleted, because there is a lack of evidence supporting its contents and thus it is deemed non-notable, then please give me some feedback of more than a sentence. Isn't the idea to collect more knowledge? If that is the case please help me get this article done the right way, instead of just trying to delete it. karhohs 10:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Remember that Wikipedia is not a primary source. This means that we cannot have articles about persons/places/things that may become notable, important or otherwise encyclopedic. You say that the foundation and gala will recieve a lot of third party coverage. If and when that happens and these things become established as notable, then an article on the subject backed up by these sources will be more than welcome. We have to wait for that, however, otherwise we become a speculative rather than informative work. Arkyan 17:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • karhohs, the addition of such sources should (by Wikipedia standards) be sufficient. The sources actually don't have to be online; if the print articles are sourced (title, date, publication, and date), that itself should be enough. -- Black Falcon 08:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the purpose of Wikipedia is not to collect more knowledge. The purpose is to write a free encyclopedia. If and when Kayle Karhohs recieve non-trivial coverage from mutliple, reliable, third party sources, then an article will be written. In the mean time, I suggest that you review WP:Notablity and WP:COI. Her story is unfortunate, but that doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. --RaiderAspect 11:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete as things stand. This article is terribly sad but not notable. If karhohs can provide thrid party links to provide N, then it becomes a Keep. If not, the article can be reinstated at a later date if notablity can be establishedi nt he future. StuartDouglas 15:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the author's intention to try and promote awareness about what may be a poorly understood, serious medical issue is noble, Wikipedia is still not a vehicle for advocacy, regardless of the nobility of one's cause. Furthermore the author seems to be related to the subject, and while I can sympathize with the desire to eulogize a loved one, this isn't the place for memorials either. Arkyan 17:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:N which says ""A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other." This article includes four newspaper article about the subject which meet these criteria. None of them are an obituary, but they are continuing coverage of her efforts to raise funds for the treatment of the cancer. There is then no basis for deleting the other article other than some subjective feeling that the subject is not notable enough despite multiple independent news coverage. (See WP:NOTNEWS, a disputed guideline proposal for subjects of news stories). Edison 18:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - please note that 3 of these 4 sources are from a local student newspaper. Whether or not this has any effect on whether it meets WP:N or not is subject to interpretation (and it is my interpretation that multiple articles in a small student newspaper do not satisfy N) and I will leave it to the individual to decide that - but I did think it warranted mention. Arkyan 19:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another reference source from a news channel has been added that shows support for N. This should also be considered. karhohs 23:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notable only for her medical condition (if that), which is directly against WP:BIO. Definite COI ("Up-and-coming star in nutritional science"? and the main contributor seems to be her widower). Also WP:NOT advertising space for galas and the foundation. WP:NOT a memorial. Simply put, this is not an appropriate use of the Wiki. MSJapan 21:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment 1 The article has been revised again in an effort to remove all forms of opinion and bias. Evidence for COI ("Up-and-coming star in nutritional science") has been removed. karhohs 23:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment 2 The only thing reported about the gala and foundation is fact supported by references. The gala and foundation are two things that make Kayla notable and assert her significance. karhohs 23:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment 3 This is not a memorial. Yes she is fondly remembered, but Yes there are notable elements of Kayla beyond being fondly remembered. karhohs 23:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MSJapan /Blaxthos 00:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commensuration Argues for Inclusion - From an objective viewpoint, this article is facing deletion for one reason only, namely, this article is meaningless for those not involved in that particular region. Unfortunately, some people do not understand that there is limitless space as well as a simple and fair threshold that must be met for an article to be included. This article meets those (at least when I viewed it just now)requirements. I think several of the arguments for deletion are now obsolete or hold no water (MSJapan and Arbiteroftruth). "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source." "Wikipedia:Attribution is one of Wikipedia's two core content policies. The other is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles; that is, content on Wikipedia must be attributable and written from a neutral point of view." This article meets these two criteria (admittedly this article has some flavor of opinion). The information in this article may not all be attributable, but I see several sources listed. These sources are easily not "questionable or self-published sources". (A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.) I also see that this article may have been very heavily slanted at one time, but it is now apparently no more slanted than several articles that are widley accepted. Therefore, it meets the two major hurdles (a somewhat neutral viewpoint and reliable secondary sources) You can not judge inclusion of this article based on regiospecific interest. Remember that something can be important regionally, and yet mean nothing to 80% or 90% of others (the election of a mayor, or her resignation relative to poor conduct). That is one of the wonderful facets of all of this. By the rules alone, it can stay. Blackfrancis 03:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)— Blackfrancis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong keep per excellent argument above by Blackfrancis. The sources provided are sufficient to establish notability as per WP:N. Sources are required to be reliable, not notable. As long as a source is reliable, it goes a way toward satisfying the notability criterion. My condolences to Mr. Karhohs. -- Black Falcon 08:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- You do know you are supporting the arguments of a single purpose account, whose purpose is to edit the article we are currently wanting to delete right now? Arbiteroftruth 17:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The identity of the contributor is not as relevant as the strength of the argument made. Oh, and it's not an article that we are wanting to delete. Ad hominem arguments are logical fallacies. -- Black Falcon 18:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Blackfrancis and Black Falcon. —Carolfrog 10:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While many of the cited articles are from the UNR newspaper, two are from the local CBS affiliate. This shows that the topic meets the "multiple, non-trivial" requirement of WP:N. I will admit, it isn't the most notable thing ever, but it's notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 12:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- Yukichigai, this article is, by no stretch, notable. I, myself, made local news a couple of times for positive reasons and I made school newspapers as well in the past. I am also a news reporter for a university student TV, but so what? Does that give me a ticket to Wikipedia? This story is very tragic, I know, but that should not cloud our judgement. Wikipedia is not a memorial for the departed. We MUST not let emotions cloud our decision. This article will survive well in blogosphere, but not on Wikipedia. She only made news for her illness, and she is hardly the first person to have that kind of brain tumor. There are more famous people with the same diseases who still lives or have departed. This page is not notable. Arbiteroftruth 17:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, but only if rewritten I must admit I'm a bit of an inclusionist, or else I would probably vote delete. Just on the hairy edge of notability. However, as written, the article reads more like a memorial page. In particular, the "Resources Kayla found helpful" section is about as unencyclopedic as you can get. Like Arbiter says, don't let emotion cloud it. Tragic story, but Wikipedia is not the place for memorial pages. --Jaysweet 21:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the author has made a valiant effort to cleanup the article to meet Wikipedia standards and I have to commend the effort. Based on a narrow interpretation of WP:N it can be argued that the notability criteria has now been met, however I have to admit that I am unconvinced. The articles all read like local human interest stories rather than having much substance. At the risk of sounding insensitive, when you filter out all the fluff about where she grew up and who she married, the only thing she did to establish any real notability was to die of an unfortunate illness. As far as the foundation in her name or related events establishing some notoriety, that may be a different story, but the story of a nice, well liked girl who died in sad circumstances is still not encyclopedic material. Arkyan 22:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a passage from WP:N on notability --- Notability is generally permanent

If there are multiple independent reliable published sources that have a topic as their subject, this is not changed by the frequency of coverage decreasing. Thus, if a topic once satisfied the primary notability criterion, it continues to satisfy it over time. The reverse is not true; subjects may acquire notability as time passes. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the subject may be notable in the future.

---

With that said, do we expect this person who has since departed to retain the "notability" (if we can even call it that) 6 months from now? True, her families will remember her, but people as an ordinary citizen, people like me, would most likely (pretty much certain to) move on. I don't think any Average Joe would continue to mourn this person's passing after a few weeks.

Like I said earlier, what I am doing here is unclouded by conflicts of interests, as we cannot let our emotions get in the way of editing Wikipedia. My sympathies are with the Karhohs family for their loss, but this is not, was not, and will never be, a ticket to an article on Wikipedia. Arbiteroftruth 00:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Notability has nothing to do with whether people will "remember" something. Very few people "remember" James Polk, but that has no bearing on his notability. The passage you cite actually weakens your point. According to it, if a subject passes WP:N once (which it has done), it is taken to have passed it over time, even if coverage of the subject decreases. Once satisfied, always satisfied. Whether that's a good thing or not can be debated, but as it stands, this article has passed WP:N. -- Black Falcon 00:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Falcon, if we take emotions out of it, this article has not passed the threshold by any length. Hence, the rule that it will never pass the threshold. It never reached the standards for inclusion! Arbiteroftruth 00:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Arbiteroftruth, the threshold is: a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial, reliable published works that are independent of the subject of the article. -- Black Falcon 04:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A sympathy package story from a TV station and some articles from a campus newspapers does not count, my friend. look at this, a man who suffered from the same illness whose battle was documented by BBC news as a blog on its website, with interviews conducted and shown to the British public. The news of his death was broadcast all over the world via BBC World. THIS is notability. Arbiteroftruth 06:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This bias (even if perhaps a valid one) against a "sympathy package story from a TV station" or an article "from a campus newspaper" is not grounded in any policy or guideline. Per our rules, this article qualifies for inclusion. Pointing me to another person who's received more coverage doesn't prove much, as there are also millions of people that receive less coverage. Don't get me wrong, I understand your argument and the points you raise. But as I see it, this article meets WP's current policies and the fact that it is well-attributed leaves me without incentive to even try to justify its deletion. I hope this clarifies my position and arguments so far. Cheers, Black Falcon 06:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about we move the page to Karhoh's userpage, and delete the main entry on Wikipedia? Arbiteroftruth 19:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given my opinion that this article meets WP policies and guidelines, I do not see such a move as warranted. However, I would likely support such a move if User:karhohs himself requests the removal of the page from the article mainspace (not resulting from undue pressure, of course). The article has already received non-minor edits from other editors, so {{db-author}} is no longer applicable. But again, I might support removal of the article out of WP:BLP concerns relevant to Mrs. Nebeker Karhohs' family, but only if it is author-requested. I should note here that I only speak/write for myself, and other editors who have expressed "keep" opinions here may not agree with me on this point. -- Black Falcon 21:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The two CBS affiliate pieces on her satisfy WP:BIO. We might not like the reason for her "notablity", ie "She's famous becuase of her illness," but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete an article. --Oakshade 02:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, I am obviously leaving it to the editors. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Net10 Wireless[edit]

Net10 Wireless (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I created this article a long time ago, hoping that somebody would expand upon it and make it notable enough. However, it hasn't happened, and doesn't pass WP:CORP or WP:N. It's time to get rid of it. --Адам12901 Talk 06:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might be better if you just merge it with Tracfone given it's just an offering of the latter. --Squiggleslash 17:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it would be better. --Адам12901 Talk 16:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Smith (mathematician)[edit]

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

Notability questionable, and based on a brief media storm around a preprint that quickly died away. Does not seem fair to brand here as the mathematicians who claimed to have proved Navier-Stokes existence and smoothness but was mistaken. It was just a preprint, and preprints are not publications Billlion 12:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the "brief media storm" seems to be limited to mostly blogs (such as Peter Woit's) and several articles, e.g. in Nature, Seed, NZZ (for nonsubscription access to the Nature article see [24]). In terms of "notability" Wikipedia: Notability would assert this coverage was enough and cannot diminish over time; however, this guideline (whose status has always been kind of dubious anyway) is at the moment heavily contested. I would like to add that feelings of sympathy ideally should not play into whether this article is kept or not. It is best to be consistent in what we decide is kept or not, regardless of how we feel about the subject. Nonetheless, in my opinion, articles like this can never be more than marginal keep. I personally think creating a whole bio on Smith because of this is rather dubious. --C S (Talk) 04:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are several reliable sources, all covering a single incident. That's not "independent" as outlined in WP:N. I wouldn't call it "substantial" either, since the sources are more concerned with maths in the computer age than with Penelope Smith, using her case only as a recent example. Huon 20:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The "independence" criterion does not require that the sources be independent of each other (in terms of topic), but instead that the sources be independent of the subject of the article (i.e., not self-published). -- Black Falcon 08:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The "independence" criterion requires both, see WP:N: "Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other." I wouldn't mind a merge and redirect to Clay Mathematics Institute, where the information on the Millennium Problems is kept, but she isn't independently notable. As an aside, is there a reason why the article's title is "Penny" instead of "Penelope"? Most sources, including her website (and even the article's first sentence) seem to use her full name. Huon 22:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, you're still misreading it. "Independent of each other" does not mean covering independent events, as "each other" is referring to the sources themselves. The sources I listed do not appear to be dependent. This part of the criterion is designed to avoid the situation where one source may basically just be copying another. This is not the case here; it appears each news source did their own investigation. --C S (Talk) 17:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep seems to be a footnote in the history of the Millennium Prizes which is worth documenting. --Salix alba (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- David Eppstein 03:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability and poorly refed NBeale 21:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There may be some amount of notability to the Navier Stokes claim but in the spirit of WP:BLP I think that the level of notability required for an entry that's solely about an embarrassing incident in this person's history should be significantly higher than the notability required for more positive academic accomplishments. —David Eppstein 02:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That was what I meant to say in the nomination. Thankyou very well put. Billlion 09:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If not for the bloggers, withdrawal of the preprint would have drawn little attention. (On a lighter note – did any other P.G. Wodehouse fans notice that her name is Psmith?) DavidCBryant 12:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted by User:Allen3. Majorly (o rly?) 16:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red wings (Sexual Act)[edit]

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

At best a definition; uncited, List of sexual slang terms cruft. Delete. ChronicallyUninspired 23:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. MER-C 09:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not entirely sure how this entry is any different from all the others in Category:Sexual_slang (and yes, I'm completely aware of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). EliminatorJR Talk 22:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, despite the definition, this is a dic-def. Shenme 03:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, very limited usage by culture and region. WWGB 06:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. If WP:WINAD is indeed applicable, then the appropriate action would have been to tag this for transwiki rather than deletion. So tagged. -- Black Falcon 08:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - It definitely needs to be expanded, as it borders on a dicdef at the moment. However, the article is cited: note the last sentence, which specifically mentions that the term is used in the indicated manner in a specific publication. It's inline citation, but it is citation all the same. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 12:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect. Make sure that it gets a mention on the artiste page. :) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosetta Stoned[edit]

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

This is not a notable song (not a single, does not receive radio play), and the page has been deleted before. The entirety of the article is original research. –King Bee (T • C) 14:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak delete. Well, mostly it's certainly not original research - the list of cultural references is taken straight from the lyrics. The only bit that might contravene WP:OR is the "..the song is thought to be..." part, but OTOH that's pretty obvious from the lyrics. So the remaining question is "is it a notable song?". Yep, it wasn't a single; Yep, it doesn't receive radio play (mind you, it's 11 minutes long), hmm, difficult. (Google - "Rosetta Stoned"+Tool = 92,000 Ghits.) EliminatorJR Talk 22:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N as applied at WP:BAND - and I'm a huge Tool fan too, just this song is not notable and even if it did receive radio play or was released somewhere, it would not become so. This is also the case with nearly the entire Tool song category. Someone needs to talk to the project guys about what WP:N means with regard to songs. Pretty much the only way a Tool song could become notable is to win a Grammy, which applies to Ænema and Schism. Orderinchaos78 16:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Longest song on album, and has a very creative use of Maynard's vocals. WereWolf 02:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neither appears to qualify it as notable under Wikipedia guidelines. Different, yes, interesting, yes, but notability means it has "been the subject of secondary sources [and] such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other." Until it wins a Grammy or takes an unexpected turn into pop culture such as Dandy Warhols "Bohemian Like You" did, it probably fails WP:N. Furthermore, due to the lack of secondary coverage of it, its current incarnation appears to fail WP:ATT on original research grounds. Orderinchaos78 12:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge to the 10,000 Days album. However I can't see anything in the present article which is in any way verifiable other than maybe its length. Note WP:CSB issue with parental advisory sticker, it did have in countries other than the US I believe. DanielT5 12:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Dismissed. {{sofixit}}. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 10:57Z

San Diego Jewish Academy[edit]

San Diego Jewish Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article reads like an advertisement and frequently contains great errors with regard to history and with regard to the nature of the school. Alkdsjfjife 02:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep This AfD was placed by a pseudonymous ed., probably a student, who simultaneously also placing a speedy delete--which has been removed. No evidence put forth for assertions of great errors, and the prose is straightforward. The article itself, is reasonably good for an art. about the school, and shows sufficient N. Not a good faith AfD. DGG 06:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 19:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per DGG's comments. Noroton 19:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, due to the unreliable nominator. Appleworm 10:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per all above AlfPhotoman 19:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep the way to fix writing and accuracy problems is to edit the article, not destroy it. A 40-acre campus is a rarity, even for a private school. Noroton 01:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability neither asserted nor demonstrated. I honestly believe we have to draw the line: this endless inclusion of schools is destroying the encyclopedic nature of the project. WMMartin 15:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article speaks for itself. This is but one step towards ensuring that we have articles for every school out there, thereby expanding the breadth and scope of Wikipedia to its fullest extent. Alansohn 04:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 17:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics of Saturday Night Live hosts[edit]

Statistics of Saturday Night Live hosts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

somewhat OR, redundant with barely notable SNL 5-Timers Club having it, fails WP:NOT in being an indiscriminate source of info, and doesn't need it's own page. Booshakla 04:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, WP:NOT#IINFO. "The following is a list of sorted tables" is not a promising way to start off an article. Krimpet 21:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per who gives a damn, no wait, that's not a good reason, per WP:NOT, WP:TRIV. Otto4711 03:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the following reasons:
  1. WP:NOT#IINFO is not applicable as this is obviously neither a "list of FAQs", a "travel guide", a "memorial", an "instruction manual", an "internet guide", a "textbook", a "plot summary", or a "lyrics database".
  2. This is not OR as all of the information can be sourced either from SNL records, news articles, or (failing all else) the show itself (a primary source).
  3. WP:TRIV is a more serious argument, but one that I also believe is inapplicable here. This is not a mere collection of trivial facts, but rather provides information that can be used to determine what type of show SNL is (based on the identity of the people it hosts). -- Black Falcon 08:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why you keep arguing that WP:NOT doesn't apply to these sorts of things. You know as well as I do that the list there is not exhaustive and arguing to keep something because it's not on the list is disingenuous at best. As for this being a helpful guide to the sort of show that SNL is, what specifically does this article tell us about the sort of show SNL is based on the identity of its hosts? Otto4711 13:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otto, if it's not on the list of the 8 items, then it cannot be used. If we claim that it is not "exhaustive", then I could make an equally valid argument that WP:NOT#IINFO for biographies of heads of state. How are you going to argue against that? After all, the list isn't exhaustive... . WP:NOT is a policy and, as such, should only include what consensus has determined should be excluded. Neither you nor I constitute consensus. We have to act based on what's on the list, and none of the 8 things there cover this. -- Black Falcon 18:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing on the list of 8 would expressly forbid List of blue things but there's not a chance in hell it would withstand a challenge on the grounds of WP:NOT#IINFO. Clearly the eight consensed items are violations but there is nothing in the language of WP:NOT#IINFO that says those are the only eight things that can be considered indiscriminate collections of information. Otto4711 19:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are mistaken. List of blue things would fall under WP:NOT#DIR rather than WP:NOT#IINFO. According to your claim, my hypothetical argument that WP:NOT#IINFO for presidential biographies is perfectly valid. After all, it doesn't mean anything if it's not on the list list. If it's not listed there, that means there is no consensus for it, and you cannot cite that policy. If you hold a personal belief that this is indiscriminate, you may (quite validly) note that, but please don't reference the policy. That's just plain misleading. -- Black Falcon 21:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the vast number of articles that have been deleted as indiscriminate collections without having their article type explicitly named in the Big 8, given that there is not a single word in the policy that can reasonably be interpreted as making the Big 8 definitive and given that under the simple rationale of basic common sense a presidential biography is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it's you who's being misleading by pretending that IINFO has no possible application here. Otto4711 23:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying it has no possible application. What I'm saying is that is has no application grounded in policy. One can make a very compelling argument that something or another is indiscriminate, but no matter how fantastic that argument is, unless it's one of the Big 8, it's not grounded in policy and should not consist of a simple, unexplained link to WP:NOT#IINFO. I intend to review my position in light of Mangojuice's comment that this article is semi-redundant, but until an actual argument is made as to why this is indiscriminate (except "who gives a damn"), I cannot see WP:NOT#IINFO as applicable. -- Black Falcon 00:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I'm not certain which deleted articles you're referring to, but I should note that I supported deletion in most of the "in popular culture" and other related nominations (although often for reasons other than WP:NOT#IINFO). -- Black Falcon 00:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Five-Timers Club is notable, worth writing about. This article is somewhat redundant with that one, but also includes a table of ex-cast members who have hosted, politicians who have hosted, sports figures who have hosted, and so on. We don't need any of those arbitrary subclasses, and I see nothing in the title that would prevent more from being added. We do have List of Saturday Night Live hosts and musical guests, with all the information in this article available, just not distilled in random ways. Leave a redirect in place, but I say delete: the Five Timer's Club article is already complete, the history here will not be helpful. Mangojuicetalk 12:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Blackfalcon. Also per WP:LIST - information and navigation. Redundancy is not a reason to delete. - Peregrine Fisher 10:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hidden History of Zionism[edit]

The Hidden History of Zionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete, Author is not notable, book is not a bestseller, book did not provoke any controversy, does not link. Shamir1 07:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, expand and improve, as substantial secondary sources exist (I added one). SmokeyJoe 13:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Allegations of Israeli Apartheid, the book by itself has received hardly any reviews AlfPhotoman 17:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it does not link to anything, has very few reviews, the author is no one special in particular, the book was not widely reported for any reason. There are so much more *notable& people who write for *notable* newspapers/magazines and the inclusion of them even runs into some trouble in some articles. What does this do for anything on Wikipedia? --Shamir1 05:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a suspicion too that it is just another Protocols of the Wise of Zion, but I rather see it merged in relevant parts than being accused of being biased AlfPhotoman 14:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability and poorly refed. Looks like a vanity publication NBeale 21:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable since 1989. WP should not be used to promote NN publications and authors. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable lacking even an assertion of notability. Completely fails the criteria. TewfikTalk 03:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. Sandstein 09:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jefferson Middle School (Arlington County, Virginia)[edit]

Thomas_Jefferson_Middle_School_(Arlington_County,_Virginia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
  • Delete I have nominated this page for deletion for a couple reasons.

1. I once went to a far more remarkable school with the same name, 1200 enrolled kids, several Honor School of Excellence awards in NC, and winning A School To Watch award along with only 107 other schools in the country. Yet nobody ever considered an article.

2. The only reason the English Wikipedia has over 1.2 Million pages is because of nonsense like this. As I said, there are much more remarkable schools that have no article or even a passing mention anywhere in Wikipedia. It has only been contributed on by 3 people or their cooresponding IP Addresses. FinalWish 02:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Schools are notable. Bo 14:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 14:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a middle school. Public high schools are notable. I draw a line. --Masterpedia 19:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for a lack of independent, reliable sources. Huon 20:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wouldn't automatically want every middle school article, but this is a very good one. It meets WP:NOTABLE. I don't understand Huon's statement that independent, reliable sources are lacking. I've added two, and there are more out there: a Washington Post article and the Great Schools web pages on school statistics, both can be seen in the footnotes. Noroton 00:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a relatively good article for a school and the sources establish notability. Also, the nomination presents no reason for deletion: attending "a far more remarkable school"? ... Hardly a reason. Having some kind of problem that WP has >1.2 million articles?? .......... Having a problem with IP contributors? .... Rather WP:BITEy. -- Black Falcon 08:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact, I'm going to propose a speedy keep based on the fact the nom has given absolutely no reason to delete. I don't quite understand the comment by User:Huon as the article does have sources and ones that are independent of the school. -- Black Falcon 08:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem I have with this article is one of notability. The sources we have are:
    1. The school's website and the local school profile obviously aren't independent sources.
    2. The County Fair and the Opera Theatre are both passing mentions, more for the location than for the school itself. "Independence" is debatable.
    3. The Washington Post definitely is independent, reliable, an all-round good source (though it wasn't there when I first voiced my opinion), but the incident reported is rather strange - I would call the depth of coverage "not substantial" per WP:N.
    4. That leaves us with the Great Schools website, one where I'm very skeptical. If it were to confer notability on this school, does it also confer notability on every other school mentioned on that website with a comparable amount of information?
In conclusion, I don't see notability established by mentions in secondary sources. The Washington Post might persuade me to make it a very weak keep, but then we have a school notable for a teacher playing Mah Jongg with some of her pupils during the lunch break... Huon 11:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Huon's reasoning. In reading this article I was tempted to add to the "Trivia" section the phrase "all this article", but I manfully resisted. I can see the way this debate is going: it's pretty clear that the undiscriminating masses have virtually "won" the battle over high schools, and have moved on to middle schools. Despite their protestations that they would stop with high schools they haven't, and they won't stop here. Kindergartens will be next, and then post offices. And then malls. Maybe I should just argue for keeping everything too, and then sit back and laugh as Noroton and his friends try to maintain thousands of articles. There is no reason why anybody in the world, other than people with a personal connection, should have any interest in this school. Let's just be clear about this school: it's entirely unimportant in the great scheme of things, and has no more bearing on the history or future of mankind than my little finger. It's just a school like thousands of others. WMMartin 15:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources -- fails WP:NOTE. Shimeru 19:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it very annoying that most of the schools in the Arlington County school district have articles, the only schools that should be on wikipedia IMO are high schools, and even then only if their are exceptional in some way or a notable event has occoured there. [[Strongsville High School is notable for example because their marching band is annually featured at the Macy's Day Parade and has performed many other major events, not to mention the sports team winning several state championships. And an article on Colambine is very notable because of the major events that occoured there]] FinalWish 21:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The policy I find most applicable to this discussion is WP:NOT#PAPER. Wikipedia's coverage of schools (including Middle Schools) should be standardized and improved, not ignored, and the pages should not be deleted.—Carolfrog 00:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1) WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST is not a valid justification to delete an article. 2) If we only have 1.2 million articles, we still have a few million more to go before we're done. This article covers the topic, providing reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability. Alansohn 05:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notability is clearly demonstrated within the article, regardless of what school guideline is being rejected this week. See also User:Silensor/Schools for additional rationale. Silensor 05:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Its notable, theres a lot of info and much of it has been referenced. The article needs a bit of a cleanup and a few more references would be good, but its hardly a one line advertising stub! LordHarris 00:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Claims of notability? Umm.... where exactly are these claims of notability? Like, name one? The only one I see is the large gymnasium it uses, which doesn't even belong to the school; it just happens to be next door at the community center. And then there is the current vandalized state of the article... not a good sign. Out!! --Brianyoumans 05:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please there is notable showne in the article erasing this makes no sense to do yuckfoo 06:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just to be repetitive... what is notable about this school? Things I would regard as notable: it has won some major national award or recognition; it has a proud history of winning sports championships; it has several prominent alumni; it dates from, say, pre-Civil War era; it is located in a historic school building; some significant events of the civil rights era occurred there; some maniac once shot 12 students, covered them with peanut butter, and asked the police for grape jelly. I'm not hard to please, but I don't see any such claims here. Not a whit. --Brianyoumans 07:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, there are a few things to note:
  1. The school has the second largest gymnasium in Virginia;
  2. The school is used as the location for Arlington County's annual fair;
  3. The school has been noted in a Washington Post article; and
  4. The sixth grade lobby is green, the seventh grade lobby is yellow, and the eighth grade lobby is blue. Although this last one doesn't do anything to establish notability, I find it rather (disturbingly?) strange. -- Black Falcon 17:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Post article is a little "people" story about the teacher who plays mah-jong with students; it is only incidentally about the school. The gymnasium is at the community center next door, it is just used by the school. Site of local annual fair - how... unexciting. But I appreciate your working with my strange demands for something interesting in the article. Anyone else? (We once moved into an apartment where all the rooms were painted different pastel colors, apparently after the colors of NECCO wafers. It was slightly disturbing, but I'm not writing a Wikipedia article about it.) --Brianyoumans 17:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, there is nothing wrong with a "people" story, given that it is about a teacher from this school. Second, what you (and admittedly I as well) find unexciting is not particularly important: a county fair is a county fair and it undoubtedly attracts significant annual local attention (see WP:LOCAL). And no offense to your (former?) apartment, but it probably has far less significance than a school which tens of thousands will attend. -- Black Falcon 18:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Commonwealth Society[edit]

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


DELETE

  • It is not a registered organisation in any country.
  • It does not publish accounts.
  • It shows no evidence that it even exists outside cyberspace.
  • It was written by the organisation itself.
  • It does not provide any evidence that it is 'notable' or 'remarkable' in any way.
  • Wikipedia should not be used to 'recruit' members to an organisation.
  • There organisation website does not provide an address or contact details other than email and the address of a canadian condo.
  • When I tried to contact them regarding this issue on their website's forum, Several (although admitadly not all) provided responses which were very worrying, and used explicit insulting and vulgar language.
  • The article provides no outside or neutral viewpoints.
  • There are no outside or neutral references.
  • This organisation has either roughly 200 or roughly 50 members(sources vary). This in my opinion is too few for a wikipedia article. RepublicUK 09:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPOV
  • Non Notable
  • It already was deleted once and someone put it back.RepublicUK 06:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can the above be correctly summarized as "Not Notable" and "NPOV Violations"? Bo 15:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP - Please provide sources for, for example, its not publishing accounts. And why you believe the fact it doesn't publish contact details makes it non-notable. Here are the google search results, including a BBC reference. [25] --Couter-revolutionary 09:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS, did you research this at all RepublicUK? You said: "*There organisation website does not provide an address or contact details other than email." But, when I enter the "contact us" section, this is what I found:
"Federal Commonwealth Society
30 Dale Avenue, Suite 1003
Scarborough, Ontario
M1J 3N4 CANADA"
Please research something before making false claims. --Couter-revolutionary 10:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thats a residential address, also it is not for RepublicUK to prove NN it is for others to prove it is notable.--Vintagekits 11:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to the points you made:
This is a private address, It is not registered to any organisation.
Without publishing its accounts it is not an official organisation, I do not have to prove that it is not publishing accounts, YOU have to prove that it IS publishing accounts.
It is not registered with the electoral authorities in any of the nations that it professes to be active in, all political organisations and not just political parties have to be registered.
Google is a search engine and so can't be used for referencing.
The only reference for it on the BBC website is in the 'action network' section and was written by the organisation itself and has not been updated for almost 3 years. The 'action network' section can be written by anyone and needs no proof or evidence that what has been written is true. RepublicUK 10:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth do you know it is a private address, have you been there? "Suite 1003" sounds like an office to me. You have proposed it for deletion, you prove it doens't publish accounts. And yes, I too believe the proposal for deletion was in bad faith.--Couter-revolutionary 12:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is a private address because it is a condo.

You clearly don't understand how this works, I nominated it for deletion and you have to prove that it shouldn't be. I know it doesn't publish accounts by their own admission.

  • Keep. This is an organisation worthy of an article, particularly if one were to compare with the hundreds of far less notable articles on websites, etc. currently on wikipedia. I also get the impression that this nomination may have been in bad faith. An Edwardian Sunday 11:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What proof have you to say that "This is an organisation worthy of an article", it is not good enough to just state that, you must provide evidence, also on of the arguements to avoid during an AfD is "particularly if one were to compare with the hundreds of far less notable articles on websites" - provide evidence to prove notablility or else these words will just sound pretty hollow.--Vintagekits 11:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.Just because there articles less notable doesn't mean that this should automatically existRepublicUK 06:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The organization has been noted in other online 'news' sources (generally unfavorably) including rumormillnews, irishunionism, and themonarchist. The article could use a more NPOV. - If it survives the AfD I'll work to provide that (Yes I know I should do so before, but I'm tired of working on articles that get 'flushed') - maybe someone else can make it more neutral while the article is being considered. Bo 13:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Blogs and internet forums do not satisfy WP:RS, its seems pretty much all of theGhits are for internet forums and mirrors.--Vintagekits 11:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You have not provided any evidence that it has been noted in the news.
  • Comment. Less than 200 members makes an organisation unremarkable RepublicUK 15:03, 23

February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - this user has made one edit! An Edwardian Sunday 19:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some independent sources include:
http://anglosphereunionnow.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_archive.html
Comment This is a blog with no references to the FCS, It doesn't even have a single entry and hasn't been edited for 2 years.RepublicUK 06:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://themonarchist.blogspot.com/search/label/Churchill
Comment The only reference to the FCS is a very small link to a defunct website.RepublicUK 06:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.delhiin.com/wiki-Commonwealth_of_Nations
Comment There is no reference to the FCS, there is just a link at the very bottom of the page to the FCS website. RepublicUK 06:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=92732
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~springbk/links.html Bo 15:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is not a reference, It is just a website with a link to the FCS website without any info about it whatsoever.RepublicUK 06:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.africancrisis.org/ZZZ/ZZZ_News_008690.asp another 'good one' Bo 15:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no evidence that this is anything to do with this organisation. It has a link to a website that has the same initials but a completely different name.RepublicUK 06:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is exactly the same as the african crisis link. RepublicUK 06:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are all blogs which are not independent sources.RepublicUK 06:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to take different views on the organization, and aren't hosted by the same group. Perhaps I'm confused on what counts as 'independent source'. Bo 21:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They could have been written by anyone of youRepublicUK 06:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. These are not realiable sources.--Vintagekits 11:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Conceded - Sources listed (by me) are not Reliable, and do not met wikipedia's standard as 'citations' Bo 02:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. This organisation has set the process in motion with regards to registering in the countries it is active. But it isn't registered yet. - User:81.151.155.249
8th edit by this user. 6 of the others on the article under AfD. Tyrenius 02:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment.Then it can have a page when it is registered.
  • Comment. Incidently How many of you are not members of this organisation?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RepublicUK (talk • contribs) 13:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. Wiki is not a crystal ball, if it becomes notable in future then an article should be written.--Vintagekits 11:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. RepublicUK appears to be a single-purpose account, with fewer than 50 edits here and a remarkable knowledge of things like checkuser requests (15th edit), vanity articles & references ([26]), and AfD. He has made only two edits unrelated to this topic. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you implying?RepublicUK 06:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is because this is a new accountRepublicUK 03:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. But what is YOUR reason for keeping.--Vintagekits 11:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.May become notable in future but is not notable at the moment and also there are no sources.--Vintagekits 23:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.Almost all of the people that have voted are members of this organisation.RepublicUK 06:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You can not know that. I am not a member. It is irrelevant. - Kittybrewster 09:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- seems to be an important movement within the Commonwealth. Astrotrain 11:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. On what basis are you making that comment.--Vintagekits 11:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It can't be an important movement within the commonwealth because nobody has ever heard of it
  • Comment. Please don't make assertions you cannot prove. You do not know who has/hasn't heard of it or who is/isn't a member.--Couter-revolutionary 12:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is for you to prove the Societies notablility not vice versa.--Vintagekits 12:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has only 50 members 50 out of more than 25% of the worlds population.RepublicUK 12:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your evidence for this comment? A reference?--Couter-revolutionary 12:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Non notable fails Wikipedia:Notability and its website looks as if it has been designed by someone who has created the project in their spare time. --Barry talk 14:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It has been mentioned that the address is a residential address, I would just like to point out that that isn't true. There are many businesses resident in the same building as the provided address, and it appears on the satellite images, and internet research to be an office building of some sort. Also the claim it only has 50 members is shot down by the graph at the bottom of the main page that clearly shows exactly how many members it has, looks to be around 200 members. Not a lot I'll agree, but more than 50. Ben W Bell talk 16:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important Comment. I find it interesting to note that the OP's very first edit on Wikipedia was to this article, to add something [27]. A couple of days later he added more information on it being controversial [28]. This was then deleted by an anon user, but RepublicUK then altered the article again [29], seemingly knowing something going on about the organisation. The following day he nominated the article for deletion. I'm sorry but I feel there is something else going on here, the OP expands the article, adds some bits that are removed and then nominates it for deletion. Almost all the OPs edits are to this article. Call me old fashioned but there could be something else going on here with this nomination, I think someone may be trying to make a point and this nomination is in bad faith and singleminded against his declared membership of Republic (whatever that may be). His contribs also seem to show a singleminded push against the organisation [30]. Ben W Bell talk 17:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree, there are signs of sockpuppetry, however, that does not prove the Societies notability. Maybe you should focus on proving notability and then we can fish out if or if not he is a sock.--Vintagekits 17:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - The manner in which the above comments appear is a violation of POV in itself. Where in Wiki's rules does it say that an organisation must present accounts to anyone? It seems a credible enough organisation, which, one should add, is well-known at London's Royal Commonwealth Society. But more importantly, the nominator of this AfD has clearly come to Wiki with an agenda, as demonstrated when he set up his User page, where he announced: "I represent the UK organisation Republic which can be found at www.republic.org.uk. So really, should we believe anything he says here? Christchurch 20:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Right that all well and good but where is the proof of notability?--Vintagekits 20:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the nominator of this AfD is not required to challenge the opinions of each person who votes to keep (he has now posted 14 times on this page - his avid supporter Vintagekits at leats 7 times in the same vein). It is for Wiki editors to give their views and for the ajudicators to then decide. That is how the process works. Christchurch 20:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, actually that's not true, Vintagekits has it right. People on these discussions express their evidence and their opinion, the comments are not votes. Wikipedia is not a democracy. The comments, the manner of the comments, any evidence supplied and so on are taken into account by the admin who closes the debate, but the closing admin has the final say in the matter. There could be 15 people saying Keep, and 2 saying Delete, and it gets deleted on the basis of what is supplied, not how people believed they "voted". Just for future reference. Ben W Bell talk 22:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, please, Ben W Bell, could you have the democracy bit put on Wikipedia's home page please. This seems to me important as the founders seem to think it is a democracy. David Lauder 22:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy. Ben W Bell talk 08:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.No, how wiki works is on proof! When you state something even just an opinion you should be able to back that up with proof. So far NOT ONE EDITOR who has stated "Keep" has provided EVIDENCE of notability.--Vintagekits 20:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep saying that, maybe it shall become true.--Couter-revolutionary 21:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: seems verifiable and credible; has its own website and the subject itself is doubtless of great interest. Worthy of an entry in Wikipedia. 81.155.155.186 21:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2nd edit by this user, who has a very similar IP address to User:81.151.155.249 who has already !voted "keep" above. Tyrenius 02:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep:fulfils Wiki requirements. Notable in its own way and in its objectives. Chelsea Tory 21:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have a lot of votes here calling this organization "notable," but there is zero assertion of notability in the article. If you're considering using "notable" as your reason for saying this article should be kept, then please review Wikipedia:Notability first to see what "notable" actually means in the context of Wikipedia. If the criterion here is notability, the article as it stands right now fails. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable: zero gnews archive hits, zero gbooks hits, zero scholar hits. Rather than assuring us that this is a notable organisation, without any supporting evidence, the case for inclusion would be better made by proving the notability of the organisation by providing supporting sources. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: total and utter reliance on the internet, as proposed by Angus McLellan, should never be the last word. Libraries still exist will millions of books and periodicals one cannot find on the internet, which is not the be all and end all. This organisation is contentious enough (at least for those opposed to it) in its objectives to be notable. It has a website. Mr Darcy in his comment refers to a Wiki guideline, the template of which tells us is not set in stone. David Lauder 22:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, OK then, what written text/books provide proof that it is notable. All we need is Major Bonkers and we have the full set.--Vintagekits 22:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Vintagekits. You seem very busy on this issue.--Major Bonkers 11:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside and to be honest, I found that last exchange very amusing. Tyrenius 03:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As my dear friend Vintagekits says, printed sources would be absolutely wonderful. I don't see any in your comment here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thirded. Incidentally, "there might be printed sources that make it notable" is definitely not a justification for keeping an article. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable; no sources for the article except organization's own website. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are no references in the article and there is no indication that there has been any notice taken of this organisation by media or official bodies to signify its notability. Simple "keep" statements without verification are discountable. The BBC mention is not a news item but a post from the organisation itself by the look of it. If editors want this article kept, I suggest they get to work on it very quickly. At the moment there is no justification in the article itself for not deleting it. Tyrenius 02:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After much comment on this page I'm going to call for a delete on this. I can find no notability on the net for it outside of bits the organisation itself has posted or comments on forums. Even the webpage for the organisation seems confused as to what it is calling itself the "United Commonwealth Society" in most places rather than "Federal Commonwealth Society," and "United Commonwealth Society" receives exactly 0 Google hits which is damningly low (oddly enough doesn't even pick up the main site). Even the threads on the forums seem concerned more with less serious issues (not in itself damning) and seems more like a collection of like minded people (for the most part) hanging out rather than trying to achieve anything. Ben W Bell talk 08:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Without wishing to criticise anyone or Wikipeida itself, I feel bound to say that by some of the strictures outlined above that the Encyclopaedia Britannica whould have to shed most of its content. There are far far less important and non-notable organisation/group pages on Wikipedia. At least this one has a profile and a purpose. David Lauder 10:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The EB has different criteria to WP. It relies on the judgement of experts. WP can be edited by anyone, so verification is mandatory. Tyrenius 03:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- The Society seems notable to me- I remember them being quoted by Sky News on Commonwealth Day in 2006. Astrotrain 10:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commment If you can provide a supporting reference that is verifiable for their notability I will happily change my opinion, but I haven't managed to locate one. Remember, verifiability not truth (and I'm an Inclusionist). Ben W Bell talk 11:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Their website doesn't seem to even exist anymore. Will people still argure that they are notable?

I see what you mean, it now directs to the Toronto Transformation Party. --Couter-revolutionary 13:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wouldn't read too much into that, could be that their hosting company has had an issue. I've seen it happen with many websites in the past where going to the URL would send you to somewhere else hosted by the same company, probably be fixed in the next couple of days. Does make it harder to judge though, but that shouldn't be take into account I'd imagine it's just a mistake somewhere. Ben W Bell talk 14:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked out the Forum and apparently it is a server problem. Hamiltonguy 23:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)hamiltonguy[reply]

  • Strong delete. After waiting this one out for several days, and seeing no answer to the multiple requests for any outside sources, I am forced to recommend deletion. The information herein is unverifiable by any source other than the org's own website. This organization does not appear to have ever been mentioned in any reliable source, and the content itself does read like an publicity brochure. Given the complete lack of sources to refine the article, and the fact that it fails any test for notability, it needs to be deleted. The agenda of the nominator is noted above and is something to be discouraged, but his identification of this article as one failing to meet WP:V, the notability guidelines, and probably WP:NPOV as well is correct. Unfortunately, the personalities of the !voters appear to have come into play, and we have more block-voting on the Keep side by the same block who block-voted Delete on the AfDs for Antoine MacGiolla Bhrighde, Diarmuid O'Neill, and Martin McCaughey. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can we be clear on this. The same editors may not turn up on the same AfDs. The same or similar editors may not reach the same conclusions as each other. Is this a Wikipedia policy? "Block-voting" is your personal opinion. What have you and User:Tyrenius (who regularly support each other and vote exactly the same way) been telling other users about personal opinions? Really, I think your attitude towards other users is outrageous and wrong. David Lauder 09:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is my take (and MrDarcy may have something different to say): editors often turn up on the same AfDs because they have the same interests. The problem occurs when those editors merely express biased opinions based on whether they approve of the subject or not, without attempting to objectively apply non-negotiable policies such as WP:ATT and WP:NPOV, or guidelines such as WP:N and WP:RS. No one attempting to do this could possibly argue for the retention of this article. This does become a matter of concern and needs to be addressed. MrDarcy and I have taken the same stance on this article, because any non-biased editor would have to !vote delete, if they were following policy. Tyrenius 23:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. The only thing that I would add is that I was pointing out that when those editors are expressing the SAME biased opinions, using the SAME flawed justifications, it looks like users are acting in concert to sway Wikipedia in one direction. And that, to me, is unacceptable. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Folks don't forget that some of us that 'voted KEEP' have actually posted material that we thought supported the position (the Africa Crises one where someone was making fun of the FCS as a racist organization that would support an "white" South Africa in particular looked 'good' to me at the time I added to this discussion), I have of course after review conceeded that the blog in question doesn't pass the 'reliable' test... But not all the 'Keeps' are from the established opposition party. Bo 03:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously not directed at you, because you are doing what should be done, namely searching to see if references are available to justify the article, not just saying keep based only on personal preference. However, as none of the refs are in the article to substantiate it, maybe you should reconsider your position now. Tyrenius 04:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We seem to have the same admins, as well.--Major Bonkers 13:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's almost like a family. Tyrenius 23:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete in general agreement with MrDarcy and also per my comment previously. I am disappointed that those wishing to retain the article do not seem to understand that this cannot be achieved merely by expressing an opinion, but only by providing proof through verifiable sources that substantiate notability. Otherwise the comments might just as well not have been written. I would ask the closing admin also to comment on this, if s/he feels it appropriate, for the benefit of contributing editors, as the problem is not restricted to this AfD. Tyrenius 03:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep is notable, and bad faith nom Brian | (Talk) 21:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Once again somebody has said it is notable but they don't say how or provide any evidence for it, also this man is a member of this orgRepublicUK 23:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, but I can assure you I am not a member, as I am interested in politics that relate to New Zealand and the Commonwealth, I don't deny I watch with interest what they say (on their Forum etc) but I have never been involved in any business of this Society Brian | (Talk) 01:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RepublicUK, you really should back up a claim like that with evidence, or else you shouldn't make it at all. Brian, unfortunately we have already established that this organization is not notable. Please review Wikipedia:Notability. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which of course I disagreed, however independent sources do seem to be a bit hard to find, perhaps this could be deleted for now, with the view to recreate, when the org comes more notable. I'll change my !vote to Keep Brian | (Talk) 03:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He just admitted he is registered on their forum, according to the FCS or UCS as they seem to be calling themselves now, that makes him a member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RepublicUK (talk • contribs)

Really? if thats the case I shall e-mail the admin now, and get my form registration removed, I can sure you, I have no conflict of interest here, however do you RepublicUK? do you want this article deleted because it is in conflict with your views? Brian | (Talk) 05:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why would it be in conflict with my views?RepublicUK 05:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on comments This bickering is quite irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether it is in accord with anyone's views or in conflict with them. All that matters is whether it meets wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, namely whether WP:N can be established with WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. Good editors do not let their personal views dominate their editorial role. Tyrenius 06:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it has been decided that it is not notable, why hasn't it been deleted?RepublicUK 20:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly because you've made a mess of the AfD and overwritten the first one. This needs to be sorted out. Tyrenius 00:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't create this page, I merely nominated the article. I beleive it was someone called 'kafziel' who started this page so don't get bitchy with me, take it up with them'RepublicUK 04:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where has it been established?--Counter-revolutionary 20:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. I have awaited nearly two weeks before !voting on this one. The article has not been improved in that time nor has verifiable information regarding the Society from anywhere other than their own website.--Vintagekits 22:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't seem to have generated any non-trivial news coverage. Wickethewok 04:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. --Ragib 07:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Despite the immense amount of bickering, the answer to the main issue, which is does this article meet WP:ATT and WP:NOTE? is No. If those who are arguing so passionately for it to be kept would simply provide those sources, this AfD would be over. The fact that so far that hasn't happened is rather illuminating. EliminatorJR Talk 15:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for a lack of reliable sources per EliminatorJR. Huon 21:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFD listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 5. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:CORP, WP:ATT and due to the mentions on membership and how to join Wikipedia:Spam. If someone tidies the whole article up and provides some reliable sources I will reconsider. Nuttah68 18:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've tried the 'tidy up' part. let me know, if you don't mind, if I did that well enough (It is a separate issue from Notability, which I don't think I can help them with). Bo 19:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - all the links in the article are to sites affiliated with the organisation, hence no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources to establish notability. Although the article asserts notability and the organisation looks like it might pass WP:N, it will have to be deleted unless sources are added by the end of this AfD. Walton Vivat Regina! 18:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
See similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

200 greatest Israelis[edit]

200 greatest Israelis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Copyvio. Non-notable list, a google search for "200 greatest israelis" brings up zippo non-wiki ghits. MER-C 09:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel or Palestine-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lack of RS, some people are not notable. Appleworm 10:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, identical in nature to lists such as AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies, which are not being nominated for deletion (despite being 'copyvio', according to the nominator). The list needs work but it is useful. Appleworm brings up a good point that there is no source, which was likely deleted from the internet. Even so, such a poll by Ynet (being the largest Israeli online news source), if existed, is notable on a national scale. Ynet needs to be contacted about this poll, but I think the article should be kept unless there is proof that this poll never existed. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 10:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment:But I see the article AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies meets requirements for an article, demostrated in the lead section, clear criteria section, WP:RS and inludes a lot of famous films (which meet WP:N), while 200 greatest Israelis lacks all of this. Appleworm 13:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverified. The only sentence is not sourced. SmokeyJoe 12:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article title makes this virtually inherently POV and no assertion of notability is made as regards the survey itself. Moreschi Request a recording? 15:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 17:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and NPOV AlfPhotoman 19:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopaedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information. Mystache 20:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When I first saw this article created, I thought to myself, "should I nominate this for AfD?" I gave the article time, and clearly thought the article exhibited major bias. Real96 22:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 99of9 00:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article title is not inherently POV as it refers to the name of a list compiled by others. However, delete unless sourced. A Google search brought up no hits. -- Black Falcon 08:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it is unclear to me how "greatness" can be defined in a NPOV manner. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 10:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not POV or OR per Black falcon, but does not seem to have (as of right now) a WP:RS. I would change my opinion were one provided, as the style issue can be fixed. -- Pastordavid 16:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this misconceived list. IZAK 13:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. Majorly (o rly?) 16:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LIN TV Wiliamsport Tower[edit]

Woodstock Television Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
LIN TV Wiliamsport Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kitchener Television Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previously nominated as part of batch which resulted in a train-wreck. These three are once again nominated. For rationale, please refer to User:Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts. Ohconfucius 09:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If every little section of state or county roadway, every Pokemon, every pro soccer player, and every person given a title of nobility in Britain are inherently notable and need provide no secondary sources, then I suppose every broadcasting mast might be similarly inherently notable since they are approved by the government to serve the public good and their existence can be verified in databases if one looks a bit. Edison 18:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Pokémon defense "is frequently used in error, given the amount of publicity and renown the "average Pokémon" has gotten worldwide". Pro-soccer is one of the most followed sports on earth today, and plenty of sources exist every week. In class-obsessed Britain, every person given a title of nobility is continually hounded by the British press, who often publish articles about the minutiae of their aristocratic existence. Please don't confuse compliance with WP:V with notability. Radio and TV stations may be notable, but the same cannot be said of its transmitter tower. The database information is already included in List of masts article, so a merge is pointless. I have responsible for purging wikipedia of over 300 of these hopeless stub articles with little potential for improvement, and this is but a final clean-up of those few which have not been deleted, merged, or redirected to their respective TV or radio stations. Ohconfucius 01:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the basis that these towers don't have any sources and will never have articles longer than one line. These articles always lay around for months and say "x is a tower in y and is z metres tall." There have been several dozen (probably hundred by now) AfDs of a similar fashion, usually done one region at a time. The reason major roads, pokemon, soccer pros, nobles, etc, get articles is because they actually have sources about them. --Wafulz 23:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Note that my complaint was with fans of roads, knighted Brits, soccer players, and Pokemons claiming "inherent notability" in the absence of sources satisfying WP:ATT. The baronets or knights may have only a listing is a peerage book(a mere directory listing). The roads are referenced to a roadmap or a states online listing of paving bids (not a substantial nontrivial reference) or someone's hobby blog (not a reliable reference). The pokemons are referenced to a TV show (O.R. inferences throughout) or to the instruction manual of a video game (not independent). If the knight, road, or Pokemon had multiple nontrivial independent reliable sources their articles would absolutely not be an issue. My problem is with claims of inherent notability for the subjects some editors LIKE in the absence of sources satisfying WP:N or WP:ATT, and then arbtrarily deleting articles some other fan of some other subject likes. I am not a big fan of any of the subjects named, and would like to see only articles for subjects with sources meeting WP policies for notability and attribution. No gimmes. Edison 20:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reason as most other mast/tower articles. These are non notable and already covered to the same level of detail in List of masts. Nuttah68 19:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as empty. Vegaswikian 06:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for deletion, editors are free to pursue merging as normal. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Western Australian JSHAA Member Schools[edit]

List of Western Australian JSHAA Member Schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page is simply a redundant list which is unencylopeadic and is currently being handled by the category WA JSHAA Members (Currently up for renaming at CfD to bring into line with relevant policy). thewinchester 09:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JSHAA is a notable schools organisation and categorisation just like Greater Public Schools and the like which exist all over the country. Google searches don't tell you everything. JRG 12:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good enough for a list, if good enough for a category to which the list is not redundant. If it needs work, work on it. Jcuk 18:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing here that a category doesn't provide. —Moondyne 00:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We're not a collection of indiscriminate lists. WMMartin 15:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Junior School Heads Association of Australia. Perhaps list using {{col-3}} or {{col-4}} so that it doesn't take too much space. -- Black Falcon 19:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - list is not arbitrary, and can be expanded into a comprehensive list with more information added. To those editors who blindly go ahead and label "indiscriminate", can I ask why? JRG 12:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Moondyne, WMMartin and DanielT5 SatuSuro 01:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Junior School Heads Association of Australia. I see no reason for this section to be a separate article. Pax:Vobiscum 23:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect per Pax:Vobiscum. Mathmo Talk 09:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, default to keep. Sandstein 09:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wulf Zendik[edit]

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

A non-notable bio on a non-notable person. Entry claims that he's a world-reknowned philosopher, essayist, and inventor, but that most certainly remains to be seen. Little/no evidence of such are provided outside of those provided by his "new religious movement." This wiki is nothing more than a vanity page made by his followers. Rashaun 09:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unsourced and unreferenced in an article that falls under WP:BLP AlfPhotoman 17:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Just curious... how do you consider this article a biography about a living person? Wulf Zendik died in 1999... Jyre 02:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This is a notable person... There have been countless minor articles in local publications, and dozens of articles in major media on his surviving legacy (Zendik Farm), including a CNN news special on Wulf Zendik, A Rolling Stone magazine/ABC tv collaboration called "State of the Union" featuring an interview with members of Zendik Farm and Wulf Zendik (both were in the 1990's)...

1.5 million Zendik magazines containing his work have been sold to date, and many books, Cds, shirts, and other art are purchased by people all over this country and the world every week, which seems to indicate that Wulf Zendik and his work are notable to them. Barnes and Nobles carries "A Quest Among the Bewildered", his auto-biographical novel. Also, sorry about the format mess-up, and sourcing and referencing are still new to me, I'll have them up soon... please bear with me... Jyre 23:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This article just needs some attention and balance. Wulf was a big weirdo, but I have watched a program called Zendik News on cable access several times. it funny. maybe this just needs a line about being a source of entertainment for college students interested in his "tremendous sexual pioneering." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.132.198.3 (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The entry does not claim "World Reknowned" status, merely that over the last thirty years of his life his art and writing were known in countercultural circles... Rashaun seems to have a grudge against Zendik... Jyre 23:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jyre (talk • contribs) 22:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment - the person who posted the above unsigned comment placed a subhead "Notability" that messed up the formatting of the rest of the page, so I have removed it. No opinion on this AFD. 23skidoo 23:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep Apparently N, and sources can be found. Probably appropriate to delete almost all ofthe xisting content.DGG 05:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nominator can vote, right? I've already explained my position. I understand that Zendiks know/knew Wulf the best and that they are trying to preserve his memory in the way he probably wanted it, but Wikipedia is not the place for vanity articles. Zendik.org is. "Delete" is my official vote, but I'm also open to the idea of keep w/cleanup, and I also agree with DGG that most of the entry should go. Jyre, this is not the place to discuss any issues you might have with me. You need to read AfD etiquette, then take any qualms you might have to my talk page. We can discuss them there. - Rashaun 17:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Clean Up. Needs reliable sources to be cited, but they are apparently available.—Carolfrog 02:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, marginal notability established per the sources provided. The articles need to be cleaned up so as it doesn't read like an advertisement. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

City Weekend[edit]

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

Questionable notability, no reliable sources. Daniel Bryant 10:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as the nominator says. - Richardcavell 00:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I know I'd find it a useful resource if in Beijing/Shanghai. "City Weekend" (beijing OR shanghai) gives about 28 hits, including an article copied into a German magazine, and someone in California referencing work writing for them in their CV. It has been publishing since 2004 at least, and many places in China seem to make reference to their selections in "best of" lists in the magazine. It looks like a good magazine, with good articles about expat life and concerns. ("Ta he de tai duo jiu" :-) But free because advertising is the main focus? And in China, and for expats. What is notable enough for magazines such as this? (Wow, typed "3500 RMB in dollars" into Google, and got an answer!) Shenme 04:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added some sources, and more could be found.—Carolfrog 02:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While these local papers are interesting, this article reads like an advert. I'd say delete and start again with an article that asserts notability. Vegaswikian 06:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Reading like an advertisement is grounds for cleanup, not for deletion.—Carolfrog 08:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Has the requisite third party coverage, apparently an established publication. Sandstein 09:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 multiple third party coverage per WP:BIO, see WP:AADD. Sandstein 09:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optic (street artist)[edit]

Optic (street artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civilian (street artist) a while back as a procedural close and optional relist. In that debate, it was identified (but not held in consensus due to the logistical nightmare) that this artist was very borderline notability. I endorse this opinion, and given it appears no-one else has, I am nominating this article for deletion. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 09:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as it stands right now, this article doesnt demonstrate notability. John Vandenberg 15:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. As notable as the others. Dfrg.msc 09:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swarthy[edit]

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

This is an article containing just a definition of a word. Should be put in wiktionary Madhava 1947 (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, already at Wiktionary. MER-C 10:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is more than a dictionary entry, but only if the information can be verified, else delete unverified statements and transwiki. SmokeyJoe 13:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MER-C. --Kevin Walter 14:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a word, nothing more Al-Bargit 15:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a dictionary definition. -- Whpq 17:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The definition at Wiktionary gives minimal information, and this article serves a useful purpose in expounding on the sociocultural application of the word. This article needs better sourcing, but I've added some more info, and I think more could be found.—Carolfrog 04:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice_Wright[edit]

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

Notability not demonstrated; only external source is subject's website Parsleyjones 10:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for deletion, editors are free to pursue merging as normal. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of South Australian JSHAA Member Schools[edit]

List of South Australian JSHAA Member Schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redundant list, would be better handled as a sub-category under Category:JSHAA Member Schools (Currently up for renaming to reallign with policy) thewinchester 10:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What's the basis for notability? You have not successfully answered this question to justify the statement, something that has already been pointed out in the comments you have made here. While the organisation may have notable members, this does not confer Notability by default on the organisation. No person in the community at large would have any awareness of the subject matter. The article as a list is totally redundant and pointless as it links to none of the schools and the same function could easily be handled thru better categorisation of the member schools, a point which has already been proven thru the restructure of the list of WA schools that are members of the organisation. To simply move to keep something because you had some involvement in the content's creation is not enough of a reason for a keep. thewinchester 11:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had little to do with the making of this article, in fact - i only added a solitary reference. I think that the way this should be handled is that the cat:JSHAA should be like the parent category, with the ~5 sub categories to each states category of members, and those categories have links to all of the member schools. There should also be lists of the schools in each state etc etc SMBarnZy 12:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's what we've been trying to do the last 48 hours as part of a massive cleanup, but you keep getting in the way due to your WP:OWN issues. Instead of hindering the process, why don't you hop on board and help. thewinchester 13:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for deletion, editors are free to pursue merging as normal. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Victorian JSHAA Member Schools[edit]

List of Victorian JSHAA Member Schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redundant list, would be better handled as a sub-category under Category:JSHAA Member Schools (Currently up for renaming to reallign with policy) thewinchester 10:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What's the basis for notability? You have not successfully answered this question to justify the statement, something that has already been pointed out in the comments you have made here. While the organisation may have notable members, this does not confer Notability by default on the organisation. No person in the community at large would have any awareness of the subject matter. The article as a list is totally redundant and pointless as it links to none of the schools and the same function could easily be handled thru better categorisation of the member schools, a point which has already been proven thru the restructure of the list of WA schools that are members of the organisation. To simply move to keep something because you had some involvement in the content's creation is not enough of a reason for a keep. thewinchester 11:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This organisation has existed for ~50 years and is quite notable within the Western Australian education system. It is quite active within the education system, and facilitates a number of sporting events for member schools, alot of which are in the top schools in Western Australia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smbarnzy (talk • contribs) 12:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
If it is so notable then why has only one newspaper article in its home country of Australia mentioned it in 8-10 years? DanielT5 15:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 following improvements. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straight blast[edit]

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

We are not a dictionary. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Valid sporting term per this search. Needs to be fleshed out a bit, but it's not just a dicdef. --Wafulz 03:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WINAD. dcandeto 16:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless expanded and referenced Actually, contrary to Wafulz's opinion above, the article as currently written is just a dictionary definition of the term. It makes no attempt to discuss the term beyond what would appear in the dictionary, such as the history of the term, what the technique actually is, how and why it works, or its appearances in published media. The article is also unreferenced. So unless it can be expanded to be more encyclopedic with some proper sourcing, delete. Dugwiki 18:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Modified my recommendation to Keep assuming references check out. The article now appears to be much more encyclopedic and is no long unreferenced. Thanks to Black Falcon for the clean up effort. :) Dugwiki 17:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but...: Seems to be more suited at Wiktionary at the present moment. If it has more references and is expanded upon, I don't see a reason for deletion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment / Question. If it is indeed more appropriate for Wiktionary, shouldn't it be transwikied before deletion? -- Black Falcon 04:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Upon actually looking at the article's content, I believe it should be kept. WP:WINAD applies to articles that have no potential for expansion beyond a dictionary entry. This topic is notable per 3 of the 7 external links and can be expanded with more detail about techniques, appropriate defenses, commonality, and so on. -- Black Falcon 06:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see: [31], [32], and [33]. -- Black Falcon 06:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just added a few sources (and additional sentences) to the article, but must stop for now. I believe the article (as it currently stands) merits inclusion in WP: it is not inherently a dicdef and it passes the notability guideline as per the multiple sources (references and external links). The article does require cleanup and, if it is kept, I will work on it some more (removing unsourced portions, adding more information, etc.). -- Black Falcon 06:52, 5 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, Quarl (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not in fact read like a dictionary entry, but should every martial arts move have a Wikipedia article? Should be merged with Martial_arts or Bruce_Lee or Strike_(attack) or other. --Parsleyjones 10:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. As it seems you're suggesting a merge, I should note that articles that are merged should not be deleted, but rather redirected. I don't actually know how many martial arts moves there are, but this one at least meets WP:N by having multiple sources published about it. If a merge is performed, it should be to Strike (attack)#Punches, but it does not fit there that well. -- Black Falcon 16:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Good point, I didn't think of it that way. Still, it seems akin to listing every kind of drum roll in a separate article, since there are multiple published sources about all of them as well. I suppose if it was my field I wouldn't feel that way, so maybe it should be kept. --Parsleyjones 21:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article can go well beyond dicdef. And no, not all martial arts moves should have articles, but this one is pretty significant. SubSeven 22:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and rename.--Chaser - T 11:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Mini Story Library[edit]

Thomas Mini Story Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N badly. "Thomas Mini Story Library" gives few Google hits, certainly not multiple reliable sources. Croxley 02:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Thomas Story Library (or My Thomas Story Library, which gives fewer Google hits), which is the correct (official) name for the series. These books are widely available in the UK and are a significant new development in the area of 'Thomas' merchandising. (WP:THOMAS members are currently considering how best to cover such merchandising in WP – some of the existing coverage needs considerable work/rationalisation.) As many of the stories in the range are based on the Rev. Awdry's originals, they warrant coverage within WP.
Quote from the publisher's website: "...My Thomas Story Library stories are closely based on the original books by Reverend W. Awdry, retold for a new generation of Thomas fans and accompained by realistic and detailed artwork."
EdJogg 12:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This series certainly has a level of notability, and this is growing as the books become more widely available. Besides the fact that they are, effectively, a "spin-off", from what I have seen they are being merchandised in much the same way as "Mr. Men" books are (similar size and length books, similar price, similar merchandising display...)
Support vote of Rename.
Gonzerelli 02:30, 1 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, Quarl (talk) 10:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep if the people who work on this think they can source it under the proper name,they should be encouraged to try.DGG 05:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per DGG and rename per User:EdJogg. -- Black Falcon 19:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per above, and the fact that its "mother articles", Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends, and The Railway Series, are notable, and there is no way this information could be merged into either of them. That's my logic, take it or leave it! =) →EdGl 02:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:WEB; blogs are not reliable sources. Sandstein 10:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comixfan[edit]

Comixfan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Comixfan 04-03-2007.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Non-notable website, does not appear to meet WP:WEB. Assertion of notability was made by adding an "Awards" section, though the awards don't seem to be notable themselves, and in some cases are not that accurate. For example, "Runner Up" is actually 7th or 10th runner up, and "Winner" was because there were no other competitors in the category. I guess using footnotes to link to every single page on the site set off my WP:VSCA radar. Contested A7 speedy and prod. Leuko 10:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - almost all the references are to their own website, or to other pages hosted there, hence no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources to establish notability per WP:WEB. Delete unless further sources are added by the end of this AfD. Walton Vivat Regina! 11:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MSJapan 21:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: The site is regularly linked to by other online news sources, such as Newsarama, Comic Book Resources, The Pulse, and many others. Such examples can be found here, here, here, here. In the 10 years it's been online, the site has established a very good reputation with major comic book publishers, freelance writers/artists, games publishers, and movie producers, so much so that it was responsible for my landing a freelance contract with Marvel (and hence my stepping down as EiC to avoid any conflict of interest).

It's listed as a Webzine link here as being "one of the Web's premier comic book and pop culture resource sites".

That said, I think the main reason for retaining an article on this - and other comic news sites - has been said best here. --Daelf1969 23:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Links from forums really aren't WP:RS, and the other site linked from is under AfD as well for not being notable per WP:WEB. Also, a link from a link directory where you can submit your own link and description definitely is not a WP:RS. Finally, the argument that this site merits a Wikipedia article because Anna Nicole Smith has one, well what can you really say to that? Leuko 23:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't merely discussion forums; they're articles that are featured on the respective sites' front pages. That's how a lot of comics news Websites operate.

I'm all out of arguments on this. If you guys can't see the merit, well there's not much else I can do. Fans and professionals in the business know what the sites rep and importance is, and as such I thought it would be cool to have the site featured here.

After the amount of hassle I've had to go through just to (most probably) see my first contribution wiped, rest assured I won't bother to contribute any further articles to this or any other Wikipedia-affiliated sites. It's just not worth the time and effort. --Daelf1969 03:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep:Have personally never heard of this stie before yesterday, but I beleive it's notable and has enough references to warrant it to stay on.--Shaoken 03:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update!: I have a link from Peter David's Blog mentioning and linking to Comixfan. Considering that Peter David has his own page here and is notable I beleive this qualifies as a reference and therefore proves that comixfan belongs on wikipedia!

I also have a link from Greg Pak's offical news page linking to comixfan. --Shaoken 06:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 16:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Burg[edit]

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

A very nice man in an important organization, but he is personally not notable as a rabbi to qualify for a biographical article on Wikipedia at this time. Maybe in five years time if he becomes truly famous. There may also be a touch of WP:COI (formerly WP:VANITY) in this three-lined stub. IZAK 10:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, page is a redirect. Already listed on RfD. --ais523 14:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Turkiye Devrimci Işçi Senikalari Konfederasyonu[edit]

Turkiye Devrimci Işçi Senikalari Konfederasyonu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The spelling of the redirect is wrong, hence no redirect necessary. Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 11:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.--Chaser T 12:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Harrington[edit]

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

Reads like promotional vanity, article created by SPA whose only contributions have been promoting this person. No attribution from reliable sources, and little indication this person passes WP:MUSIC. Moreschi Request a recording? 11:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom NBeale 21:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A web search turns up very little. May be significant in the field, but I can't find anything. --Hobit 02:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 16:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Lunisolar Calendar[edit]

Simple Lunisolar Calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete: original research with no sign of attributable sources. Precedents for deletion: Meyer-Palmen Solilunar Calendar, New Earth Calendar, Sol Calendar and The 30x11 Calendar --Pak21 11:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not the place to propose new ideas unless they have been discussed at some length in the media. Mike 17:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I had nothing to do with the article's appearaning on Wikipedia. Delete at will. --Robert Pontisso

  • This comment is unsigned. --Greatwalk 07:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry (still learning). Just curious now: would a specialized mailing list count as a "source"? Robert Pontisso 18:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Lunisolar calendar. The content is based on a simple calculation as per Wiki policy (What is not original research?) and serves as a well-written example of a Lunisolar calendar, which is a main type of Calendar reform. Since we are mentioning precedents, these articles were not deleted: Symmetry454 and Pax Calendar. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 09:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Symmetry454 was closed as no consensus. Pax Calendar has secondary sources, so I fail see how this supports keeping an article which has no sources. --Pak21 09:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pak21, the fact that precedents were mentioned at all translates (to me) as you may be referring to 'rules' that exist for you and not Wiki guidelines. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symmetry454 was a solid attempt at giving the community a chance to look at all of these well written articles and decide what precedents applied. You make it abundantly clear they don't deserve individual articles, yet few would support you on the concept that all reference to these calendars needs to be purged from Wiki, which you've been attempting to do every time one of these AfDs falls in your favour. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pax Calendar has secondary sources that someone found offline during the AfD discussion period...I think you might find several of these articles can be similarly supported: Peter Meyer is a respected C-programmer with an interest in calendar algorithms...truth is, you don't know how these might be sourced and there is no Wiki guideline that would prevent the use of these calendars as examples of calendar types. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 05:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one responded because you have had this same question answered several times before and have tended to ignore all prior discussion: nonetheless, I've asked for further advice and you have a response now. Regards--Greatwalk 12:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 16:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meltem İnan[edit]

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

prod was removed, thus listed here. The person does have a Turkish Wikipedia article, but the English version has no assertion of notability and no sources listed. If someone speaks Turkish, please check the notablity on the Turkish page and comment Travelbird 10:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It says Meltem İnan interviewed the 14th Dalai Lama and Richard Gere. There is a relation between those 2 individuals but I haven't found an English assertion of their link to Meltem İnan. –Pomte 01:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All I could find was this YouTube video of her in Peru visiting what appears to be a guinea pig farm... and eating a guinea pig. Caknuck 10:38, 4 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?) 12:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I took a look at the deleted parts. From what i read the only thing that would make her noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia article is the fact that she recieved the "PROGRESSIVE JOURNALISTS ASSOCIATİON- 2001 BEST DOCUMENTARY AWARD". The association seems to be a legitimate Turkish Association, but I have no idea as to whether this award or the association as such are particularly important, i.e. if recieving this award makes her noteworthy. Possibly some Turkish wikipedians can comment on that. Travelbird 12:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete No content--Sefringle 01:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Allen Group[edit]

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

Spam. Advertisement for small non-notable company in San Diego. —Ocatecir Talk 12:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Essentially an advertisement, and does not assert notability. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Clearly an advertisement. Betnap 20:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John Reaves (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VitaCraft[edit]

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

Non-notable Reads like an advertisement. Sources do not meet criteria of substantial independent work or multiple non-trivial works. —Ocatecir Talk 12:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. - Aagtbdfoua 02:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We should get User:ChristopherMannMcKay involved as originator, and maybe User:Pilotguy, who once deleted RFIQin (about which I also have concerns). Besides the fact I hate their misuse of the word anhydrous, I have concerns about the cluster of these three articles. VitaCraft Japan is being justified by its association through Mamoru Imura to VitaCraft, US company, which may or may not (?) make/sell RFIQin, which is simply a 'better' (asserted) means for Induction cooking. So the justifications are by their connections, with the most notable 'thing' being simply an enhancement (now with RFID!) of an established technology. But if these articles go away, then should Mamoru Imura stay? I think they should be considered as a group. (Ouch) Shenme 04:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The afd notice on the page has been removed by a single purpose account with the same name as the company's founder. I need to go now, a little later I'll restore and talk with her. - Aagtbdfoua 22:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete When this article was tagged, it might not have had the primary criterion; however, on March 8th I fixed that. In my opinion, the following sources qualify as primary criterion, SolidBizopps & 無水調理が出来る鍋, vita craftとは. User:Ocatecir wrote this article reads like an advertisement; I would like to know what part of the article reads like an advertisement, so if the article does not get deleted, I can fix it.
  • Note, RFIQin was the first article I created and I did not read all the wikipedia guides to writing an article, so when I wrote it, it sounded like an advertisement; User:Pilotguy deleted RFIQin and then I re-wrote the article, Pilotguy approved it, and it was posted back up on wikipedia. RFIQin has more than enough sources that classify, in my opinion, as primary criterion and, in my opinion, is not written as an advertisement. RFIQin is made by Vita Craft, however it is only sold in Japan under Vita Craft Japan because there is an ongoing court case over distributing rights in the United States. When I was in Japan, I saw it featured (not as an advertisement) on two nation-wide television shows, in a magazine, and it is displayed at most major department stores; it is somewhat well known in Japan, but because it is not sold in the United States, it has only recieved a little press coverage in the United States.-ChristopherMannMcKay 15:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree that the advert point is not valid. However, the article lacks independent sourcing attesting to the notability of the company as opposed to the product. I suspect that an article on the product would survive and creating one is my suggestion. BlueValour 00:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - copied from my talk page: BlueValour 20:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what you wrote is in qoutes
"However, the article lacks independent sourcing attesting to the notability of the company as opposed to the product" What does 'the product' mean, are you talking about RFIQin? The two following links, [35] & [36] are non trivial and completely independent from Vita Craft; furthermore, they do not reference RFIQin. They both provide substantial amount of information, more than what is required according to WP:ORG#Primary criterion, which qualifies this company as notable. I do not understand why you posted comments that are the opposite of this. Do you feel that the two companies that I referenced are trivial and somehow connected to Vita Craft? I would like to know, because to my knowledge these web sites qualify as notablity under wikipedia guidelines. -ChristopherMannMcKay 01:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The second source is in Japanese so I am unable to comment upon it. The first source, from solidbizopps.com, does not, as yet, convince me as being appropriate since the role of that organisation is far from clear from their 'About Us' link. BlueValour 20:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)s[reply]
Comment Japanese Source Translated by Google - Here is a translated version, so you can see what the web site is about; it is hard finding sources in English, because Vita Craft is mostly sold in Japan. Please note this web site does not sell any type of Vita Craft products.
Vita Craft is on SolidBizOpps.com beacuse it is a multi-level marketing company, or a company that (in the United States) sells their products through individuals (like Cutco does). Accorinding to the web site, "SolidBizOpps.com has everything you need to succeed while starting a new business. You will find opportunities at any industry; thus, you must be ready to take advantage of them. Find everything you need to know concerning business opportunities, industries, franchises and recent news at SolidBizOpps.com. Do not let your fear overcome your strength and get ready, using the appropriate information, to build your own company." I know the web site is kind of crappy and might not get a lot of vistors, but a web site does not have to be popular or well-designed according to WP:ORG#Primary criterion, it just can't be trivial or connected to the company.
I hope this clarifies things. Please let me know if these sources do not qualify as primary criterion. ChristopherMannMcKay 21:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the solidbiz website does confirm this company indeed exists, it only provides directory-like information, giving nothing why this company warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a directory of information. —Ocatecir Talk 00:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I am aware Wikipedia is not a directory of information, it is an encyclopedia that references companies that are notable, which according to Wikipedia guidelines, this company is. According to WP:ORG#Primary criterion, “The secondary sources in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms.. ..except for the following: Carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories.” The two sources ([37][38]) carry MUCH MORE than “directory-like information,” as Ocatecir claims. Furthermore, according to Wikipedia Guidelines, these two sources are not questionable sources because the sources do not "express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions" I hope this clarifies things. -ChristopherMannMcKay 03:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am still not convinced this company is notable. Both sources are promotional in nature and do not contain independent analysis of the company, both read like advertisements. Solidbiz seems to be trying to sell the reader on the business opportunity that is Vitacraft. Upon examination of the main website, the stated aim of Solidbizopps.com is to provide "everything you need to succeed while starting a new business."+ The fact that few articles on the company exist from any publication and the promotional nature of the provided sources (one of which is in Japanese) tell the tale of a company that is not notable.
+ Examples of advertising-like language from the Solidbizopps source:
  • "Vita Craft has grown through years of commitment and excellence."
  • "They would like to help you find the opportunity that allows you the flexibility and freedom you want and most importantly, the opportunity that suits your personality."
  • "the customers build lavish look"
These are not the words of an independent source. —Ocatecir Talk 04:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes your right, the Solidbiz source is horrible, I will remove it. But the Japanese source ([39]) is acceptable, beacuse to my knowledge, Wikipedia does not have any guidelines for the language of primary criterion. The company's products are popular in Japan, over 90% of sales if I remember correctly; some of the products arn't even sold in the United States, so that is why there arn't many Enlgish sources.-ChristopherMannMcKay 04:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you speak Japanese? If so, could you translate the Japanese source better? Google's translation is horrible (it is a machine after all). WP:ATT on language:
—Ocatecir Talk 16:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, "Sources in other languages are acceptable if no English equivalents have been found," which is what is happening here. I will have my girlfriend translate it because she speaks Japanese and I will provide the original and the translated version as Wikipedia guidelines state. The previous quote reaffirms my point that Japanese sources are allowed and the Japanese source I provided ([40]) qualifies as primary criterion.-ChristopherMannMcKay 16:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither I or most other English-Wikipedia editors are going to be able to judge that until a better translation of the article is given. Right now the only remaining source is in Japanese and the google translation gives the same type of ad-words the other sources did. Because the only source is in a foreign language we have no idea if the article 1) proves notability 2) is written by an indpendent organization 3) if that organization is reliable and has a reputation for fact-checking. The format of the site makes it look like a blog (the "posted by" at the top of the article and the comments section at the bottom)—Ocatecir Talk 16:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The following was translated from http://ryouri.akekure.com/. Ryouri.akekure.com is completely independent from Vita Craft. The web site is not an online store, but is a review site for cooking related products, written by a staff of writers; it is not a Blog. This web site is not an advertisement for Vita Craft, even though parts of this article might sounds like an advertisement, it is because that is the way the Japanese language is structured.
Jeterato 20:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Start translation
Vita Craft, made in the United States, is a healthy cookware company that was created from as a result of research and development of two specialists from Seattle University and University of Wisconsin. The pans keep the natural taste of food and cook food in a healthy way.
Vita Craft is made on the basis of preventative medicine, “The health of the family should not be protected by taking medicine, but rather by using waterless, non oil, low temperature, and low pressure home cooking.” (Seems to be a quote from a Vita Craft spokesperson)
In other words, food can become medicine, but it can also be damaging. The type of cookware pots you use determines if you cook healthy food or damaging food.
Features of Vita Craft
-Has thermal efficiency, so the pans require less energy.
-Extensive 5-ply layer system.
-Can be used in multiple power sources, including Induction Heating of 200 volts.
-Can use cookware pans without excessive oil and can cook some items without oil.
-Can cook cakes without burning them like oven cooking often does.
-When you turn off the heat, the pans can still use heat stored inside the pans to cooke the food.
-Easy to take care of.
It has a long-term warranty of 10 years.
The most important feature of the cookware is the nutritional value that does not get destroyed because of waterless cooking. The lid to the cookware pans is designed with a vapor seal that makes it difficult for heat and moisture to escape. As a result, “waterless cooking” is possible to cook items like vegetables by using the water inside the vegetables. The loss of vitamins easily dissolves in water, likewise with waterless cooking, the loss of vitamins is held down to a minimum.
When cooking items like meat, you need less salt because the taste of the food is natural and because excessive oil is not used.
If you have not heard about Vita Craft pans until now, you might desire to buy the cookware.
You must get the price of Vita Craft from the official web site. While the cost may be high, the daily cost of energy will decrease, which will decrease costs in the long run.
Ranking of popular pots:
Gives ranking from 1 to 10 on the popularity of Vita Craft pans. (don’t think this needs to be translated).
End translation
  • Do not delete I agree with Christopher on this. I have provided the translated source in English, so hopefully this problem can get resolved. I know for sure that the web site does not qualify as a questionable source, according to Wikipedia:Attribution.
Jeterato 20:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the translation. I will leave it up to other editors to decide if this is satisfactory. —Ocatecir Talk 22:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 100 person business is notable enough for me. (Per newspaper article). I suspect those 100 folks include some _very_ part times sales folks, but I don't know that.--Hobit 02:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That 100 persons does not include any sales persons, mostly office admin and factory personal. In the U.S., Vita Craft pans are sold by individuals (not employed by the company) that recieve commission for every item they sell. Vita Craft's factory is fairly large, they produce many products that are sold in most every department store in Japan; Vita Craft is also paid to manufacturer pans for Health Craft—a company based in Flordia. -ChristopherMannMcKay 03:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you have a link for that? A government document? I think it should be kept either way, but I'd love to see what there is and have the article provide that information.--68.40.58.255 04:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Comment
  • I couldn't find government articles about how many current employees, but I found on the Kansas Department of Commerce & Housing 2002 Annual Report (page 62) a short paragraph about Vita Craft and it says 58 employees are being trained from the local community college to work in "process re-engineering, set-up reduction, project management, and effective supervisory skills" for Vita Craft.
  • Rip off Report, a consumer complaint web site, states in a reply from David Night, office manager of Health Craft, said "Our manufacturing facility Vita Craft in Kansas City has been at the same location since 1939." Furthermore, on Health Craft's Offical Web Site, it says "Our manufacturing facility, in the heart of Kansas, has been producing top quality waterless/greaseless cookware since 1939, and in 1983 created Health Craft."
-ChristopherMannMcKay 20:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The sources are not overwhelming, but there seems to be just enough for a good faith argument that the notability guidelines are met. So, I default to weak keep.--Kubigula (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article looks fine to me; a lot of business articles I come across look like this, or worse. The references are fine in my opinion. Even a slight deletionist like me leans keep in this case. →EdGl 02:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - My big complaint, correct me if I'm wrong, is the only contributors to the article have been the daughter of the CEO and (primarily) the guy she's dating. I wish people would take WP:COI more seriously. Such articles in no way are WP:NPOV and make us a joke of an encyclopedia. - Aagtbdfoua 02:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (quoting above) Such articles in no way are NPOV and make us a joke of encyclopedia. Indeed, almost all "such articles" don't have a NPOV, but not this particular one, you must admit. Like I said, the article looks fine to me. →EdGl 03:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Aagtbdfoua, I generally agree with you. However, COI is about editors who have a conflict; the subject itself, if notable, should not be "punished" because the editors have a conflict of interest. That being said, I often support deletion in close cases with a COI aspect. In my opinion, this is now a decent article, having been cleared of most of the advertising (though the reference to the vision of high quality cookware should probably go), and has just enough referencing to justify inclusion.--Kubigula (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "the reference to the vision of high quality cookware should probably go" I removed it. -ChristopherMannMcKay 04:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about the topic. -- Jreferee 18:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well-sourced.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vita Craft Corporation. John Reaves (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vita Craft Japan[edit]

Vita Craft Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Reads like an advertisement. Sources do not meet criteria of substantial independent work or multiple non-trivial works. —Ocatecir Talk 12:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Kusunose 02:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete This article may not have any sources, but RFIQin has many souces that reference Vita Craft Japan. Also, how does this article read like an advertisement? I would like to know, so I can change it (if it does not get deleted) to not read like an advertisement. -ChristopherMannMcKay 20:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree that the advert point is not valid. However, he article lacks independent sourcing attesting to the notability of the company as opposed to the product. BlueValour 00:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Vita Craft Corporation, if that article is kept. They may technically be separate entities, but they are clearly closely related and can be better covered in a single article. Separate articles are overkill in the case of marginal notability. If the main Vita Craft Corporation article is deleted, then this one should be as well.--Kubigula (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nana's Cookie Company[edit]

Nana's Cookie Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company, reads like an advertisement. Weak sources. —Ocatecir Talk 12:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed. One of the 'references' is actually the company's own advertising website; the other could be hardly be described as independent, consisiting almost entirely of a quote from the company owner. Emeraude 14:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. --Kevin Walter 14:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Advertisement for the company. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as I love cookies, I don't love how this article isn't notable. --Адам12901 Talk 16:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed. Spam for non-notable firm.Montco 04:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete I saw this company featured on television a while ago and I was able to find an article on CBS San Diego News 8 web site about it, link to article. About ten minutes ago I added this link as a reference to the article and removed the other two sources. According to WP:ORG#Primary criterion, to my knowledge, this reference qualilfies as primary criterion for a notable company. -ChristopherMannMcKay 04:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep after reversion. NawlinWiki 16:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will Holder[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence of notablity. Prod removed by creator without comment or addition of sources, creator's username (Willholder) indicates a probable conflict of interest FisherQueen (Talk) 13:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revert to the last version by Burgwerworldz (talk · contribs) from June '06. I'm not sure if that's a valid !vote, but this article was about an Arena Football League player until it was hijacked by Mr. Holder today. I was in the process of reverting, but got caught up in edit conflicts while the AfD process started up. --Onorem 13:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't even see that this was a hijacked article. Thanks for the catch. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close after reversion to the AFL player. --Pak21 13:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion. Carabinieri 19:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youngsitymusic[edit]

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

There is no assertion of notability. The user has created other articles related to this that have been protected from recreation. Taking to AfD for a community definitive decision. Leebo86 14:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: no assertion of notability. No need to go through AfD for clear cases such as this. --Pak21 14:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    AfD allows for subsequent deletion per {{db-repost}} whereas speedy deletion does not, so I don't mind taking an extra minute to post it here. Leebo86 14:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was speediable originally, the repost is almost certainly also speediable. No need to leave the article up for 5 days; I don't think a speedily closed AfD should allow for {{db-repost}} deletions. --Pak21 14:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The author has since left a message on my talk page expressing confusion, despite having supposedly created many articles that were speedied (without much conversation on his talk page). Maybe I'm taking WP:AGF too far though. Leebo86 14:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, and I also note that Young sity needed to be salted for a previous create/delete battle. Andrwsc 17:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 10:54Z

Silber_(band)[edit]

Silber_(band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Silber.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Does not assert notability; copyvio (text copied from [41]); probably spam. Schneelocke 14:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 12:06Z

SimsTR[edit]

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

The article makes a claim to notability but does not prove it with reliable sources. It sounds like a fan site that has a lot of members, but big numbers aren't inherently notable. Leebo86 14:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see how a fan site needs its own page. At most it may deserve to be an external link off the Sims page. Improbcat 14:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft. --Kevin Walter 14:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - reads like a particularly spammy advert. Moreschi Request a recording? 15:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. The Kinslayer 15:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Vanispamcruftisement (Yeah I know just putting a link is frowned upon.) The Kinslayer 15:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Well, I don't agree with WP:BIGNUMBER but these numbers aren't big and there's no other indication of notability. — brighterorange (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, could it fail the notability-guideline more?DreamingLady 15:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Can't find any evidence of notability. On a side note, I didn't even know WP:VSCA existed o.O --Scottie theNerd 18:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, though I'm not sure that it completely fulfills that definition since the author may or may not be the owner. He could just be an enthusiastic member. Leebo86 18:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw some other fan sites, big but not very big either, having pages with only links to them, while searching. So thought it is allowed to add information about notable sites. This site is the oldest one among Turkish Sims sites, numbers might be small compared to big international sites. Text I posted was the history/information page of the site prepared by the owner of the site, not a spamming message. You may delete it if it interferes with the policy. Sorry. Strky 09:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 12:05Z

Walking Hormones With Super Powers[edit]

Walking Hormones With Super Powers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Lacks notability - only 18 Google hits. The only "reference" is a link to a message board (looks like a board where users post fictional creations). Looks like a possible hoax, or someone attempting to advertise his own fictional creation. Dsreyn 14:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to establish notability. Delete unless sourced by the end of this AfD. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article doesn't even include any links to any of these animations, only a top-level link to a message board site. 23skidoo 16:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable amateur web films. NawlinWiki 16:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ATT, WP:V and WP:N AlfPhotoman 17:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 12:05Z

Tamil gangs[edit]

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

Undocumented claims. Content is sufficiently inflammatory that it needs to be verifiable in order to be included on Wikipedia. Alvestrand 14:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete - unsourced and unattributed, reads like original research, possibly also a POV fork. Potentially inflammatory content means that this page should not be given the benefit of the doubt. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Uncited original research. It also seems to have been plagiarized, noting the brackets for referencing that are from copy-paste (e.g. [2]). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to proper recreation as horribly POV and unsourced article. There are Tamil gangs in the UK ([42][43]) and Canada ([44][45]) that deserve an article, but this article does not fill that role. So, delete without prejudice to proper recreation (unless someone can fix up the article within 5 days). --Black Falcon 19:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion; non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 06:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Box (Nightclub)[edit]

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

No information given other than that it is a nightclub in Belfast. Not even a link to a website. Veinor (talk to me) 15:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete CSD A7 (no assertion of notability), and borderline A1 (no context). Article gives virtually no information or context, and there's nothing resembling an assertion of notability. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jersey Devil 20:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Aggressive Fighting Techniques of America[edit]

Scientific Aggressive Fighting Techniques of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable. Of 60 google hits on this subject, almost all are either to this WP article or its mirrors Alabamaboy 16:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 10:53Z

Campusj[edit]

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

A Columia University newspaper. Seems to have broken one major news story and has a couple of other sources. Not sure if that makes it notable though. Sasquatch t|c 16:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. It's not a Columbia University newspaper. It has the following schools represented by individual writers:

2. It's been the subject of the following non-trivial news articles:

It's been featured in, or used a source in the following non-trivial news articles:

3.It is syndicated by the JTA, and thus appears in newspapers all over the world through that.[61]

--Urthogie 17:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 17:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The first Jewish Press article and the Forward article constitute non-trivial, reliable, multiple sources, meaning the article passes WP:NOTABLE. I haven't read further (no time). I strongly suggest that information from these sources and others be used to improve the article with more information. Very convincing, Urthogie. Noroton 17:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's much larger than originally stated, however, the article makes it seem very small or unorganized. The article needs much more work and expansion (outside of 'The Big Story'). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. While I do note that the source of the article is the editor-in-chief of the subject matter, I do not believe that his contributions to the article to this point have failed WP:RS, WP:N (or whatever they're all being redirected to these days). I submitted this article to the WP:COI noticeboard to be safe, but I think this article can stand on its own merit as it is now (with attention made to the source of the edits). For more info on the creator's contributions and a few of his thoughts on the matter, please see his talk page. ju66l3r 23:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: article will improve. The editor of the site created the page only because I created it earlier and it was wrongly voted into deletion.--Urthogie 04:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the information provided by Urthogie above. I also recommend copy-pasting that information to the article's talk page as it will undoubtedly prove useful to any effort to expand the article. -- Black Falcon 19:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Misguided nomination, please delist from AFD as soon as possible. Silensor 05:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Delist. — Athænara ✉ 08:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 10:52Z

Mandara uchiha[edit]

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

Entirely speculative article about a fictional character from Naruto, which is in violation of the policy that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Unattributed (WP:A); article almost reads more like fanfiction than a factual article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 16:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i beleive this article shouldnt be deleted as it gives out information about the naruto universe uchiha clan & the sharingan,alot is stated & can be used for an information on the sharingan by buddyx0

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

The result was Delete, stacked votes have been stricken and not considered on the basis of this deletion. Jersey Devil 20:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gary peach[edit]

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

Nonnotable local sex offender. Backed by one news article, which does not support many of the details in the Wikipedia article. No reason why this criminal is significant enough for an article per WP:BIO. NawlinWiki 16:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  ATTENTION!

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

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

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

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}
  • Delete Not notable. Sadly, there are too many like him for one individual to be notable. This page also has the potential to turn into an attack page quickly. GhostPirate 16:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He's not notable enough to meet WP:BIO, google search comes up with few hits, seams like a non notable news story RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete The page should stay, its 100% accruate and how can you say this isnt important. He is a convicted paedophile we owe it to the local community of Wallington to have this here so people can find out about it. If this can stop him doing anything else to any other children surely thats good? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarshaltonNews (talk • contribs) (article creator)
    • Dont DeleteComment. The whole idea of Wikipedia is to give people information they want. People would want this information if living in the area and would proove alot helpful than other pages such as sports pages. This is a real life problem and would really help alot of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarshaltonNews (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP THIS PAGE!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.181.95 (talk • contribs) — 81.152.181.95 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Dont Delete It is a piece of news important to many, and therefore is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Backsss (talk • contribs) and first contrib from this ID.
  • Delete. Non-notable bio. -- RHaworth 17:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete The article is notable and has a 100% accruate link. Peach is notable in Surrey just because you haven't heard of him doesnt make him not notable. And isnt the point of wiki to do this? Before this discussion you didnt know who Gary Peach was and now because of the article you do — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarshaltonNews (talk • contribs)
Comment: Please read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for reasons why this is being considered for deletion. There is no question that this affects some people, but all Wikipedia articles must meet minimum notability requirements. Also, I would ask that if you are using multiple accounts to add "Don't Delete" votes to this discussion, you stop. We have rules about this kind of thing. -GhostPirate 17:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No! It's very obvious and lets have some sympathy with the person doing it! Mike 17:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - one source in a local newspaper article is not enough to establish notability per WP:BIO. Wikipedia's role is not to protect the people of Wallington from sex offenders; it's to write an encyclopedia. Delete unless further independent sources are added by the end of this AfD. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete Please explain what Wikipedia is gaining from deleting this page. Its another 100% accruate article about a figure in Surrey/London area. Why delete when it is just adding to your encyclopedia and giving people more information. Also why should this be deleted and something like Michael Jackson's case be? He was proved innocent and therefore any story linking to that in incorrect and lies and therefore is not notable either? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.80.89 (talk • contribs)
    • Please read WP:N. Michael Jackson's case was the subject of widespread coverage in the worldwide news media, ergo it is notable enough to merit an article on Wikipedia. It's true that he was proved innocent, but the case is still notable. To include an article on Wikipedia, we need multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources, and there's no evidence that the subject of this article has received such coverage. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tragically there is nothing to make this sex offender particularly notable. As was said above, sadly there are too many sex offenders out there to make this one special enough for an article. In addition the The current location of Peach is unknown. line makes me worry that this page may end up being used to hound and attack him, which is a poor use of wikipedia. Improbcat 17:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I can't see anything notable about this person. I checked for other paedophiles in wikipedia and came across [62] this person was notable because they were a child expert that was convicted. Wikipedia is not the right place for this article! Mike 17:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Was this page deleted already? I remember marking it for lack of notability (the hair makes it memorable) but the history is short. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 18:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Gary peach was deleted once by NawlinWiki before listing it here to generate community opinion. Gary Peach has been deleted 4 times. Leebo86 18:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of notability AlfPhotoman 18:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable. To those that want to keep: should we commit Wikipedia to pages on each and every sex offender? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not Megan's Law. Krimpet 21:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a sex-offender registry. Unimportant pedophile. Mangojuicetalk 21:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Those in the local area are quite well aware of Peach already. We saw what happened when the News Of The World started publicising paedophiles - most of them disappeared. EliminatorJR Talk 22:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete Would you say this paedophile isnt important if he was molestering your children? - 82.43.80.89 has already expressed an opinion in this discussion.
  • Delete particularly in view of the near-vandalism arguments to keep above.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong Delete Keeping this would set a bad precedent. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as BLP violation "convicted of downloading and viewing child porn", which is bad but hardly notable, but the article tries to imply accusations of much worse, which has not been proven, and according to the article itself, is based on community gossip. He has not been convicted of molesting anybody. Limited to the V part, NN.DGG 05:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trivial stuff lacking evidence, and WP:NOT a tabloid for vigilante "justice". (And now perhaps I will get excited and incoherent comments like this.) -- Hoary 08:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, but why would anyone even go to Wikipedia to look this up? There are websites just for listing sex offenders, which are bound to have more information and be more useful to people who want to know.--Parsleyjones 22:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very bad idea if this was kept. Not notable enough for an article. Davewild 18:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - simply not bad enough! BlueValour 23:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Bucketsofg 21:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlett McAlister[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable actress, sounds like it was written by a publicity firm. GhostPirate 17:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - only link is to her own website, so no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to meet WP:BIO. Delete unless sources are added to establish notability. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice picture (Speedy delete) I was looking for some roles in films/plays I recognised - there were none. As a what clearly appears to be a "professional" article, it really is up to the writer to justify that the article is kept which it doesn't do! Mike 17:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article under WP:BLP failing WP:ATT AlfPhotoman 18:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable and it seems more of a self-advertisement for her web-site than anything else. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. She has more acting credits than the usual I've seen for actors at AfD or prod (see [http://imdb.com/name/nm0563944/ IMDb), but they are mostly in supporting roles. -- Black Falcon 19:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I was going to bring up her IMDB page myself. It shows her finding work pretty steadily, but in minor roles. Her strongest claim would probably be the four episodes of Wildfire. She also seems to have a reasonably prominent role in the still-unreleased Fissure, but based on the cast it doesn't seem like a major production. Still, she does have a longer list of credits and more Ghits than the typical "up and coming" starlet, and if she can keep up this pace for a few more years, she could qualify through quantity even without a major role. --Groggy Dice T | C 23:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete she looks really nice, but no evidence of notability and no refs. I'd probably change my vote if someone refed it properly. NBeale 21:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO. --MaNeMeBasat 11:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and salted per WP:CSD G3. GarrettTalk 06:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

House Elestar[edit]

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

I do not see the notibility that will ever come of this article, this appears to be a house in the RpG Dungeons and Dragons. I do not see any notability in establishing a Wikipedia article for a non-notable organization/game place. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 17:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was KEEP WP:MUSIC is met by the reference provided here to a French top-40 hit. I will add it to the article. Scott Davis Talk 12:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curt Close[edit]

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

fails WP:MUSIC, he has worked with people who have worked with famous people, apparently has 2 albums but nothing is known about whether they have sold, he was to be the star of some show that never opened, seems a bit thin. He's from Belgium but there are no interwiki links to either a nl: or fr: article about him. Carlossuarez46 17:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: Found information regarding his works, however, most are in another language. At the very least, someone needs to introduce references to the article and expand upon it. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - without sourcing fails WP:V. BlueValour 23:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article was copied from fr:Curt Close. It was translated after a request at Wikipedia:Translation. Like Seicer pointed out, a Google search points to some sources, but they are in another language. He might be well-known in Belgium/France -- he has featured in top charts[63][64] utcursch | talk 13:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I guess. Utcursch located the French article and I added the interwiki link. Having an article on another wiki and at least one top 40 hit on the French charts creates a sufficient presumption of notability, I think. A French speaker(s) needs to look at the sources to be sure, but I think it's premature to delete.--Kubigula (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability is proven in the article. Finding proof of notability doesn't mean anything unless it's in the article itself! →EdGl 02:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I will happily userfy this to anyone who asks to aid in the creation of a category. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of power pop musicians[edit]

List of power pop musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list is unmaintainable and a category would serve the job perfectly well. Computerjoe's talk 18:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perfectly good list which is capable of doing myriad things a category simply can not do. Jcuk 18:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A category can list names as well as a page. That's all this page seems to serve is... a list. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I see nothing accomplished by this list that a category wouldn't accomplish as well. Krimpet 21:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unmaintainable as noted by nom, also heavily if not irreparably flawed by POV/OR concerns absent any indication that the musicians listed consider themselves "power pop," let alone that anyone else does. Otto4711 22:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize and delete. No need for a list when a category will do. --Hemlock Martinis 00:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize and delete per Hemlock Martinis. Although power pop, like obscenity, is inherently difficult to define, I think the category is as useful and a lot more maintainable than this list. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until categorised and only then delete. Categories are inferior to lists in many respects as there are many things a list can accomplish besides simply listing entries alphabetically. However, this list does not really do any of those many things (except possibly aiding in article development, but this is not of much use since it's unsourced). Also, Category:Power pop musicians does not exist. What's the point in stating that a category could do the job better, as long as no category exists that does do the job better? -- Black Falcon 20:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Userfy if requested - It does not seem possible to create an unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources for this compliation as per References for list items. -- Jreferee 18:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 10:51Z

The War That Ended the World[edit]

The War That Ended the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I think this is probably something someone made up in school one day -- IMDB and Google searches have failed to come up with anything implying that this exists or that any of these people are actors. I asked MadMax, who created it, about it, and he said he did so just to move the information off the page for Jordan Harris (whose IMDB page doesn't mention anything about this movie), and he agrees that it's probably either made up or very NN. My search did turn up the suspicious fact that there's a school in Colorado named Stargate (the supposed setting of the movie), and a teacher at that school named Marcella Embry (one of the supposed actors).[65] Pinball22 18:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete due to WP:CSD#G10 against Stargate school if it's fake or WP:CSD#A7 if it's just some amateur movie. - Pious7 18:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Most likely a high-school project. Entirely non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Checking the CSD stuff, I can't come up with a good rationale other than WP:NFT - and that's not a CSD criteria. Still, this looks like an ambitious fan project. --Dennisthe2 20:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It should also be mentioned, Harris hasn't worked on a feature film since Stuart Little 2 (2002). It seems doubtful that he would make his comeback on an apparent minor independent film in which he is clamed to have been involved in the designing of various cgi and digital effects. MadMax 21:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD G10 or A7 as per Pious7. This badly written article cannot be verrified anywhere as true. A1octopus 09:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFT or WP:CRYSTAL. Either one works, as I could find nothing to subtantiate that this is even a real film. -- Black Falcon 20:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 12:03Z

Jon Allie[edit]

Jon Allie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Jon allie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Non notable Warteck 19:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Two references are just directory listings, the third is a single passing reference. I see not indication of notability at this point. If more information presents itself I may change my mind. HowIBecameCivil 19:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable and the searches that I come across aren't anything too spectacular. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP and WP:ATT AlfPhotoman 22:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Large pathetic galaxy[edit]

Large pathetic galaxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N. Original link to CNN report now dead, and link to Hubble site appears to be about a completely different object. Furthermore, google reveals that the name came from a description of the object as a 'large pathetic galaxy', and no suggestion that this should be used as its name has ever been made anywhere apart from on Wikipedia. It was detected via its effect on the Milky Way's disk; if it's considered important then it could be mentioned in the Milky Way article. Chrislintott 19:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC) In case it's not obvious, delete Chrislintott 15:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The arguments in the previous AFD discussion for this article incorrectly assumed that the object in question was simply "unnamed" and that therefore "Large Pathetic Galaxy" should at least serve as a placeholder name. The object in fact has a number of proposed names in use, and the article that mentions them - Virgo Stellar Stream - existed at the time of the previous AFD. The object istelf passes WP:N with flying colors, however the term "large pathetic galaxy" was never used as a provisional name for the object, but merely a generic descripton of it. A redirect might be cheap but it would be misleading as it would effectively endorse the idea that LPG is an alternative name for this object, when it is not and never has been. Arkyan 19:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Virgo Stellar Stream. Although Arkyan makes a valid concern about endorsement, I think it does not harm because, if nothing else, it might prevent recreation of a similarly named article down the line. Part of me thinks it'd actually be cool to have a galaxy named this, though. Incidentally the fact the only linked source on this article is no longer active underscores the weakenesses in using online sources that fall behind subscription walls or simply expire. 23skidoo 20:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To redirect suggests that Large pathetic galaxy is an alternative name for something called the Virgo stellar stream. This isn't the case. Otherwise we could set up redirects for 'big damp city' to Manchester, 'hot red powder' for chilli and every other description possible for anything in the encyclopedia. Chrislintott 21:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the original statement about a "a rather pathetic galaxy" attributed to Robert Lupton is now called the Virgo Overdensity,[66] or Virgo Stellar Stream. So I believe 23skidoo is correct and a redirect would be suitable. However my preference is for delete because I don't expect to see this name being used for lookups. — RJH (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to [BDS2000] 122 - In the last AfD discussion, I found this Astrophysical Journal paper that appears to describe the object that was in the CNN article. The object appeared to correspond to an object listed in the SIMBAD database as "[BDS2003] 122". I therefore suggest moving the article to that new name. Dr. Submillimeter 22:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a quick look through this paper, and see no evidence that it is the same object that is described in Large peculiar galaxy. Of course, I can't read the CNN article as it has now vanished, but the paper described a cluster of red supergiants with no suggestion that said cluster was ever external to our own galaxy, or disrupted the Milky Way's structure. Chrislintott 22:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think I may have linked the Wikipedia entry to the cited Astrophysical Journal article through names in the CNN article or another mainstream press article. If kept, then the article would need to be revised significantly, so maybe deletion would be appropriate anyway. Dr. Submillimeter 10:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the arguments I made in the previous AfD. No need for a redirect as this is not in fact an alternative name, merely a description used on one occasion by researchers. The name is inherently non-notable. WjBscribe 12:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potentially useful redirect to Virgo Stellar Stream. Spacepotato 02:54, 9 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, trialsanderrors 06:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Relisted per request at deletion review, which the initial closer Seraphimblade agreed to. No opinion from me. ~ trialsanderrors 06:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- WjBscribe 06:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, in the Reuters link where Lupton says "large pathetic galaxy", he's not using that as a name, so there shouldn't be a redirecting title. A trivial comparison suggests the actual object Lupton is talking about is surely this, and that SDSS release directs the reader to astro-ph/0510589 where the name "Virgo Stellar Stream" is proposed. Identity established, but as others have said, a redirect would be misleading so let's not merge. Instead of using any content from this page, I will write from scratch a blurb that includes "large pathetic galaxy" over at Virgo Stellar Stream. That way the GFDL does not demand the revision history of this page (since I'm not cross-pollinating content), and searchers on google will still be able to find relevant information using a "large pathetic galaxy" search string (which may have entered the public consciousness, if someone used the phrase to start an article here). Anyway, that should resolve everything, and there's no need for a merge, so delete. — coelacan — 07:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never mind, I see the Virgo Stellar Stream article already references the "pathetic galaxy" bit. So there's really nothing left to do except delete now. — coelacan — 07:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's a non-notable phrase made up one day at the observatory. There is absolutely no evidence provided to back up the claim that it's an "informal designation". It looks to have been a description (by an individual), not a designation! At best, it was a very temporary nickname or protologism. Xtifr tälk 09:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this, allow a redirect if it is genuinely thought to eb useful. This is a term made up in an observatory one day and has no significant currency and no obvious reference in the literature. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per cogent arguments of WJBScribe and Coelacan. Nuff said. Jeffpw 10:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this was a head-scratcher but Coelacan parsed it very well. -- Dhartung | Talk 10:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above args. — RJH (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd heard of this discovery, but definitely not as "large pathetic galaxy". If we start having articles for each idiosyncratic utterance of a journalist, we'll end up with He scores!. (oh... no... there is a He Shoots, He Scores) Shenme 07:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deletion by admin Irishguy as the article falls under the criteria of CSD G11. Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 06:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Christine[edit]

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

non notable Warteck 19:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - I nominated this for a db-spam, but the page author removed it himself just before the Prod and AfD were added. It's just garden variety spam. Hatch68 19:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete non-notable; uneeded --Austinsimcox 20:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above AlfPhotoman 22:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boldly tagged for Speedy delete (with Db-spam) where someone has tagged before. ◄Zahakiel► 22:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 12:01Z

Natalie Charlotte Smith[edit]

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

non notable Warteck 19:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Austinsimcox 20:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. [WP:N] by end of this AfD AlfPhotoman 01:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 12:00Z

Stephen McClard[edit]

Stephen McClard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Smcclard2.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Pd7.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Pd8.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Not notable. Only 86 Google hits for name. Also appears to be a vanity / advertising page. Alabamaboy 19:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Rlevse 01:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Nisi[edit]

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

Non-notable person; the claim of notability is that a Japanese pilot who thinks he shot him down in World War II came to find his family. Touching, but is it really encyclopedic? Veinor (talk to me) 20:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, touching but unreferenced AlfPhotoman 01:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pretty slim on notability, no references, and not really encyclopedic.--Chaser T 12:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jersey Devil 20:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonestown in popular culture[edit]

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

Delete as badly indiscriminate list of trivia, almost universally unverified. Mangojuicetalk 20:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, an indiscriminate list of every single reference or parody relating even in the vaguest way to Jim Jones's cult. Krimpet 21:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above RedSkunktalk 23:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture every instance where the word "Jonestown" is mentioned with no regard to the importance of the reference, not to mention things that remind editors of Jonestown but lack relaible sources to back them up. Strongly oppose the notion of merging any of this content to any other article on Jonestown, People's Temple or Jim Jones. Otto4711 01:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - "Trivia", "Popular Culture References", and "X in Popular Culture" section are the bane of most Wikipedia articles. Indiscriminate collections of unverifiable information do not below in articles, and they certainly don't belong on their own pages. --Haemo 02:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. I agree that passing reference in films, songs, or books be deleted. But, should something like the fact that two movies were made about the event also be ignored (see [67] and 2)? -- Black Falcon 20:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There probably aren't that many adaptations of the entire story with articles; I would figure we could just list them at Jonestown. Mangojuicetalk 20:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree and do not oppose the deletion of this article. However, how can we add the two movies into the Jonestown article without opening the way for a new list of (mostly) trivia? Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metatron in popular culture for my related comment. I would appreciate your thoughts on the issue. -- Black Falcon 23:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • See, for instance, Matthew Sheppard. His story has been retold in a few works that have articles, and they appear in the "See also" section. I don't think that opens the door for unwanted trivia. Mangojuicetalk 14:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Robersonville, North Carolina. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 11:55Z

Robersonville High School[edit]

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

No assertion of notability whatsoever. Eligibility for the National Registry of Historic Places is not the same as actually being on it. MSJapan 21:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 21:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all high schools are inherently notable, as I argue here. Noroton 21:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many high school arcticles "Less Notable" RedSkunktalk 23:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep there's an enormous amount of history here. Not much else, but lots of history. Worth retaining. Also, high schools are inherently notable, as I argue here. Noroton 01:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    —Already spoke in favour of "keep," striking out for clarity. Your friendly, neighbourhood, Iamunknown 23:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete My house is eligible to be on the Register, as are many schools in my neighborhood. Doesn't make any of them N for that alone. DGG 05:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - normally I would agree with Noroton ... however this is an exception. Note that it is a former high school (the school closed in 1974). The article definitely has issues with WP:LOCAL The "notable alumni" are not actually all that notable (six men who died in WWII) and there is confusion as to whether the article is about the school itself or about the building the school was housed in. Blueboar 13:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good points, but the article is really about the high school and still seems to be useful as history. If it were merged, I think some worthwhile information would be lost. My little essay at User:Noroton/opinions doesn't much depend on whether the school is defunct or not, although in time it becomes less worthy of inclusion. Eventually it might be better to merge it with some history or school district article, but not yet, I'd say. Noroton 22:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Blueboar's reasoning ( though normally I would not agree with Noroton anyway ). WMMartin 15:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmmm, makes me almost want to vote "Delete" ... ;) Noroton 22:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A thorough, well-researched article that would benefit greatly from expansion and cleanup. Alansohn 05:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability, nothing specially distinctive in the texxt.ALR 08:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Does anyone have access to the Thelma Smith source book? I think that the copyright status needs checking out. The same editor has produced Outterbridge Grammar School that cites the same source and is written in a similar style and I have an uneasy feeling. TerriersFan 17:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - This website has the book in text and image. It looks like a privately printed local history. Blueboar 19:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Thanks to Blueboar for this. I have deleted History, Notable Graduates and Special Events all of which are straight lifts from the source and thus copyvio. The question for editors now to decide is whether what is left is worth keeping. TerriersFan 23:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Theres enough there to meet notability and theres a photo, a table and a reference. Its worth keeping and I think the history, graduate stuff should be added back, but rewritten, rather than just copied and then referenced. This article needs cleanup, expanding and improving, not deleting.LordHarris 00:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - now fails WP:V. The problem is that the rest of the content is unverifiable unless a new source can be found. It is not possible to "added back, but rewritten, rather than just copied and then referenced" without brand new references. Rewriting a copied source in slightly different words still means that there is a copyvio. BTW I have put Outterbridge Grammar School up for speedy since all the substantive content is a lift from this source. TerriersFan 00:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Awyong J. M. Salleh 03:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vfr simulations[edit]

Note: I have redirected the talk page of the AfD to here so that people don't put their opinions there (some people have done so) by mistake and have them ignored. Veinor (talk to me) 23:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

Non-notable corporation; I can't find any independent sources for this. Veinor (talk to me) 21:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • note The closer of this AfD should also have a look at the talk page of this article at Talk:Vfr simulations, as there are people voicing opinions there. —— Eagle101 Need help? 23:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks For bringing that up, Sir
  • Speedy delete no assertion of notability per WP:CORP; the sole "claim" of "very popular" is not backed up by any figures at all, let alone reliable sources. And force original creator to read WP:CORP a hundred times. Awyong J. M. Salleh 00:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well to be honest, I remember VERY well that there was a man named that would come on the server and harass us. He tried to take over the server several times, but was not successful. But anyway to get back on track, VFR Simulations is a very successful online server in my eyes.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Robersonville, North Carolina. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 11:53Z

Stonewall Masonic Lodge No. 296[edit]

Stonewall Masonic Lodge No. 296 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, and additionally conflates the group with the building. MSJapan 21:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable RedSkunktalk 23:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Surely, I thought, a gay Masonic lodge would be notable. However, the "Stonewall" here does not appear to refer to this. It is in the American South, so perhaps the reference is to this man. I never found out what the "Stonewall" actually refers to, though, because there are no reliable sources. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 06:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article claims that it's eligible to be placed on the National Register of Historic Places, but I can't find any documentation on the National Register Information System or within their new listings that the building has been determined eligible. It's possible that someone is still working on the nomination. I'm going to make a weak recommendation to delete this article for now, but if the history of the building was expanded to mention why it's historic within the county or state, then I could certainly change my mind. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 21:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article is an extreme stub which is unlikely to be expandable. As stated in the nom, the article confuses the building with the organization that meets in it. Neither is notable. As has been mentioned, the building is not on the Register of Historic Places, and the organization is mearly the local chapter of a much larger organization (which does have its own article). WP:LOCAL cruft. Blueboar 18:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted by User:Fang Aili. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 10:49Z

21 militia[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about what appears to be a non-notable student film group. Didn't spot any supporting articles in google search either. Dugwiki 21:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kite (song) and Peace on Earth (U2 song), no consensus on the rest. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kite (song)[edit]

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

I have nominated this song and others on the U2 album All That You Can't Leave Behind on the basis that that these songs, which were not released as singles nor used in any other way that that would suggest they have notability separate from the album. A lot of these articles also would appear to breach WP:NOR (and have already been tagged as such) and the listing of how many times they've been performed is little short of fancruft even for a band as big as U2. A1octopus 21:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other pages nominated for exactly the same reason are:
In a Little While
Peace on Earth (U2 song)
When I Look at the World
New York (song)
Grace (U2 song) A1octopus 21:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - These pages could be redirected to All That You Can't Leave Behind and some of the contents (where they can be verrified as not contrary to WP:NOR and where it would not be in duplicate to what is already there) could be placed there. A1octopus 21:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Aloctopus. MSJapan 21:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In a Little While, When I Look at the World, New York (song) and Grace (U2 song). Keep Kite (song) and Peace on Earth (U2 song). I believe those two songs deserve articles on their own, because of the history behind them (Bono's father's death for "Kite", 9/11 and the Omagh bombings for "Peace on Earth"), even if that content is not quite developed yet. Unfortunately, that does not apply to the others. --Kristbg 22:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Delete per Kristgb. --Hemlock Martinis 00:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect: all but Kite into All That You Can't Leave Behind. The rest are not singificant - peace on Earth is more significant than most but not sig enough.Merbabu 14:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Kite" and "Peace on Earth". "Kite" is one of U2's most significant songs of recent years in terms of theme and its sound arrangement, and was a big concert production number during the Elevation Tour; its closing reference to the New Media also marks it as a time capsule of sorts. "Peace on Earth" is Bono's big-plea-for-world-piece-number of that album; you could write an article just tracing the political/philosophical evolution found in those songs. The idea that U2 songs should be ranked in notability by the semi-accident of whether they happen to be released as a single in some country or other is very faulty; Bad (U2 song) and Bullet the Blue Sky are far more significant than Staring at the Sun and Original of the Species, for example. Wasted Time R 17:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think we should play around with relative notability. (ie, this song compared to that, eytc). The fact is that Bad is notable, it doesn't need to be compared. Kite (as great a song as it is) in terms of notability has nothing on Bad. Furthermore, what is actually gained by having a seperate article? What is the advantage? In fact if anything, if it helps the album article then I'm all for it. Merbabu 12:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I still do not myself see why these two songs cannot be explained on the album's page rather than have separate articles. Peace on Earth already has an unlinked mention on the Omagh Bombing page and there is no reason why that can't be linked to the album. Single release is not the sole criteria for a song to notable independently of its album, but if a song has not been released separately then I contend that it really would have to become properly world famous to warrant its own article and (as lovely as these songs are) I don't think these songs are that well known in circles outside of U2's fans. A1octopus 18:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment Bullet the Blue Sky on the other hand is a prime example of a song notable indepedently of its album, but if (to pick another example) Trip Through Your Wires doesn't red-link then I shall be looking at Joshua Tree songs shortly as well. A1octopus 18:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment response. If your criteria for notability is "world famous and known by non-U2-fans", then Bullet the Blue Sky and Bad both flunk too. You better merge them back into their album articles, right now! Indeed, there are by Category:U2 songs 116 U2 song articles, and I bet only 15 or so of them are really world famous and known by non-U2-fans. Start cutting and pasting, you have a busy day ahead of you! Wasted Time R 19:38, 6 March 2007
      • Oh please not the old "if-you-do-it-to-this-one-then-you-have-to-do-it-to-another-1000" argument. Just cos crap is repeated all through wikipedia, doesn't mean we can't clean up one little bit of crap here. Precedence is the worst of all justifications.Merbabu 12:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you whack these articles, but leave Crumbs From Your Table and Love and Peace or Else and Van Diemen's Land (song) and Promenade (song) and all the others living, how will any future U2 editor understand the rationale for what gets a song article and what doesn't? They'll just think, Hey, someone forgot to write the song articles for All That You Can't Leave Behind, and start the articles over again. The crap (in your view) will be back. Wasted Time R 12:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You could be right, but it's still a lousy justification to keep. I know you know that. I'm not sure what is to be gained in having these articles. Merbabu 12:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • What I know is that if WP keeps its open-door policy, the trend towards infinite levels of detail in popular culture articles is inevitable and unstoppable. But hey, I quit working on music articles a while back (modulo a few obscure exceptions), so I shouldn't even be here. Do what you will. "Kite" will remain a great work of art, whether Wikipedia acknowledges it or not. Wasted Time R 13:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Have you heard the version on Window in the SKys CD? I was there. :-) A great closer. Merbabu 13:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • PS, i wasn't labelling these article 'crap', just speaking generally about the oft-used excuse. (although, having said that, are they really that much better than crap?) Merbabu 12:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:WAX is not a justification to keep articles, but I do agree that if this AfD results in a delete then other U2 song pages will need to be looked at as well. A1octopus 13:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Surely some kind of track-by-track for each U2 album would work best? That way every and any track could be covered, as well as the album, with 2 articles. Ctrak 23:21, 6th March 2007

(UTC)

  • Keep because this song as well as all other U2 songs are perfectly notable. Just because the song was not a single does not mean it is not notable. An article exists for just about every U2 song on every album, and if this one should get deleted, so should all the others. There is no reason to delete this article or any of the other articles for the songs on this album. I even added a citation for this article to further support its importance. There is much to say about this song in its article, therefore it should be kept. –Crashintome4196 04:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because asserting notability does not make them notable. Significant history of a song to the band is not the same as significance to the world at large. All of this information can be discussed within the album's article. Our policy is generally that non-notable non-singles do not get their own articles. GassyGuy 11:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know anons don't count for anything, but I have replaced the "original research" claim of "Kite" by a number of references especially to the very valuable and reputable U2 By U2 book. 192.102.82.253 01:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Kite" article now has many additional references, as many people have written about this song. What will it take for you admins to take it off your deletion list? 192.102.82.253 04:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, it looks very good now. That's exactly why I'm against deleting articles with potential for improvement. I believe "Peace On Earth", with time, can be improved in the same way. --Kristbg 21:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article has been improved dramatically since the nomination: [68]. Redirect the others if necessary, but deletion is not needed. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - There is sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about the Kite (song) topic. Keep remainder and relist individually. -- Jreferee 18:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Per Jreferee. --Dwaipayan (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: You say keep all but you (like others here) have only provided reasoning to keep Kite. I think people are getting confused, or at least not being clear. regards Merbabu 19:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I could have done the same for "Peace on Earth" and probably "New York" but I chose "Kite" because I like it better. So you are saying whether an article gets deleted or not depends on the whims of what one person writes about? That isn't notability, it's luck. 192.102.82.253 21:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepKite. There is enough detail on Kite that can be used (information about its progression live, how the meanings changed, etc.) that would not be kept in the ATYCLB article because it would be too much. I think it should be a song-by-song basis for U2's material. For example, and article about songs like 4th of July, So Cruel, or The Playboy Mansion would be unnecessary, as there is little material that couldn't be given in the respective album articles. But the details found in Kite's article are enough to warrent keeping it. Phillies26 21:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 11:51Z

Nadia masri[edit]

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

Disputed CSD A7 and prod. This article has no references to demonstrate the subject meets WP:BIO; her sole claim to fame is working on a speculative TV show that is "planning to be pitched to both CTV and MTV in the summer of 2008". Suggest deletion as a non-notable individual.

See also related AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Oaks (TV Show). Muchness 21:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7 Only claim to notablity another wikipedia article which is also subject to an AfD, therefore no claim to notablity at all. A1octopus 21:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - career as an actor does not show any significant parts, no sources provided, and none that could be found to verify the information. -- Whpq 22:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, show hasn't even been produced yet. NawlinWiki 22:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Oaks (TV Show)[edit]

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

Article on a TV show "in the process of creation". No sources to demonstrate the show exists in more than speculative form. Suggest deletion per WP:CRYSTAL. --Muchness 21:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per CSD G11 Blatant advertising for ideas so can only be speculative. Also non notable and fails WP:Crystal. A1octopus 21:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - crystal balling. -- Whpq 22:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like self-promotion for a series that hasn't even entered production yet, if it even exists. 23skidoo 02:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 17:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metatron in popular culture[edit]

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

Delete as indiscriminate list of trivia about, mostly, Anime and video games. As is usual for articles of this type, this one was created in October last year to remove the irrelevant "popular culture" section of Metatron which is quite a good article. PLEASE don't suggest merging it back there without actually considering how to do so. Mangojuicetalk 21:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I could go either way on this one, and don't want to vote (yet), but if it is kept, it should be discriminated. In other words, the more trivial references should be removed and then the raw list should be segmented into sub-sections like Anime, Literature, Movies and film, etc. that would at least make it more readable. ◄Zahakiel► 22:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It could be less completely crappy, I agree. However, per WP:AVTRIV the end goal here has to be an article, not a list of disassociated facts. Unless we at least start on that goal, we aren't making progress: indiscriminate facts will just be added back in again. Mangojuicetalk 12:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as an indiscriminate collection of information and directory seeking to capture not only every reference to the angel Metatron with no regard to its importance or context, but of anything that happens to be called "Metatron" whether it has anything to do with the angel or not. Strongly oppose merging any of it back to the main article. Otto4711 02:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As pointed out by Otto there are actually both direct references to the angle Metatron and other uses such as Metatron Ore, several albums such as Metatron (album) as well as a characters in a number of films, games etc. How about moving it to Metatron (disambiguation) and prune and wikify it according to WP:MOSDAB? --Tikiwont 14:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we do so, we should probably remove the redirect left behind; I don't like the implications of "Metatron in popular culture" pointing to a disambiguation page. Mangojuicetalk 14:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. I agree that most of the passing mentions should be deleted. But should there also be no mention of the fact that he/she/it was featured as a major character in Dogma? Whether we like it or not, actual persons, groups, or concepts are at times notably featured in popular culture. Seeing the word "Metatron" on a poster in the background of a movie obviously has no place in WP, but a major character in a controversial movie? -- Black Falcon 20:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Characters of similar importance in other fictional universes have had articles written about them, so in theory an article Metatron (Dogma) could be created, although the character was, as I recall, not an especially central one. Also, if someone were to write a coherent article about the Metatron myth in modern times (which is what this article would be if it was trying to live up to its title, rather than being a list of trivia), that reference probably would and should be integrated. Mangojuicetalk 20:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not think the character was sufficiently central to the movie that a Metatron (Dogma) article is justified. However, I believe the Metatron article should have some kind of reference to this. An article about the myth in modern times would be wonderful, but it doesn't exist unfortunately. Although I agree that these "in popular culture" articles need to be purged (and usually deleted), I feel the most important parts should be merged. The question is: how? How do we include the main "popular culture" portrayals of an entity (real or fictional) in the main article without opening the way for a list of pointless trivia? I believe the answer is monitoring: Create "in popular culture" sections in articles, but require that any new entries be sourced by secondary sources, and remove any that are not sourced as such. If a popular culture portrayal was significant enough for someone else to write about it, then it probably deserves mention. -- Black Falcon 23:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments on the talk page (essentially, failure to comply with WP:TRIV). -- Black Falcon 20:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist stalking[edit]

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

Original research, unsupported by citation to reliable sources. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking and compare websites that turn up in google searchs for 'gang stalking' and 'terrorist stalking'. Tom Harrison Talk 21:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 17:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 250[edit]

The 250 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Neo/protologism. No sources given for this term. -- Merope 22:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete and redirect to Anna Nicole Smith. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 06:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaither Ben Thompson[edit]

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

Minor satellite in the Annanicolesmithsploitation universe. The references say it all: Every single one mentions Smith in the headline, not a single one mentions Thompson. ~ trialsanderrors 22:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, or rather, Redirect to Anna Nicole Smith. As I mentioned at Talk:Gaither Ben Thompson, he only gets 11 Google hits once you exclude "Anna Nicole" from the search results. —Angr 22:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - ob-note: I was the originating author. The contention that Thompson non-notable is inaccurate -- he has had significant number of articles referring to him, as required by WP:BIO. Individuals who become famous due to their relationship with notable figures/controversies are themselves notable. Headlines are meant to be attention grabbers, while content is what is actually relevant.
To wit:

"Anna Nicole link to MB well-liked

In the national media these days, his name is splashed around liberally as G. Ben Thompson.

His real name?

Gaither Benjamin Thompson, according to state and local records.

He's a local developer of some note. And you may be living in a house or development he's had a hand in..."(Myrtle Beach Sun News, 18 February 2007)

  • "G. Ben Thompson recently spoke to ET's MARK STEINES about having what he called a "short, romantic relationship" with Anna Nicole that eventually led to "a genuine friendship." (ETOnline.com , 12 February 2007)
  • "Horizons, the Bahamian oceanfront estate in which Anna Nicole lived, was purchased back in October by South Carolina real estate mogul G. Ben Thompson for $950,000... TMZ has learned Thompson and Shelly are currently interviewing brokerage firms worldwide -- firms that are interested in winning the listing." (TMZ.com, 26 February 2007)
--LeflymanTalk 22:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Anna Nicole Smith per Angr. JoshuaZ 23:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Abstaining per sourcing given by Lefly, I'm not convinced he should have a separate article, but i'm not convinced he shouldn't either. JoshuaZ 07:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect for the time being Unless, of course, he becomes more notable in the future. Acalamari 23:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The quotations included above by the author show the total lack of V evidence. DGG 05:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment But we do have a lot of V and N in the context of Smith. JoshuaZ 05:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Google News currently has over 2000 news article entries for "G. Ben Thompson" -- just how many are needed to satisfy WP:BIO requirement of "multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability."--LeflymanTalk 06:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Were not saying that he shouldn't be covered just that coverage makes far more sense on the Smith page. As far as I can tell all the myriad news hits don't even allow us to write a decent stub about him. JoshuaZ 06:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then redirect. we know nothing about this person other than gossip related to Anna Nicole Smith. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per Angr, JzG. Anything worth saying - and that's not much - can be said at Anna Nicole Smith. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Folks, let's get real here; whatever your distaste may be for the Anna Nicole nonsense, this individual more than meets the notability requirements of WP:BIO. There are now 150,000 entries for him on Google, and 2000 news items on Google news. He's had a news story specifically about his background. He's got more than enough verifiable information on which to base a biographical article. Being a part of a media circus, or gaining fame for being involved with a celebrity is not a deletion criteria -- by that token Howard K. Stern, Larry Birkhead, Daniel Wayne Smith, Larry Seidlin, and Alexander Denk would all be up for AfD. His bio is quite different and unmergeable into the Anna Nicole bio. --LeflymanTalk 03:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Caucasian Americans (second nomination)[edit]

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

Impossible to maintain, impossible to be exhaustive, and seems to have been created to make a point.Xnuala 22:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Excuse me? What's inflammatory and divisive about a list of Caucasians? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by :68.58.123.110 (talk)
The nomination is not based on being inflammatory or divisive. It is about the list being inappropriate for an encyclopedic resource such as Wikipedia.Xnuala 22:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er...um...then, why do we have a list of African Americans? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.58.123.110 (talk)
And is that list also being considered for deletion for the same reasons? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.163.3.35 (talk)
  • Strong Delete This list is redundant. There are already lists of Americans by the following European ethnicities: Albanian, Austrian, Belgian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Scots-Irish, Scottish, Swedish, Swiss, Ukrainian, Welsh. Suriel1981 23:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And no, it's not appropriate for the list of African-Americans to be deleted, because lists also exist for virtually every other ethnicity which lives in numbers in the United States. As I have demonstrated. Suriel1981 23:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the link if anyone wants to check: [[Category:Lists_of_American_people_by_ethnic_or_national_origin]] Suriel1981 23:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a huge meta-list, unmaintainable, would have to be extremely long to be comprehensive Mostlyharmless 23:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mostlyharmless. 99of9 00:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As already stated, there are already lists of Americans by ethnicity, so it's redundant. Also, I know the guy who started this list and why he did, so I remind him that Wikipedia is not a soapbox --Cyningaenglisc 00:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too broad, sisyphean task to exhaustively fill, and who decides if [qudaroon[quintroons]](pardon the antiquarian term) are African Americans or Caucasian? What about the child, grandchild, great-grandchild of a mixed race person? messy messy idea, poking into that too deeply.ThuranX 01:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy Delete -- you've gotta be kidding. --Mhking 01:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as indeed completely unmaintainable. Why do I have visions of Bart Simpson being forced to type 546,765 pages of phone directory into this list? Oh, and then being forced to maintain the list... 45 editors in 3 or so hours sounds like WP:POINT to me. Shenme 01:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I'd be the first to vote to delete my ethnic groups' list pages too. Of what use is List of Italian Americans or List of Irish Americans?? The major ethnic groups in the U.S. have so many people in them and so many prominent people that the lists are just too broad. And since Caucasians are the overwhelming majority, there's no point to this list either. Which, of course, everybody knows. I get the impression this is up for deletion as a cudgel to hit the List of African Americans, and that makes me wonder why no other ethnic group lists are up for deletion as well. Counterintuitive lists would work for Caucasians: Caucasian Soul singers, Caucasian Soul food chefs, Caucasian Blues musicians, Caucasian Chinese citizens, Caucasian sumo wrestlers, Caucasian Mongolians. Noroton 01:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The ethnic lists for the large groups are just as "Impossible to maintain, impossible to be exhaustive," as Xnuala says this Caucasian list is. The List of Italian Americans is ridiculously incomplete and could be 20 times its current length and still not be exhaustive, and I'm sure you could say that for any of the six or seven major ethnic groups in America. So what's the point of them? Noroton 01:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an indiscriminate list. A list with 100 million or more potential entries. Just, no. Otto4711 02:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unmaintainable, an indiscriminate collection of info, and potentially way too huge. Dragomiloff 02:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the reasons given above that the list is too indiscriminate and unwieldy. - Itsfullofstars 02:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for same reasons I support deleting the African-Americans version. Way too broad, not useful in any way. 23skidoo 02:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but only so long as the other similar race/ethnicity lists are deleted as well. Wikipedia's category system (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_by_ethnic_or_national_descent) would seem to accomplish everything that these lists could. Plus, adding a category tag to an individual's article would be much simpler than adding an enormous number of people to a redundant list. Vicjm 03:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Vicjm about having the same policy for all ethnic lists at once. I feel very, very uncomfortable with a phony "Caucasian" list up for deletion and the only real ethnic group whose list is up for deletion is African American. The exact same arguments could be made for all major ethnic group lists. I don't know how to nominate a lot of lists in one deletion discussion. I hope somebody else will. It seems it's the fair thing to do. Noroton 03:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems to have been created in violation of WP:POINT. NawlinWiki 04:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since the list of African Americans seems to judge by skin color and includes Haitians and Jamaicans in addition to Africans, I believe that that list of Caucasian Americans is legitimate because the other lists so far that would include caucasians are based on nationality. Бог 10:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per several above Tom Harrison Talk 14:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Anyone who votes here may want to be consistent across all major ethnic groups by voting the same way (or not) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese Americans where I've nominated the rest of the lists of people from the largest 20 ethnic groups in the U.S. for deletion, besides the African American list here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African Americans (3rd nomination). Noroton 19:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Why does anyone assume that a "list of Group X" has to include all members of that group and not just the notable ones?? WP:NOT#DIR already covers this: there will never be 100 million people on this list and there never should be. It's a non-issue! That said, I express no opinion due to the quality (or lack thereof) of this list. -- Black Falcon 20:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response Please see my response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African Americans (3rd nomination). (It's going to get very annoying conducting this discussion in three places. . . . ) Noroton 21:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not only is it overly broad, but it's an obvious example of WP:POINT. (That said, even though you're not supposed to create an article to make a point, I think the person who created this article makes a strong point... I am voting for deletion of any "List of people of a particular ethnicity" unless that ethnicity is so rare that the list of notable individuals is going to be no more than like 20 or 30 people) --Jaysweet 22:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as an indiscriminate collection of facts (and categories exists and better organizes and updates list). Smmurphy(Talk) 23:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete According to the latest census, about 75% of American are white (that is about 270 million). Way too large and unmanageable. TJ Spyke 04:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for three reasons only. First, lists for majority groups do not make much sense. Second, this list is redundant to existing lists by origin & natiionality. Third, this list may have been created to make a WP:POINT: within the 44 minutes from its creation to its nomination for deletion, there were over 30 edits from 8 users. -- Black Falcon 04:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obviously. We have the individual X-American lists for all the cauacasian groups. Mad Jack 04:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/split into sub-lists by primary occupation or reason for notability. Wl219 08:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously created to make a WP:POINT. Krimpet 12:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - haven't read previous arguments, but this list might as well read List of people; it's far too inclusive. Part Deux 18:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too broad. The US population is 300 million. If 75% are caucasian, this list could include up to 225 mil. people.Betnap 20:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 17:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of African Americans[edit]

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

ridiculously racist - see similar article List of Caucasian Americans which is up for speedy delete Warteck 23:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 06:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this racist? I was not aware that identifying someone by their race inherently racist. I don't know the consensus on keeping/deleting lists of this type, and I don't particularly have an opinion, but the reasoning given in the nomination really doesn't fly.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Generally useful information. As for racist, I disagree. If it was called List of Black People or List of Negros I would say its racist, but African American is the generally accepted politically correct term. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, is it racist to call African Americans "Black" now? Racist?? Noroton 03:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's unneeded. It will get too big and racism will be claimed and everything. Superior1 00:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Overly broad, impossible to be exhaustive and thorough, and likely to cause lots of trouble if any Afrikaaners or North African arabs descendants make the list. ThuranX 01:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Isn't this exactly the type of content the category system was designed to make usable? If a person is a notable African American (or any other particular ethnic/racial/national description) just mark their article as such. Boom, instant list:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_by_ethnic_or_national_descent. Or am I missing something? Vicjm 01:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete change to Weak Delete. CHANGE TO STRONG KEEP (reasons in comment below labeled "Reasons") Way too broad a category. I'd vote to delete all the ethnic American lists, at least for major groups. Actually, Albanian Americans would probably be small enough. But for any major ethnic group in this country, the parameters of the list are simply too broad. I'd support splitting it up into various lists, but "List of African American Major League baseball players" would still be too large. I'm open to changing my vote if a case can be made that this list has an important use. Noroton 01:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very few of the longer ethnic lists are in alphabetical order like this one — those lists are usually ordered by job category, which might be somewhat useful and is certainly easier to browse through. Also, it allows the article to be broken up when individual sections become long enough. Noroton 02:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons why I'm changing from "Weak Delete" to "Strong Keep": This article should not be deleted if List of Chinese Americans and the many related ethnic lists is kept; yet this deletion discussion seems to be leaning for deletion while those are leaning toward being kept. There is no good reason to delete here and keep in that discussion, and I hope any administrator who closes this debate takes that into consideration. At the very least, if the debates continue trending as they are, they should be combined and resubmitted as a unified deletion discussion. Again, NO good reason has been given to treat this decision differently from List of Chinese Americans. The only responsible treatment of this decision is to consider everything at once or make Wikipedia look completely racist. Noroton 03:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an indiscriminate list. Otto4711 02:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Way too broad, there are more than 30 million black people in the United States. TJ Spyke 02:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unmaintainable, an indiscriminate collection of info, and potentially way too huge. Dragomiloff 02:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Far too unwieldy and unmaintainable, of limited usefulness. - Itsfullofstars 02:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Way too broad. In the archived AFD above someone stated that everyone listed in Wikipedia is, by default, notable. Obviously in reality such lists generally get loaded up with non-notable individuals. 23skidoo 02:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel very, very uncomfortable with a phony "Caucasian" list up for deletion and the only real ethnic group whose list is up for deletion is African American. The exact same arguments could be made for all major ethnic group lists. I don't know how to delete a lot of lists in one deletion discussion. I hope somebody else will. It seems it's the fair thing to do. Noroton 03:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see how this is racist, but it's too broad. A category is more suited for something like this. bibliomaniac15 06:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Overly broad. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 06:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I feel that all "lists of" pages should ultimately go (after all, isn't that what categories are for?), I think that targeting just the African-American list is wrong. Either they all go simultaneously, or they stay. Focusing on just this one list can too easily be interpreted the wrong way. StudierMalMarburg 15:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
upgrade me to Strong Keep. The list of deletions Otto4711 cites does not include the African-American list in it. It is still being singled out by itself. I agree with the comments of Black Falcon below. StudierMalMarburg 21:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course the list I linked to does not include the African American list. That's because this is the nomination for the African American list. Your complaint was that this list is being singled out. I show that it's not being singled out and your response is to want this list more? That's...not rational. Otto4711 21:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Anyone who votes here may want to be consistent across all major ethnic groups by voting the same way (or not) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese Americans (I see Otto, just above, has also linked to it)where I've nominated the rest of the lists of people from the largest 20 ethnic groups in the U.S. for deletion, besides the African American list here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Caucasian Americans (second nomination). Noroton 20:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Racist? Racist?!?!?!? Since when is calling someone "African-American" an insult? Also, the Caucasian Americans list is not up for speedy deletion and is not comparable to this list in quality. Claims that this list is indiscriminate or overly broad are inaccurate.
  1. Not indiscriminate. How is race not a discriminating criterion? Moreover, this does not correspond with any of the 8 items listed at WP:NOT#IINFO.
  2. Not overly broad. Firstly, the purpose of the list is not to include all African-Americans, but only the notable ones. Secondly, a category will not be any less broad than this list. -- Black Falcon 20:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response The problem, Black Falcon, is that limiting the list to "only the notable ones" would still leave a list of gargantuan proportions. There are a LOT of notable African Americans; far too many for a list like this to ever hope to compile. The fact of the matter is that notability simply does not narrow the spectrum sufficiently. For one obvious example: a significant majority of NBA players are African American (80% is one statistic I've seen). Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken, every NBA player is also considered "notable." Accordingly, wouldn't nearly all NBA players be appropriate candidates for this list? I would think not, as this would dilute the list to meaninglessness (a backup pointguard on the Knicks just isn't on the same level as Martin Luther King and Miles Davis). All the African American players in the NFL or Major League would also be appropriate for this list. Including these "notable" individuals would render any attempt to compile a list of truly "great" African Americans ineffectual. To have any meaning or utility, a list like this would necessarily have to introduce a higher standard (double secret notability anyone?). This leaves aside the question, of course, concerning whether or not a list of "great" African Americans would be overly subjective and not encyclopedic... Vicjm 23:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, it would be long, but the same problem applies to the category, and it's no easier to navigate a category with 1000s of entries than a list with same amount. Also, I believe Noroton's suggestion below is viable. -- Black Falcon 23:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, the categories do not provide information as to birth/death dates and occupations at the same level of quality as this list does. -- Black Falcon 20:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response Black Falcon, how do we define notability for purposes of this list? Having a Wikipedia article or a good prospect of having one? If so, this list could get very, very long. If we set a higher standard, what is that standard? I'd be interested in what you think of Lists of American Jews as an alternative way of organizing. I agree, lists are more helpful than categories. The birth/death date information and possibly other brief descriptions can help readers trying to find someone whose name they've forgotten. Noroton 21:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Noroton, I think that method of proceeding (further subdividing by occupation) is ideal. However, that can only be achieved through a merge and not a delete. I'm all for splitting this article into component sections, but this cannot be done once the list is deleted. -- Black Falcon 23:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Responding to Falcon's claim about WP:NOT#IINFO - clearly, there is nothing in the plain text of the policy that says the eight things listed there is or was ever intended to be an exhaustive list of the only things ever that could possibly be considered indiscriminate information. List of blue things is not barred but such a list would not pass WP:NOT. List of people by favorite ice cream would not stand under WP:NOT despiter there not being a specific "no listing people by ice cream" section in WP:NOT. Dozens of articles that do not exactly fit one of the eight specified items have been deleted as indiscriminate collections of information in the last couple of weeks and Falcon has participated in the debates for many of them so why there is this continued insistence that only things that exactly meet one of those eight criteria can possibly be considered indiscriminate information remains a mystery to me. Otto4711 21:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Otto, if it's not on the list, you can't say the policy supports you! How about if I suddenly feel that WP:NOT#IINFO includies biographies on U.S. presidents? Sure, it's not on the list, but then again, if it's not exhaustive that doesn't matter. Of the dozens of articles that have been deleted, I have suggested to delete in probably over >70% of cases. However, my reason for the suggestion has rarely been WP:NOT#IINFO, as other criteria applied. Also, this list is nothing like the "in popular culture" articles, so the comparison cannot stand. -- Black Falcon 23:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The notion of comparing a sourced verified biography of a president to a list of people who happen to share a common continent of origin is, to put it bluntly, amazingly stupid. There is no comparison between the two. The notion of asserting that a well-sourced verified biography might possibly run afoul of NOT#IINFO is similarly amazingly stupid. There is absolutely no support for your assertion that only the Big 8 can be considered indiscriminate by the simple fact that other kinds of articles have been deleted as indiscriminate. Res ipsa loquitur, to borrow a term of law. And whether or not you agreed with the deletions of those articles you've seen AFDed as indisciminate collections, the fact remains, as I said, that you've seen them deleted for being indiscriminate collections and it is your assertion of the Big 8 as exhaustive that cannot stand. Otto4711 01:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Let us, for a moment, put aside the issue of your incivility. You make two errors in your post above. First, the quality of sourcing of an article has no relevance as to how it stands in relation to WP:NOT#IINFO. Second, "African Americans" share more than a common continent of origin: they also share their nationality and their status as a minority in the U.S. Race is a major issue in the United States, and it would not be if classification by "continent of origin" was an indiscriminate criterion. Now with regard to my comment. The presidential biography was an example intended to demonstrate a general principle. That principle being: the Big 8 (as you've named them) are those types of articles for which a consensus exists. Sufficient consensus does not exist for other types of articles, just as sufficient consensus does not (will not, should not) exist for excluding the hypothetical example of presidential biographies. Dozens of articles were deleted, but you fail to mention that dozens were kept. -- Black Falcon 04:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete If I could just sidestep the racism question for a moment, the number of notable African-Americans is pretty huge, and (hopefully!) will continue to grow to the point where this list would be just as ridiculous as the list of notable Caucasian-Americans. Probably all of the lists of notable of people of a particular ethnicity should go, unless perhaps it is a very very very small ethnic group. --Jaysweet 21:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Comment - This back and forth between this deletion and the one for Caucasion Americans is obviously a battle over a point, but the bottom line is that both subjects are both too broad and too subjective for Wikipedia. In my estimation, battle back and forth notwithstanding, both articles ought to be deleted as being outside the scope of WP. --Mhking 21:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not due to the nom's WP:POINT reasoning, but because the criteria is simply too broad and better handled by a category. Krimpet 22:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as an indiscriminate collection of facts (and categories exists and better organizes and updates list). Smmurphy(Talk) 22:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - why is this article organized alphabetically? But after looking at the article's talk page, I can see that this list isn't indiscriminate to its creators. I'd see it as less indiscriminate myself if it were organized. Smmurphy(Talk) 23:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally speaking, the people who create articles don't want them deleted. "The creators think it's OK" is not a particularly compelling argument. Otto4711 01:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant editors, not creators, but, I was referring to the discussions' giving reasons that it isn't indiscriminate, etc. I don't agree with all of their reasons, but I don't see why their points and the points at the last 2 afds aren't sufficient, or is their new reasons to delete it? Smmurphy(Talk) 01:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT BY NOMINATOR My apologies but my sentiment 'racist' above was not meant in terms of this list itself, but the fact that the list of Caucasian Americans was undergoing speedy delete as being superfluous whilst this one was standing unchallenged, as though there was something inherently more notable about being a "notable African American" than being a "notable Caucasian American". For the person who asked if this nomination is racially motivated, I am neither African, African American, Caucasian, Caucasian American nor American, and really don't care overly about any of you at all (which, please note, should make me "indifferent" and not "un-American").Warteck 04:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too broad to be useful Tom Harrison Talk 20:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nothing wrond with it. Being black in a majority white pooulation is more notable that being white. David Spart 22:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as this information is alreadly available as part of the category system. --Xnuala 04:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, along with the others, as completely unmaintainable as a practical matter. And note that the Caucasian list was deleted once already. These lists can not ever be complete or meaningful. Shenme 05:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/split into sub-lists by primary occupation or reason for notability. Wl219 08:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and split into topical sub-lists. I might support a delete after such sub-lists are created. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ishu (talk • contribs) 01:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete and I'm nominating Notable black innovators, inventors and scientists too. Usedup 04:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In spite of Usedup's recent nomination, it seems that the concensus of those voting delete is that the list is too broad and too large. I agree, but as some have noted, these lists are terribly useful. Especially this one, as each entry includes a few words on who the person is. From the AfD of other lists, one commenter noted, "as the anonymous parent of two Puerto Rican schoolchildren, I can assure you that this list is a primary source of information that at least one of my kids will consult on a weekly basis to do school assignments. Administrators should take into account the users' needs and, as a user, this list is invaluable!" As such, I think that we should try sorting and any category that is overlarge we should send into a sublist. Even if this list is deleted in its current form, it will probably become a super-list of lists organized by occupation. If anyone is interested, stop by User:Smmurphy/List of African Americans and do some sorting. Once its sorted, we can create sublist articles for the larger lists, and put whats left back into this article. Thanks. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Astrit Ajdarevic[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Minor notability, non-professional player in youth team Boongoman 23:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No reason to believe he is notable. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have a hard time accepting all the obscure professional players in Wikipedia, much less a non-professional youth. - Itsfullofstars 02:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and there is no need to delete this article. The lad has represented his country at a European level, that's more notable than a lot of lower-league players. aLii 12:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ArtVandelay13 20:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. Besides, there are so many articles of people and places that aren't even notable. So why bother deleting all of them. Deleting them wouldn't make an encyclopedia an encyclopedia. --Crna Gora 21:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A similar case: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Partington --Boongoman 21:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation if he makes it at senior level in future. He hasn't made the reserves yet, never mind the first team. Oldelpaso 21:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - still some way short of the required standard of notability. Come back if he ever makes a first team appearance. Change to Keep with the information provided about the Superettan appearances. fchd 22:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow. Please note that Superettan is not a professional league. Punkmorten 08:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, recreate when/if he reaches senior level. – Elisson • T • C • 22:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not usually in favour of keeping youth team players, but he is way much more notable than all of Football League Two players that satisfy our notability policy on sportsmen. --Angelo 23:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no first team appearance for any professional club = doesn't pass WP:BIO. Weak keep per discovery below that he has played in the Superettan. Change back to Delete as it would appear Superettan is kinda Sweden's version of the Football Conference, and therefore players who have only played in this league don't meet WP:BIO. Debate as to whether youth team players at Premiership clubs are more notable than first teamers in League Two should still take place elsewhere. ChrisTheDude 08:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow. Please note that Superettan is not a professional league. Punkmorten 08:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not meeting WP:BIO. "there is no need to delete" and "why bother deleting" are terrible arguments. Punkmorten 09:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/ Question Did he ever play for Falkenbergs FF? Or is that even relevant? (I have trouble knowing what level works as notable in other countries)? Robotforaday 12:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, according to the article he signed for Liverpool just a few weeks after turning 16, so I'd say it's unlikely, although I have no info to confirm or refute it..... 12:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed it seems unlikely, but it is very relevent. If he has turned out for their first team then he is inherently notable by current Wikipedia guidelines. aLii 13:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, 4 games in superettan [69].
Then keep as per the above reference. Robotforaday 13:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The games in superettan was probably of the kind where Falkenberg was in for a clear win and Astrit came in the last 6 minutes. That is a way of giving them playtime and pushing up the price by saying he played in real games. Very common in Sweden. A friend was treated that way in Helsingborgs IF (home of Henrik Larsson). He got tired and moved to Norway. --Boongoman 14:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:BIO only says a player has to have played in a professional league (can someone confirm that Superettan is a professional league? I seem to remember this being discussed in a previous AFD but for the life of me I can't remember which one....), it doesn't impose any extra conditions on how long the player has to have played in each game or what the score was when he came on...... ChrisTheDude 14:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Superettan is semi-professional with some players with wages in some clubs. Astrit was never on the team, just a loan from the U16 team. Is it desireable to let all kids who has played 6 minutes as a trial for a team in a higer leauge? Or all benched players who are never seen on field but is on the practices used as rabbits? --Boongoman 15:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - youth team player who has never played a fully professional match. WP:BIO makes it quite clear what the policy on this is. Qwghlm 16:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just thought this was interesting; "This transfer could amount to 750,000 pounds, making him the most expensive youngster in history from Sweden, depending on number of appearanes for the first team." [70] aLii 17:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could being the operative part. At the moment he isn't. He will only become the most expensive if he does several other things which would make him very notable in the process. Oldelpaso 18:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just signed for one of the biggest clubs in Europe, and has represented his country at a decent level. к1иg---f1$н---£я5ω1fт 13:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - woeful failure to meet WP:BIO as never having played at a fully professional level - this has been discussed many times. U-17 is not an adult level and not notable. Premier league clubs are full of youth players who are only notable if they play first team football. BlueValour 23:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - WP:BIO does state "This list is only a guideline, and should not be used an absolute test of notability; each article should stand or fall on its own merits." ,and taking this article on its own merits I think it's a keep. - fchd 08:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Falkenbergs FF is professional club. Matthew_hk tc 06:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The league they play in is not fully professional, however. It's the same situation as the Football Conference in England - most of the clubs are full-time pro's but not all, therefore the consensus is that having played only at that level does not satisfy the requirements of WP:BIO...... ChrisTheDude 08:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that the professional or not thing is barking up the wrong tree. Falkenbergs play in the second highest division in Sweden, and some have said that they are a fully professional club. It's not like we'd go around deleting famous Rugby Union players from before the professional era is it? Admittedly this kid isn't all that famous, but he's not exactly unknown. You can find him on youtube, uefa's site, and in various news media. "Astrit Ajdarevic" brings up over 12,000 hits on google. aLii 09:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually the number of hits is 421 with 232 pages excluded. Not that much actually. Most information is about the fact of transfer and his single game in the youth cup. We still have very little facts and many rumours. --Boongoman 20:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about the topic. -- Jreferee 18:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "a Swedish professional football player." Youth team would be dubious for notability, but the senior club entry gets him through.The JPStalk to me 20:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 10:48Z

Subreality.com[edit]

Subreality.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Subreality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

This article describes a page which is merely a collection of links to other pages about comic books, stories, and some things totally unrelated. The webpage therefore does not meet the notability standards for webpages on Wikipedia and has very little potential for an article regardless. SeanMD80talk | contribs 23:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per CSD A1 (no context), CSD A7 (unremarkable web content), and CSD G11 (advertising). Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no context, no content, no point in keeping it. - Richardcavell 00:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Just wanted to mention there is a redirect Subreality which needs to be deleted also. SeanMD80talk | contribs 00:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for all the reasons above. - Itsfullofstars 02:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ridiculous, non-notable, no refs. NBeale 21:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 17:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah M. Farah[edit]

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

This is a vanity page about a non notable person Tony 23:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Well, there are several awards that this person has won, but I am not familiar with them and cannot assess whether this person is notable. Could someone please elaborate or link on the article to a site that proves this person's notability? If it turns out that this person is not so obscure then I am hesitant to vote delete. SeanMD80talk | contribs 00:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm adding the following comments for background. The persons name appears to be Abdullahi, not Abdullah as stated in the article title. The story in the article is not made up, since Google found some hits to back up the claims of winning awards:

I just wanted to eliminate fruitless searching in Google for the wrong name, for those looking for notability. Even so, despite the fact that he has won academic awards, there's an issue if this is enough to qualify for WP:BIO requirements. - Itsfullofstars 00:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added some of the above sources to the article. Complicating matters in searching for notability is that he seems sometimes prefers to go by the nickname "Abdi". [71]. He seems to be an athlete as well as having artistic talent, although that is likely to have little bearing on whether the article is kept. - Itsfullofstars 02:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: It kind of seems like this is an article about a particularly good student. Though it has too many notable national awards for me to ignore, do we then create articles on winners of the annual NG Geography Bee or the other winners listed alongside this one in the sources? It would only be fair, but the whole thing would be a collection of, to me, less than important knowledge. You can see my conundrum. One solution would be to create an article on the awards themselves, and have lists of winners which would contain a very brief summary of all that is notable (And besides, almost or all of what is important about this article is that they the won the award). SeanMD80talk | contribs 02:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete:This person should be allowed to have it's own article the awards he won are very prestigious regarding the platform he's in. I made a typo and missed the i for Abdullahi which would explain when Tony did a background check he couldn't find anything on him, i think the article should stay and be expanded a bit RoboRanks 03:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused. Did RoboRanks really mean to say Keep? - Itsfullofstars 04:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as this is a promising young artist, but I don't think the level of awards he's won are especially notable. --Dhartung | Talk 04:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Lol i ment keepRoboRanks 04:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete unless some information is added about the N of the things he won the awards for.DGG 05:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Behzad Mirkhani. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 11:50Z

Behzad Mirkhani Discography[edit]

Behzad Mirkhani Discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This entry duplicates content found in the Behzad Mirkhani entry. Epolk 23:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge It's a lot easier and creates a redirect. SeanMD80talk | contribs 00:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This isn't a candidate for deletion. You need to propose a merge when pages overlap with {{mergeto}} on the Behzad Mirkhani Discography page and then discuss it at the Behzad Mirkhani page. Leebo86 00:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect There isn't any different content to merge - the entire article is already contained in the parent. Magichands 01:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - nothing to merge as it is already a section in teh main article -- Whpq 17:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_5&oldid=1081100658"