Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 13 May 15 >

Purge server cache

  ATTENTION!

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

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

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

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

The result was Delete, beneath the massive storm of single-purpose accounts lies zero keep votes. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endless Online[edit]

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

This has been discussed twice previously (first nomination, second), and I feel that there were several problems with the previous nominations. There are still no independent, reliable sources for this game. While perhaps every sentence needn't be cited, notability needs to be established. And it has not been here, despite a great deal of concern. It fails every applicable criterion. In previous nominations, some claimed that it met WP:WEB criterion 3, which I see no evidence of. While this much concern should've generated some level of sourcing, this has not happened. The article should be deleted as nonnotable. Eyrian 19:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Oh, it has been up for afd before? Oops, I had prod'd it on 9th of May :/ My comment then was: No independent references, no assertion of notability (WP:ATT and WP:Notability). I ran a google search but only came up with the usual user-written review sites like gameogre; no professionally written articles or reviews. Prod was removed by an anonymous user without comment. Marasmusine 20:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, reading wwwwolf's comments on the first AfD concerning the high number of players, I hasten to point out that popularity is not notability. Marasmusine 20:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 20:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD A7 - no assertion of notability is made anywhere in the article in any way, even unsourced. See also {{db-web}}. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 21:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Still has value. Culverin? Talk 23:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How so? Please reference Wikipedia policy or guidelines. --Eyrian 05:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, it has some references to keep it going, but only to keep it going. Elfin341 00:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Forget it. I checked multiple times and there are no independent references. fails WP:WEB.--Elfin341 00:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree they are very reliable because there coming from a official sticky on the Endless Forums making it approved by the game developers. On another note they come from one of the earliest Endless players with much experience in the game and on the message boards. --Anonymous 19:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC) — 66.138.98.89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I'll perhaps grant reliable, but they are still not independent. Which is what is required for notability. With no independent sources, the article does not possess the notability required for inclusion. --Eyrian 01:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's hard to find a good independent source for a game in the Alpha Stages. I've edited the article a bit more hopefully more members of the Endless community can help out to fix it so it meets Wikipedia's standards. --Anonymous 21:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC) — 66.138.98.89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    Your edits still do not make the subject notable. Please read WP:NOTE to determine what will. If it's hard to find an independent source because so few exist, an article shouldn't exist, either. --Eyrian 02:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no independent sources findable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whpq (talk • contribs).
  • Strong, keepI have been an independant reporter on all things Endless-Online for well over a year with a daily reader base of well over a thousand members. There are at least 4 independant sites that report on Endless-Online regularly and it is referenced on a number of commercial gaming sites. In addition, a simple search with Google yields many credible outside references to this game which ought be considered.Wickedfrost 16:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC) — Wickedfrost (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Care to supply a few links, because my search is just turning up fansites, directory sites and blogs. DarkSaber2k 16:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endless Links Theres plenty of independent sites listed right there. --Anonymous 03:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.138.98.89 (talk • contribs) — 66.138.98.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    So, fan sites, guild sites and personal websites of players? Funny defintion of 'independent' (They are independent of the games creators, but not independent from the game itself). Exactly the same as the un-independent sources I found when I looked. DarkSaber2k 08:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its a shame these are still being deleted. I still don't agree that they have no place on WP. From what I can gather Endless has been around for years, is popular and is relatively notable as a semi commercial, long established, popular game. One of the worrying trends in all of these deletions is the tendency to discount non commercial sites as sources and only accept commercial sites as 'reliable sources' to be trusted. Some "3rd party" sources include: mmorog.com (a commercial site), gameogre Game of the week. Long established site with knowledge of these things, there's also the obligitory mopgd.com entry and a Gamefaqs page. Clearly notable enough for WP. Bjrobinson 10:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't get your first link (mmorpg.com) to load, and gameogre seems to principally consist of self-published content. I can't get mopgd.com to load, and Gamefaqs is also user-created content. Those simply will not suffice for notability. You should know, notability is not popularity. Those sources you listed are primarily user-generated content, or self-published anyway (being a popular site doesn't mean something is a reliable site). --Eyrian 15:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, GameOgres Game of the week award is just as unreliable as MPOGDs regular award, since it is voted for by visitors to the site, and most of the games can (and usually do) organise their fans to spam votes in the poll. A quick check on most web games message boards usually reveals a stickied thread dealing with such matters. As for Gamefaqs, what he (Eyrian) said!DarkSaber2k 15:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP Guidelines are just that, guidelines, when I first started editing here some years ago, these Notability guidelines were slowly introduced, basically to get rid of blogs and personal webpages, not popular notable things like communities and interesting games. One day perhaps we will go back to that, WP is not a written encyclopaedia and can be as big as we want it to be. You might as well continue deleting the whole category now then, because under current WP:Web only 3-4 of these games will meet such strict criteria. I bet in 5 years time we are putting these all back in. On another note actually i feel you are both wrong about GameOgre. And what about MMORGP?Bjrobinson 16:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they are guidelines. And a compelling reason must be given as to why they should not be followed. I find the article in question to be low-quality, and a popular target for vandalism. That does not speak to me that an exception should be granted. The fundamental problem with trying to preserve "popular" things is that this means something very different in all cases. I don't think this game is popular. What makes your assertion fundamentally different from mine?
    These notability guidelines aren't derived ex nihilo, anyway. In order to preserve an encyclopedia that is both verifiable and neutral, things must be covered in reliable and independent sources. Reliability ensures verifiability, while independence ensures neutrality. As the sources here are not reliable and independent, they cannot be used to generate a verifiable and neutral article. Which is in violation of Wikipedia's core policies.
    And how am I wrong about GameOgre? --Eyrian 16:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is a guideline, but verfiability is policy, and there just does not seem to be any reliable sources to provide verifiability. -- Whpq 16:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You make the assumption that anyone involved with the game can't be a credible source which means that eye witness testimony as a basis of fact within articles could not possibly be considered. With that reasoning you might as well just erase the section on the holocaust and let the Iranians win. http://endlessreport.xm.com/ may be based on a blog engine but that does not diminish the amount of research I put into the game to write my particular articles. If something is referenced to my site then it has been researched and the information valid.Wickedfrost 21:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC) — Wickedfrost (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - Lacks multiple credible third-party sources which all articles must be based on. Wickethewok 04:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nom, non-admin closure by me. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triscuit[edit]

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

As far as I can see, this fails WP:N. It has had a prod removed by an anon user. ~ G1ggy! Reply | Powderfinger! 00:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- the article is in terrible shape, but this is a legitimate cracker that has been around for years. Does not fail WP:N. -- MisterHand 00:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going with a Nuclear Powered Speedy Keep, on account of a huge advertising campaign ("Don't forget the Triscuit!"), millions upon millions of boxes of these things sold annually, scads of these things on my local supermarket's shelves, and many and sundry other reasons too numerous to list. In short, Triscuits are many things, but they are certainly not non-notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as obviously notable (I've heard of these things and I live in the UK) though the article desperately needs a cleanup. EliminatorJR Talk 00:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above --ROASTYTOAST 01:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - definitely sourcable - clean it up! --Haemo 01:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - My apologies...they haven't made it to Australia, hence my not knowing of them. This AfD may be closed now. ~ G1ggy! Reply | Powderfinger! 01:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, MySpace band, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 02:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Moving Lights[edit]

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

Not referenced by reliable sources, unencylopedic tone, questionable notability. The only existing release mentioned in the article gets 4 Google hits apart from Wikipedia, which all seem self-published (including this BBC page, which "allows for "aspiring bands" to submit their data). Information about the second EP which "is scheduled for full release in March 2007!" can only be found on Wikipedia High on a tree 00:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was snowball delete. Sr13 21:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmological meaning of human life[edit]

Cosmological meaning of human life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A very large chunk of WP:OR. Despite having a long edit history, it's also incomprehensible in some places, and sometimes reads like it was auto-translated from another language. A number of sources, but they merely source items that are tangentally referred to. EliminatorJR Talk 23:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks like an essay of some sort, which falls into the WP:OR department. Delete. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- is very much original research. -- MisterHand 00:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete OR essay. Bucketload of sources do not prevent this from bbeing WP:SYN. No WP:RS to establish WP:N Pete.Hurd 02:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - OR. Philippe 02:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:OR and a giant messy essay. Ford MF 05:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite the author having put a lot of work into this, Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research. Cardamon 08:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given the expansive nature of the article and the references provided perhaps it would be better to request it be rewritten to a more encyclopedic nature rather than deleted outright Guycalledryan 11:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, OR, not to mention incomprehensible rubbish in places. Lankiveil 11:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Darkbane 12:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. AniMate 12:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I know it is frustrating to see an article this long go down the drain, but the article in its current state is full, if not completely, of original research—not acceptable in an encyclopedia. —Anas talk? 13:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, weakly. This is either a large chunk of original research, or else it is a theory being presented without the sort of context that is vital in an article like this, such as who originated this hypothesis and who accepts it. Were a simple lead section added to this article that explained these things, the article might be worth keeping. Without one, it seems soapboxy and unverifiable. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Would make a nice sientific[sic] essay but is a bad article. --St.daniel Talk 17:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FinanceToGo[edit]

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

One of those tricky ones. A piece of shareware with a few reviews here and there, but no substantive coverage. The article doesn't make any claim of particular notability. Google returns 152 unique hits [1] a lot of which are blogs or mirrors of press releases. Notable or not? EliminatorJR Talk 23:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep The notability is that unlike most software, this one uses the double entry system, which means it could be used for a business as well. I've never actually seen it, as I have never used a Mac, but it seems this article squeaks by. the_undertow talk 02:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as well by virtue of by-the-skin-of-its-teeth notability. Ford MF 05:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep by virtue of reviews from Macworld ([2]) and Softpedia ([3]). EALacey 15:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - it's been reviewed and it is somewhat notable. GoldengloveContribs ·Talk 17:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above comments, it squeaks by but is notable enough nonetheless. RFerreira 06:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Above is false - double entry bookkeeping is pretty standard. download.com 20 programs, sourceforge 34 programs, etc. I was not brave enough to try a Google search for "double entry". DewiMorgan 22:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 02:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Metros[edit]

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

Questionable notability (according to the article, the band has only recorded two untitled demos), unencylopedic tone, not referenced by reliable sources (the band's web site seems to be defunct btw). High on a tree 00:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 20:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision Song Contest 2009[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Kanabekobaton 00:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete --Kanabekobaton 00:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 2007 only recently concluded --ROASTYTOAST 01:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOT. Philippe 02:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Many months too soon. Not enough is knowable yet. BTLizard 03:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as well. Ford MF 05:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, why delete it? Lilduff90 07:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, you have article about Olympic Games, regional Games (Asiad, etc) or other sporting events which are much further in the future. Eurovision is more important than most of these events in terms of public awareness. 193.56.37.1 07:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP.--Uannis 08:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CRYSTAL: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Due to the national finals and semi-finals, preparation for this event begins well in advance and is easily sourced. --Dhartung | Talk 08:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everything said above. GoldengloveContribs ·Talk 08:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until the host is known. Punkmorten 09:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2024 Summer Olympics  !!! Hektor 09:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Also, that's different since cities bid to be Olympic hosts. There appears to really be some merit in starting speculation 20 years in advance. That doesn't excuse that article, though, since it appears to mostly be crystalballery. However, the site of the ESC is only determined one year in advance, not seven - and more importantly, absolutely nothing is known or can be affected about it until then. Morgan Wick 15:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until the 2008 event in Belgrade has taken place. There's potentially a lot of change coming including the possibility that the 2009 event doesn't happen. MLA 10:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No useful info. (What is there is wrong: I see an important typo in the lead.) The JPStalk to me 10:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Very little non-speculation content can be written about 2009 yet since 2007 has only just finished and disputable with WP:Crystal. Camaron1 | Chris 11:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think its a little to early, the 2007 one only just finished, let alone thinking of the 2009 one.The Sunshine Man 11:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Lankiveil 11:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Write it again next year, without a whole slew of TBA. --Darkbane 12:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: apart from a rumour, this article contains no content whatsoever. --RFBailey 12:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wanted this to be protected before some one edited it. AxG ҈ ►talk 12:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then protect, the same thing happened with Eurovision Song Contest 2008. --Philip Stevens 13:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect if necessary. Despite being a certain and notable event, the article currently has no content. It can be created when at least basic information is announced. —Anas talk? 13:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until something more than "rumors" and "it will take place" can be written about it. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- per WP:CRYSTAL Thunderwing 20:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- per WP:CRYSTAL JDBlues 22:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- clear case of WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 23:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as being nothing but rumours (the location can't even be known until about a year from now, and I think you'll find that at least one of the rumoured new entrants will have difficulty broadcasting the performance of a certain country with a star on its flag, even if there's chatter that it might enter). The only verifiable fact is the statement that there'll be two semis, and I'm pretty sure that's already at the entry on the 2008 ESC, which is a better place for it to be right now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Highly speculative. With any luck, Eurovision will be cancelled well before it. *Ducks for cover* Axl 19:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (for now). For one, not enough info, for two it is still two far away.--JForget 19:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article states the obvious with nothing to contribute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sweboi (talk • contribs) 22:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 01:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beer 30[edit]

Beer 30 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod for this beverage. Speedily deleted on 3 May; recreated, then double-prodded on 4 May and contested on 9 May. Delete as non-notable, really awfully-marketed product. — mholland (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Here at the office, Beer 30 is the time we get off work on Fridays.  ;-) RFerreira 04:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thought I could dig up some sources on Google to save this one, but there aren't any. Ford MF 05:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, spammy promotion. Lankiveil 11:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. No sources. --Darkbane 12:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, weakly. This is apparently a real product - I wondered, since it read like it might be a hoax. I did find some references to this beer on state alcoholic beverage board websites through Google, but precious little about the beer itself. Suggest a redirect to Reverend Horton Heat, who has a song called Beer:30, which is likely the source of the name. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-more of an advert than an article. GoldengloveContribs ·Talk 17:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think the source is an empty beer can. - Crockspot 05:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unreferenced and advertisement --JForget 19:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 01:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foxed[edit]

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

Apparently a neologism coined by people infringing on 20th Century Fox copyrights and bitter that they got caught. —tregoweth (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This article contains a vast amount of original research. Although a source is provided for the definition of the term, I do not consider it to be reliable. the_undertow talk 02:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. Ford MF 06:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN neologism. This was all over the internets back in the late 90s but doesn't seem to have made it to many reliable sources. It's basically a synonym for terminating copyright infringement on the internet by means of a cease and desist. There are other articles that handle the legal issues better.--Dhartung | Talk 08:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn neologism. Lankiveil 11:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete or possibly merge into 20th Century Fox article. AniMate 12:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, too many reliability issues for such a neologism. Burntsauce 17:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete(or merge, as said by AniMate). GoldengloveContribs ·Talk 17:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --JHP 01:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) and g11 (using Wikipedia to advertise her selfpublished book). NawlinWiki 02:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea DeVries[edit]

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

Might be a talented young girl, but one self-published book is simply not enough for an encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Notability (people). And the article is lacking sources. High on a tree 01:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a vanity press does not a 'published' author make. The article is also written in a very promotional style. This isn't an article, it's a commercial. DarkAudit 01:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per High on a treeVgranucci 02:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unfortunately, even the newspaper ad for her mother doesn't make her notable. ... discospinster talk 02:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dsmdgold 21:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hanna-Barbera works on DVD[edit]

List of Hanna-Barbera works on DVD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unnecessary fancruft (that is, there's no List of CBS Television works on DVD). Created by The Tramp (talk · contribs) after I removed this same list from the Hanna-Barbera article. It doesn't help that this list is non-comprehensive and missing a significant number of Hanna-Barbera DVDs. FuriousFreddy 01:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - seems like a legitimate content fork of the main article, in keeping with many of the articles in Category:Videos and DVDs. If it's missing content, source it and add it. Otto4711 02:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never seen this category before. Wasn't aware that there were more of these, but it still doesn't really seem particularly encyclopedic to me. DVD releases would do better to be mentioned in the articles for TV shows or their episode sub-articles. But if there's a precedent for it, fine. As far as adding DVDs...there's far more than even I know (and far more than just these), and it doesn't make sense to me to try and sit forever trying to list every single DVD with a Hanna-Barbera cartoon on it. --FuriousFreddy 02:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally the information starts out in the main article and gets forked off as this one was (although there usually isn't a content dispute involved as far as I know). If you don't want to spend time editing the article you certainly don't have to. Otto4711 02:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. These kinds of lists are hard to maintain accurately, and frankly are more trouble than they're worth, but I reckon the info is encyclopedic enough. Ford MF 06:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, cruftalicious. Wikipedia is not a product catalogue. Lankiveil 11:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as cruft. `AniMate 12:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I noticed this list when it was added to the Hanna-Barbera article by an IP editor that took 25 edits to get it right. I was going to suggest its removal on the talk page, before its own article was created. As it stands it's just a list of titles and release dates, so I can't see any particular reason for keeping it. Either way, I oppose merging it back into Hanna-Barbera, it was out of place there and added nothing to that article. Pufnstuf 01:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The precedent was the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filmation#Filmation_on_DVD. If you have more to add, then add them. As far as "every single DVD with a Hanna Barbera cartoon on it", that's not what the intended list was, the list was for complete seasons/series sets that have been released, and I suppose H-B movies could potentially be added as well. It is encyclopedia content. It's relevance is that it allows the viewers to see the Historical Chronological Order in which these sets were released without having to reference every Amazon.com (or whatever retailer) listing for every set. Tjguitar 22:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not encyclopedic content. It's fancruft. Were it intended as encyclopedic, it would mention every Hanna-Barbera DVD ever released, not "just the season sets" because it's easier. Purposely leaving out releases leaves you with an inaccurate article shaped by your (or someone else's) biases. DVD releases of series should be listed in the article for that series. And for the record, Filmation#Filmation_on_DVD is just as poorly formatted and unsightly as this Hanna-Barbera list. On to of that, the history reveals that some of the information is based upon pure speculation. As Lankiveil said above, Wikipedia is not a product catalogue, and certainly not a cherry--picked one. Things like this are what Tripod is for. --FuriousFreddy 01:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If one wants to add single-disc releases, they are more than welcome to. It doesn't make it any less encyclopedic just because some people are lazy and do not want to add more information to complete the list.Tjguitar 18:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 09:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SS. Matthew 14:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Can it be converted into a category with an appropriate name? If so, do so. -T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 14:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Total junk, the info only needs to be on the respective show's pages. Biggspowd 21:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Algebraic bracket[edit]

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

It is inaccurate and no one seems to be willing to fix it Cronholm144 02:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it's inaccurate, then fix it? --Haemo 02:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the resources and I am not sure if it is notable enough even if I could.--Cronholm144 02:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should have talked to Silly rabbit first... He might fix it.--Cronholm144 02:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I vote emphatic delete. If necessary, it can be revived ad hoc later. But I doubt we'll ever see it again. Silly rabbit 02:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete If the assertion is that this entry is inaccurate then it needs to be deleted. Misinformation is worse than none at all. the_undertow talk 02:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • As the article is being corrected, I rescind my 'delete.' the_undertow talk 20:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename. These algebraic brackets (and similar ones, due to Gerstenhaber et al.) are notable. A stub is a useful reminder that there is work to be done. Geometry guy 02:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added the stub. On the talk page Silly Rabit thinks the definition might be inaccurate, but no errors are pointed out. The nominator seems to be echoing that whilst substituting certainty for doubt. --MarSch 09:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename. Inaccuracy is no reason in and of itself for deletion. Lankiveil 11:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep The only problem with this article is that it needs a bit of work doing to it, just becasue something needs work - doesn't mean to say we just leave it and delete it - does it? The Sunshine Man 14:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's in the process of being expanded and corrected. Silly rabbit 15:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... and move to Nijenhuis-Richardson bracket, in my opinion. Silly rabbit 15:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • move as per rabbit--Cronholm144 16:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need an AfD discussion and closing admin for that. Do I take it that you are withdrawing the nomination?  --LambiamTalk 17:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article has been improved, and moved to a more descriptive name. Can we all agree that this is a satisfactory resolution of the matter? The renamed article looks pretty good to me. DavidCBryant 22:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, as it appears legit, now. linas 00:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I guess I am... but I don't know how to close a discussion. Anyone who wants to, feel free to do so.--Cronholm144 22:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can strike through your nomination ("It is inaccurate...") by including it between <s> and </s>, and appending "Nomination withdrawn. ~~~~". This is a ground for speedy closure, and then anyone who knows how to can do it.  --LambiamTalk 00:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay, it's clear what Cronholm wants. I closed the discussion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (CSD A3). Krimpet (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Algebraic algorithm[edit]

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

Poorly written, unattended stub, worse than a dictionary entry Cronholm144 02:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I almost forgot... this is the entire article "Algebraic algorithms are algorithms for algebraic problems. Or in other words, the term algebraic algorithm refers to the algorithmic approach of algebra."(citation needed)--Cronholm144 02:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete the article in question, because it just repeats the words "algebra" and "algorithm". -- Gesslein 02:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oooh, first time I've gotten to use this response in AFD. Speedy delete A3. Content is only a restatement of the title. Serpent's Choice 02:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per the above. They're algorithms to do algebra. --Haemo 02:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per A3. Merely rephrasing the title. DarkAudit 02:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete looks like the best option, and the most fun way to consign this article to its fate :) Geometry guy 03:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 will add the merge suggestion tags so editors of this topic can do the content merge. W.marsh 13:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technical demos for the Virtual Boy[edit]

Technical demos for the Virtual Boy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems to be little more than a gallery of non-free content with brief explanations of each demo. Beyond the fair-use image gallery, this topic really does not seem notable. I would not even really support a merge into Virtual Boy as there are no independent sources (outside of one video-game fan site) confirming that this (1) existed and was (2) notable even at the time. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with the Virtual Boy article. There's some useful info here, but not enough to support its own article. Ford MF 06:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. The demos are not notable. Someguy1221 22:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to appropriate section in Virtual Boy and trim to the essentials. Neither article is particularly overlarge, so a well planned merger is practical. Cannot think of even one single reason for this article to exist at all, outside of the context of the "parent" article, for "historical" perspective or something, given that Virtual Boy itself has foundered in the sea of mediocrity. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 14:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 01:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schedule p[edit]

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

Delete - This is about (or a copy of?) a schedule to some insurance document for which no article occurs; there is no context, and despite requests to add context, the creating editor cannot or will not. Carlossuarez46 02:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is an article about a piece of an insurance industry reporting form that we do not have an article about. Does not assert notability, and I think having articles about all US government tax and reporting subforms would probably be beyond Wikipedia's scope regardless. Serpent's Choice 02:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability, no context. Ford MF 06:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no context. Possibly a joke. Lankiveil 12:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, Per Ford MF & Lankiveil. --Random Say it here! 20:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- prob a speedy candidate as {{nonsense}} Thunderwing 20:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. This is the most notable schedule used by Actuaries. People who peruse online discussions about accounting scandals regarding insurance companies will wonder about the "schedule P." If Wikipedia knows what it is, that is a plus for Wikipedia. Perhaps the author should add some history and controvery surrounding the schedule P. (there are both.)


  • Author's response:

1. Here is the context that I put for this article. I did my best to follow the templete of other wikipedia entries:

[Category:Insurance] [Category:Accounting in the United States] [Category:Actuarial science]

Please clarify if this is not what you meant.

2. You have to start somewhere. I'd like to add more as I have time but if wikipedia is missing an entire category of information you can't put it in context until you make more entries. You can't do that when your fist one is deleted for not being in context. Also this is not a 'tax subform' any person's (stock market analyst) who's job it is to analyze the financial strength of an insurance company knows what this is. Any accountant who works in the insurance industry knows what this is and would benefit from this information. Also as for the 'scope' of wikipedia apparently it's okay to have extremely esoteric topics from the tech industry but it's not okay to have esoteric topics from other industries? Here are some examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Token_ring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments

There are 10x the number of people in the US who would need to know what schedule P was for an insurance company than would need to know about a Token ring. Do we a separate wikipedia for insurance professionals? another one for banking professionals? another for gardening enthusiests? another for physicists?

3. addressed above

4. Please try googling before making the assertion that something is a joke. http://www.ambest.com/sales/schedulep/ http://www.naic.org/store_idp_sched_p.htm http://www.casact.org/dare/index.cfm?fuseaction=browse_lev3&lev1=100&lev2=240&categorylist=249

  • Give time for improvements, then Delete You need to do a lot more to make something notable than to list its seven parts. You have to explain, to a layman on the page (not here!) why the thing is notable. You also have to link to external references that explain this. Explain, in an encyclopaedic way, why this would be relevant to the person searching for that term. For the moment, you are just describing a bit of esoteria on some bit of paper in a country I may never see. At the very least explain what it is, because I don't even get that much from the article as it stands. DewiMorgan 22:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney Channel Games[edit]

List of Disney Channel Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I believe this list is like a directory. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Also, unencylopediac. I don't believe is an appropriate topic for a list. --Random Say it here! 02:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a product catalogue. Lankiveil 12:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AniMate 12:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Would be useful if there were articles on all these games, but as is definitely not. Nyttend 15:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Lankiveil. --pIrish Arr! 15:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 01:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibiting Imperialism[edit]

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

This is essentially a restatement of the argument of one book (Malamud, Randy. Reading Zoos: Representations of Animals and Captivity (1998)) that zoos are imperialist. Violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. If Mr. Malamud or the book are notable, they might get articles, but not a separate article for the theory. NawlinWiki 02:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too unbalanced Monkeymox 08:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Éirígí[edit]

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

Someone tagged it for speedy, but seems like it does have some notability since Bernadette Devlin McAliskey, a famous activist and politician apparently has some association with it now (see McAliskey's article). Procedural listing, no opinion. WooyiTalk to me? 02:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Hold on there! It's a stub, barely 24 hours old. Let's give the authors some time to make their point. BTLizard 03:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's stubby now, but there are references to be found, and notability is sufficient for my money. Ford MF 06:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if it's a current political party it shouldn't be hard to expand it. Nyttend 15:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, Sunday Mirror article and a Sunday Tribune article substantially mentions it. Not much else in terms of independent reliable sources, but these two articles are just about enough to keep it in my opinion. Demiurge 17:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  14:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 01:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen's Prize[edit]

The Queen's Prize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book; "The Queen's Prize" + "Susie Cornfield" gives 68 Ghits, which are booksellers. Article was created by SkeaterMedia whose only other edits have been starting other articles related to Susie Cornfield and her non-notable books. Crazysuit 02:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Rapoport[edit]

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

Non-notable illustrator. Article was created by SkeaterMedia whose only other edits have been starting other articles related to Susie Cornfield and her non-notable books. Crazysuit 02:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ford MF 06:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn artist. Lankiveil 12:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable artist. I guess one could argue that there's a copyvio as well since the article basically consists of nothing more than the content taken from her homepage, a tag line and two links. -- Seed 2.0 16:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If her work is notable is she? See Farewell, my Lovely where her art is featured in the book, which has been deemed to be notable enough for inclussion. It seems that if she is prominent enough for mention in that article, then who she is should be expained either there or here. A bad article is not reason to assume non-notability of the subject. I think this bears more scrutiny and/or research before deletion. It appears to be more than vanity spam. Can we find a coupe of independent references to her work? The onus should be on the nominator to demonstrate that we can't. --Kevin Murray 18:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in any case, Farewell, my Lovely is up for AfD as well (it's the AfD right below this one, as you know). On a more general note, there's no such thing as automatic "notability by extension". In some cases, a single notable work might make someone associated with it de facto notable but it's not an automatism. And, for the record, before I vote I always do at least a cursory search and, when voting delete, I usually verify the results with several follow-up searches. I did do that in this case, and I haven't been able to really come up with, well, anything at all in terms of RS. Now, granted, we're not talking in-depth research here but I do stand by my initial assessment. -- Seed 2.0 09:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete/redirect. W.marsh 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farewell, my Lovely[edit]

Farewell, my Lovely (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book; "Farewell, my Lovely" + "Susie Cornfield" gives 68 Ghits, which are booksellers. Article was created by SkeaterMedia whose only other edits have been starting other articles related to Susie Cornfield and her non-notable books. Crazysuit 02:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Is this title not better known as the title of a book by Raymond Chandler? BTLizard
  • Delete, again, as NN. Ford MF 06:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, an nn book. Lankiveil 12:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Redirect to Farewell, My Lovely. The Cornfield book is non-notable, but someone might plausibly try to link to the Chandler with a lower-case "my". (I'm surprised to see that the Chandler article currently features a link to the Cornfield article, but not vice versa.) EALacey 17:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nominations is based on the nominator's assertion that the Cornfield books are non-notable with no real demonstration why they are not. Citing Ghits is not relevant. The rest of the discussion about Chandler and his book is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion. It probably is a situation that the nomination is right for the wrong reason, but let’s follow procedure here and not get lazy. --Kevin Murray 18:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Pointing out that a book has received no discernible media attention is irrelevant? Ford MF 18:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Talking of "following procedure", maybe you should try that, Kevin Murray? If you, or anyone else, disagrees with my assertion that this book is not notable then it is up to you to prove it is notable. Of course, you won't be able to, which will show that my nomination is right, and for the right reasons. Crazysuit 00:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ford MF and Crazysuit; a lack of Google hits is absolutely relevant to demonstrating a lack of notability. A lack of Google hits = a lack of reliable sources = lack of notability. Simple. Masaruemoto 05:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article subject does not appear to meet WP:BK, as I can only find one (possibly) non-trivial mention of the book by a non-related party that isn't trying to sell the book and is geared to a general audience (a review in Fur & Feather). All other mentions of this book I can find are either by booksellers, publishers, or in blogs or the like. --Charlene 04:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Farewell, My Lovely, per EALacey and Charlene. I haven't been able to find anything else either. Fails WP:BK. I don't see any harm in keeping the history though, so I think I simply redirect would do the job (I guess in this case that's a mere technicality though). -- Seed 2.0 09:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apparently self-published book: publishers web site only lists two books published to date and one due for publication soon, all three by the same author; publisher is based in Croydon and 192.com lists a Susan K. Cornfield as a resident of croydon[5]. Redirect per other users' suggestions. JulesH 16:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of Google hits for any reliable sources shows this is non-notable. Masaruemoto 05:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a book that's been published and when you claim it is non-notable, it features Jilly Cooper in the book and is also available on Amazon amongst other retailers. It's not an advertisement it's just an entry. The reviews are sourced and legit. SkeaterMedia 10:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per G11. Sr13 01:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sticky Rock Café[edit]

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

tagged speedy, but I don't think it should be, procedural listing, no opinion. WooyiTalk to me? 03:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you need to review WP:CSD#G11, which unquestionably applies to this article. Also, this article should not have been placed here as a procedural listing as the original reason for deletion was advertizing, which is not a reason for listing in AFD, even for procedural reasons. However, I have added valid AFD reasons below. Crazysuit 05:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I originally tagged this non-notable book for speedy deletion as an advert using CSD G11, which is for Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. This article is book promotion from beginning to end I have no idea how this cannot be considered an advert, containing phrases such as; "an edgy satirical novel", "pacy, action-packed modern thriller", "could not be more pertinent", "the book published in 2006, is being enjoyed by boys and girls, and men and women of all ages", "taken up by fans of cyber-punk and sci-fi", "Listen to the great British actor, Martin Jarvis, give a wickedly mischievous reading". And I haven't even got to the selected press quotes.
Anyway, forget the blatant advertizing, this is a Non-notable book; "The Sticky Rock Café" + "Susie Cornfield" gives 87 Ghits, which are booksellers. Article was created by SkeaterMedia whose only other edits have been starting other articles related to Susie Cornfield and her non-notable books. At least now this makes a set with the previous 3 articles. Crazysuit 05:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G11 is valid in this case, especially in light of its creator. Phony Saint 05:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as an advert and deeply non-notable. Ford MF 06:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn book. Lankiveil 12:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment, I've rewritten for now, but I haven't been able to find any reviews in Google. That doesn't mean they don't exist - and, for a Garret novel, they're likely to - but I suggest if people have access to literary reviews for the UK to check that out. Or, tell me where to look and I'll do the legwork. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable self-published[7] book. JulesH 17:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. Self- publicising. DaveApter 09:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Ventrella[edit]

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

No supporting references; only 954 GHits; I can't find any way to establish notability for this person. Mmoyer 03:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete as there are no notable sources or media coverage. Ford MF 06:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. He sounds like the sort of person who could attract independent coverage, but there doesn't seem to be much. All Google News Archive and LexisNexis turn up is some brief mentions of his involvement with There and MIT Media Lab. EALacey 17:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astral Projection (Charmed)[edit]

Astral Projection (Charmed) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Cruft, original research. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There's nothing specific about the concept on the show that 1) deserves its own article, and 2) isn't already covered by Astral projection. Ford MF 06:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, charmedcruft. Lankiveil 12:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Otto4711 13:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wave a magic wand and make it vanish - Since this is at the extreme end of fancruft. A1octopus 14:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- completely not notable Patar knight 22:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Doesn't need its own article. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I had already tried to redirect it to astral projection.~ZytheTalk to me! 15:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, separate article is unnecessary, as there is already a perfectly acceptable "List of terms" article. -- Huntster T • @ • C 16:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there a reason why you brought this to AfD? Zythe had already redirected this page to the Astral Projection article and you reverted it and brought it here instead. You could've just left it as a redirect and saved everyone some time. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check the history, this article was nominated for deletion before Zythe attempted a redirect. Using a redirect is a lazy way to avoid dealing with a problem article as it allows for reversion to previous content. "Astral Projection (Charmed)" is a useless search term anyway, who would type that exact phrase in the search box? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. If after the release of the film there are enough reliable sources discussing the Brethren to warrant an article, it can easily be restored. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. WjBscribe 12:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brethren of the Coast[edit]

Brethren of the Coast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fictional organization set to appear in an upcoming action-adventure film. No assertion of notability, no references, plenty of questionable fair use images. Unnecessary fanservice. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Luckily were not discussing Dumbledore's Army or the Council of Elrond, or any fiction other than Pirates of the Caribbean. Do the "Brethren of the Coast" have any notability outside of the film? Have they been covered in multiple non-trivial sources? Are they in any way important as anything more than a plot device in a Disney flick? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The backstory may go back hundreds of years, but the story is only a couple of years old at best, coming from a gaggle of near-anonymous screenwriters. Not in the same league as Rowling or Tolkien. DarkAudit 12:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does every important plot device in a blockbuster movie deserve a separate article, or just this one? If so, why? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar plot devices in other major film series often do have separate articles, as mentioned above. If you think they shouldn't, that is a defensible position, but according to the standards now in place this is acceptable. I do think the fair use gallery should be deleted since it doesn't have any commentary and doesn't meet our standards for inclusion of fair use images. *** Crotalus *** 07:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The standards now in place are not dictated by personal preference, they are codified by fairly clear Wikipedia policies (WP:FICT, WP:OR, WP:NOT, a few others). Perhaps if I had run across the other examples offered by Therequiembellishere, we would be discussing their deletion instead. I don't think that the purported precedent of crufty fan service (o.r.) justifies the purported notability of this subject. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, as this organisation is not notable outside of the Pirates of the Caribbean milieu. Lankiveil 12:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, agree with Crotalus, they are a key part of the movie. If it is deleted now, it will just be made into a new page that will probably have even less verifiable information. Might as well get ahead of the game Skhatri2005 02:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 00:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've removed the fair-use gallery and marked all the images (except this one, which is also used in Hector Barbossa) for deletion. *** Crotalus *** 02:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - First concern is that 'Brethren of the Coast' was, as far as I'm aware, historically used to describe a society of real pirates/buccaneers. Yet there's no mention of that here - the only important thing seems to be what happens in the film (and yes, I'm a big fan of POTC myself). Second is the spoiler element. POTC:AWE isn't released everywhere yet - it might be worth a little consideration for those who haven't had chance to see it. - Shrivenzale 19:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The movie comes out in 6 days leave it be till at least then so a proper decision can be reached. It may wind up that the breathren of the coast are hugely important to the story line On3manarmy 02:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 00:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larry West[edit]

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

nn. although its great to see independent candidates, does not appear notable. —Gaff ταλκ 03:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, this person has been in the news multiple times, and is currently making a run for office. There are multiple creditable sources for everything mentioned on this page. -LuvataciousSkull 03:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep Article needs cleanup, including all those links to YouTube (rich media are to be avoided per WP:EL), but the person is in fact covered in some independent secondary sources, thus meeting the first criteria under Wikipedia:Notability (people). Furthermore, the article seems well-researched and the author has made good attempts to assert notability. --Darkbane 04:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Once you take away the YouTube links and the footnotes that just link to the guy's own website, the article has hardly any citations at all. But the remaining ones do seem to establish a genuine, if local, notability. If cleaned up and wikified, I think it's fine. Ford MF 06:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good Point OK, I'll get rid of the YouTube links. I'll ask for some other people to help clean it up. -LuvataciousSkull 08:53, 14 May 2007
  • Corrections Got rid of the YouTube links, and cleaned it up as much as possible. --LuvataciousSkull 12:46, 14 May 2007
  • Strong Keep Everything has been kept in good shape, and I do believe that is worth keeping at this point. -LuvataciousSkull 07:19, 16 May 2007
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude Eggs[edit]

No evidence that this is a common term, within the southern region of the United States or elsewhere. Google turns up roughly 1,700 hits for "Dude eggs" [8] the bulk of which are Wikipedia and Urban Dictionary mirrors and a few links to second rate Jackass episodes. Suggestion deletion unless evidence of encyclopedic merit can be provided. RFerreira 04:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 13:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokéthulhu[edit]

No "multiple, non-trivial" secondary sources to speak of on covering this game. THe article links to the home page (not a valid source) and a wiki (hardly reliable). Talk page shows a GameSpy page, but GameSpy themselves did not make the page, and the RPG review is only one site. Prod removed without a reason. hbdragon88 04:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Did what I could for the article, adding references to two reviews, and mention of the spinoff line of Steve Jackson Games miniatures. Serpent's Choice 05:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The article could certainly be beefed up, and subcultural notability is often an iffy thing to establish, but I think this one's got enough. Ford MF 06:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Maybe a bit of an expansion but notable. It is said the review is only one site, but that one site is RPG.net the largest RPG site in the world. It should also be noted when looking for information that more people spell it Pokethulhu than Pokéthulhu. I've added another review link. Ben W Bell talk 07:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, personally. What notability criteria can miss out on, when interpreted too strictly, is the mass of encyclopediac use that effectively amounts to "what the heck is _____?" While a quick browse of the topic on the internet shows sites like gamespy.com basically advertising the game, rpg.net reviews the game. I suppose that latter counts as a notable source, though I'm not sure just how to work it into the article. I don't see how deleting this improves wikipedia, though, & oppose on that basis alone. --mordicai. 19:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: the above copied from the article's talk page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I explicitly rebutted the GameSpy bit, though not in great detail. GameSpy offers hosting (I've seen PsyPokes hosted on GameSpy), there is an application process for it. That makes that all GameSpy links must be treated with care. In this particular case, it looks like a personal site, which isn't reliable. Also makes WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:HARMLESS arguments. hbdragon88 00:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable (if very niche) RPG, with a number of notable people involved, including Kovalic. Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mention "notable" three times withotu defining it. Who are the notable people involved in it? If it's notable enough, wouldn't you think that it would have more coverage than the two sites it has currently? hbdragon88 00:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Specifically, the involvement of John Kovalic, S. John Ross, minis bu Steve Jackson Games, and published by Dork Storm. More references would be better, sure, but what's in the article is adequate to support what's there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't assert notability and doesn't seem to be very popular. DBZROCKS 20:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - the article is referenced, it exists, etc., I say, give it more time to expand. ~I'm anonymous
    • Nobody is denying that it exists. We're debating the notability of its existence, whether it deserves an article or not. And it's been three years! (I was surprised to see that it as started in February 2004.) I doubt that this will gain more attention than it has now. hbdragon88 17:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Non-notable. Andre (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Rickard[edit]

I tagged this for proposed deletion because it's an unsourced orphan biography of a living person. The tag was removed as "vandalism" so here we are. I suggest that unless something verifiable and useful can be said about this person we should delete the article. --Tony Sidaway 04:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable local presenter. BBC Kent != BBC to the whole UK. No significant coverage outside of Kent. DarkAudit 04:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He's a student broadcaster. Plenty of those around. No notability. andy 11:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn regional broadcaster. Lankiveil 12:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, nn. Crockspot 05:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 16:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon NetBattle[edit]

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

Fails WP:N: Does not have mutliple reliable sources independent of the topic itself. Smogon, Nintendo.com forums do not qualify as reliable sources. Last AFD was a unanimous "keep and cleanup." It has since been 15 months without any improvement, and the third-party sources tag was put up there six months ago. hbdragon88 04:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. hbdragon88 04:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is considered good form to provide a link to the original AfD. Morgan Wick 07:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's absolutely nothing there to assert it's notability (WP:N) and no reliable references (WP:V). Marasmusine 12:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While it's while written, it lacks sources proving notability. Unless sources can be found (I tried, but came up with nothing) it has to go. Perhaps someone might care to transfer the bulk of the article to a Pokemon wiki, but that's up to them.Cheers, Lanky ○ Yell ○ 13:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Large, active community, many fan sites to source from, and a bajillion Google hits says notable, but Alexa rank for download site and lack of media coverage puts me on the fence. The Smogon fansite (basically NetBattle's new home), however, has about a 40,000 Alexa rank (don't let the week average fool you; the site's been down.) So, keep. I can maintain if no one else wants to. -- Chris is me (user/review/talk) 22:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Another article that cannot provide reliable sources to verify any claims of notability. As usual, requests for sources have been ignored. 15 months is more than a reasonable amount of time for improvement. DarkSaber2k 08:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete. The unofficial rules started in Netbattle have carried over to the actual games. Either keep this, make a Pokémon Metagame article, or both. --Gaming King 20:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any evidence that these rules were not merely a coincidence? Suppose I were to write a Star Wars fanfic where Darth Maul was cloned; if that event then happens in the new TV series would I really be able to say "wow, George Lucas used my story", or would it just be him thinking of the same obvious way of bringing back a popular villain? Pokémon games are developed years ahead of the first announcements of their existence, so it's quite possible that ideas the NetBattle team had were already dreamed up by GameFreak's think tank a year earlier. Wikipedia articles can't be based on hearsay and circumstance. If you can find a publication of some sort that mentions NetBattle's ideas were implemented, then yes, that's something to consider. GarrettTalk 01:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The pokemon games, starting with the Stadium Nintendo 64 games, already incorporated a metagame dynamic similar to the standard battling rules used on Netbattle, such as a sleep clause and a ubers ban, all while some other standard netbattle rules such as evasion clauses and ohko moves clauses were never implented in the games to my knowledge. So no, I dont believe Netbattle had an impact on the actual games, although it certainly had one on how wifi battles on the new pokemon ds games are played. That said, Netbattle's popularity shouldnt be measured by its own website, as it has been abandonned years ago. It is still used by hundreds of battlers from every country imaginable every week and many sites gravitate around it. I know that first hand from hosting the main server for more than a year. --Vineon 05:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not appear to meet the notability standard for video games or software. Hardly verifiable. Andre (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No references, despite reference tag being up forever. I don't find any through my Googling, so doesn't seem to pass WP:ATT/WP:V/whatever we're calling not having sources. Wickethewok 04:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 15 months with no improvement pretty much shows there is nothing out there. -Amarkov moo! 22:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In my opinion, it's as notable as any hacking/editing program of games. They aren't made by official companies, neither is this. TheBlazikenMaster 23:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Father of the Nation[edit]

Father of the Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article Father of Nation has been tagged for lacking sources, for needing cleanup and for being original research since 2006. It's a long exercise in original research, where a "father of the nation" is chosen for each country. Every single choice is original resarch, just one is sourced. To take but a few examples. Nobody denies the importance of George Washington but I for one have never heard him being called Father of the Nation. The authors of the article have decided that Micheal Collins is the FotN for Ireland, not Eamonn de Valera. No sourced reason is given to suggest why. I'm a Finn myself, and I can guarantee that our "FotN" is never called that, and many other good candidates could be found if such a title existed. I assume we can find the same situation for each country, the article just consists of persons picking their own favourites. One of the more amusing ones, naming former SNP-leader Donald Dewar as the FotN for Scotland. I can see no reason for this article to be left on Wikipedia. Not only is the title Father of the Nation not used in most countries, the choices are original research in each and every case. JdeJ 04:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, OR to the extreme. Wow. fethers 05:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NOT#PUBLISHER. This is way to POV laced and completely unreferenced/unfixable. meshach 06:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, most of these leaders seem to have been pulled out of a hat.--Nydas(Talk) 08:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Huge subjectivity problem as clear from the talk page. Seems to attract opinionated editing to promote 'pet' fathers. Problem has not resolved despite extensive discussion. My involvement was over Iran and it has been a complete mess. The Behnam 14:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete strange OR article Bigdaddy1981 16:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No defence for this to be here. Drmaik 18:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- It is not original research for Donald Dewar- he is often referred to as the Father of the Nation in relation to Scotland. See the BBC article reporting his death 'Father of nation' dies, the Guardian's obituary "Dewar earned himself the label of "father of the nation"" for example. Thunderwing 19:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This disaster of an article is based on OR. It is highly subjective and provides few sources. The very concept of the article is subjective. --Agha Nader 23:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I actually learned that Washington was the "Father of our country", but that was way back before schools taught how eevil our founding fathers were. But this article is still OR. - Crockspot 05:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as extreme OR, and what little is sourced could be considered synthesis, as the sources don't necessarily support what "Father of the Nation" is defined as here. Someguy1221 09:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I believe the text in article is original research and should be removed. I also suggest it should be changed to only a list with referenced entries. At least I know for sure Muhammad Ali Jinnah is widely called by this title. please see Google Pakistan Gov website. --Webkami 16:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just to add a bit to the examples: In Italy, king Victor Emmanuel II was officially adressed as "pater patriae" (father of the fatherland), but he is not listed in the article. Rather, Giuseppe Mazzini, Guiseppe Garibaldi and others are listed, who would certainly not have dared to use this title... The list given for Germany just seems risible, e.g. I've never heard of socialist Karl Liebknecht given such name that might remind one of a king. --B. Wolterding 17:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added the page Mother of the Nation to AfD as well.[9] JdeJ 23:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but trim intro and add references for all examples. Seems like a valid topic to me. BobFromBrockley 15:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In which respect do you think it's valid? --B. Wolterding 15:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian (form of Russian internet slang)[edit]

Not notable neologism we already have article Padonki it is more than enough Alex Bakharev 04:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge with Wiktionary Nyttend 15:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel 10:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton South Public School[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school in Sydney with lists of vice captains and school captains. The book noted in the footer is not in the State Library of NSW catalogue. Orderinchaos 04:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Orderinchaos 04:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Orderinchaos 04:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is a book on it that is mentioned in the article, and i feel it is therefore notable. If it isnt mentioned in the state library of NSW, who cares? Twenty Years 11:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • From WP:RS: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." If we can't even find the book, it's a bit hard to judge not only this, but which information was actually used. Orderinchaos 11:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Published book about school would be a strong claim of notability, but further details are required. Article will benefit greatly from expansion. Alansohn 16:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lots of schools write books about their own history, get a vanity press to print them, and sell them to parents for fundraising. That doesn't meet the independence criterion of WP:RS. And I see no evidence [10] that this book is anything but such a vanity publication, given that it has no ISBN, no publisher, and no record in the official library of the state in which it was published. cab 23:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N. There is nothing that even indicates that the school history is a book, much less a published book; it could very well be a research paper or promotional brochure produced by the school. Therefore, this article probably fails WP:V as well. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the book isnt in the NLA either. John Vandenberg 02:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are a couple of articles in Google News Archive where it is mentioned. [11]. The book could be a useful source but does not seem to have been widely distributed. Capitalistroadster 02:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:N,WP:RS - best source is a book that seems to be self-published if it isn't in the state library.Garrie 03:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the book can be cited - for all we know it is a 3 page photocopy. Otherwise, there is nothing that distinguishes this school from a million others. - Tiswas(t) 14:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per above. Not convinced that the book noted is real or reliable. Otherwise seems an NN school. Lankiveil 04:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. This has been completely rewritten since I nominated it. Chick Bowen 21:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Journeyman (sports)[edit]

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

I wrote this article, originally, almost two years ago. It was more or less original research at the time. Now it's worse: it's turned into a list of journeymen, which is of course a rather subjective judgment. Of course, an article could be written about the use of the term by sportswriters, but it would have to be sourced (and something more than just a definition), and this isn't it. I say axe it and start over. Chick Bowen 05:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 13:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SanSan[edit]

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

Defunct, inaccurate term only used once in a book from 1961. Google shows one mention that isn't a Wiki mirror. Delete. fethers 05:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Aside from Gottman, I remember both of those place names from Mack Reynolds novels of the 60s-70s. Don't know if that's sufficient enough, but it's more than one reference, anyway. -- LaughingVulcan 03:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a human geography term. If not kept, save as a redirect to BosWash, at least, and add a sentence per JWB's suggestion. —ScouterSig 19:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have read about this megalopolis in my secondary school geography textbook, hence it must have a certain degree of notability. (I can't remember its ISBN number though)--Kylohk 16:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I live in San Francisco. This phrase is used a lot by people (or at least the people I know) who live between San Jose and San Francisco, it has parallels in names like Baltiwash or those other conglomerate names, and labels a distinct human geographic phenomenon with no other decription: the continuous urbanized landscape extending down the penninsula and into Silicon Valley. Zelmerszoetrop 13:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of interesting, and quite different from the original usage (in this article) for San Francisco to San Diego! Hey, if you include San Mateo, would it be SanSanSan? And how about San Rafael? --JWB 19:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 but could still be merged/redirected as an editorial decision. W.marsh 13:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Cayuga High School[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:N Delete Nick Garvey 05:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no assertion of notoriety. meshach 06:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Minimum satisfactory H.S. article. — RJH (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - could use some expansion <3Clamster 00:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets minimum requirements (ex: there are two sources as external links), could use some more information concerning noteworthiness. If we delete this article, there are several others of less quality that would quickly follow. Truthanado 00:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete , per Truthanado. Just as AfDs sometime get articles improved fast, they can also be a good way to indentify additional articles on non-notable subjects. DGG 01:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 01:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N, no assertion of notability so even qualifies as speedy, and external links are not noted as sources, so deletable per WP:V. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Cayuga County, New York per WP:LOCAL and various proposed school guidelines. RFerreira 06:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cayuga County, NY per above. --TREYWiki 03:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Additional sources exist and should be added to further expand the article. Alansohn 03:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. As it stands there is nothing to defend notability, per WP:SCHOOL. The "creator" of the article Kappa, who last maintained it May 10th by deleting a reference source due to "link rot", may be prepared to abandon it: "You might be able to kill off this one. Actually I don't enjoy making articles about random high schools but I can make if more necessary. Kappa 23:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)"[12]. If no editor is willing to go to the trouble of searching for notability references, national recognition, famous alumni, historical importance, athletic accomplishments, etc. with reliable sources, then there is nothing to defend a Keep, even for proposed improvements. Article has been essentially a stagnant stub since October 2005 [13]. No school pride? Just sad. If someone commits here to making major improvements, and already has some strong examples of notablility to post, then Keep would be appropriate. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 15:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - I don't see any external links that 1) actually assert any notability and 2) which are independent. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logic Pig[edit]

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

nn. not a crystal ball. delete —Gaff ταλκ 05:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Logic Pig is the creation of a Philosophy student at Leeds University - ie something made up in school one day. Zero useful ghits. BTLizard 05:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as local meme, fails WP:N completely. meshach 06:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, sources?? Omega ArchdoomTalk 07:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Something Made Up in School. No sources. No proof that it has ever seen in any form except on a piece of copy paper. DarkAudit 14:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as something made up at school one day. Literally. --Cyrus Andiron 15:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, made up in school. Burntsauce 17:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources at all, and seems to fail WP:NOT YET ON THE WEB.--Xnuala (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The university in question has about thirty thousand students and the comic has cult value. Also has small but growing notability outside of the institution in question.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Association for Science Fiction[edit]

National Association for Science Fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Procedural nom. This was speedied as an article "asserting no notability". However, it does assert notability, as this was New Zealand's first science fiction club, and was the founding organisation of New Zealand's annual science fiction awards, the Sir Julius Vogel Awards, and an organisational force involved in the coordination of national conventions. it was also the country's only nationwide fannish organisation for one and a half decades. My own view is a strong keep on that basis, though I have to admit bias as a primary editor of the article and a former member of NASF. Grutness...wha? 06:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Sourcing, which given the era will likely be deadtree, would be nice. But I see no pressing requirement for deletion. Serpent's Choice 07:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  14:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Grutness, although I agree a source or two would be nice. -- Avenue 16:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if the information is accurate (and google confirms it is likely to be) then it is without doubt notable. Finding sources is the next task... JulesH 17:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights Statistics[edit]

Human Rights Statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

unencyclopedic original research vanity article. user makes abusive/attacking edits on other pages as well. —Gaff ταλκ 06:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a POV-laden rant. Violates WP:N (not asserted) and WP:V (no sources cited) meshach 06:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Plug for the author's website. No other content. BTLizard 07:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Blaring POV use. Ad for website. I see no reason to keep Omega ArchdoomTalk 07:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising and lack of encyclopedic content.--Xnuala (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy by moving the page back to User:Maxcrc, where it was created. (The creator moved it into article space on the grounds that this made it "easier to find teh content".) Some might still object to the site-plugging, but as a user page I don't think it would warrant deletion. EALacey 17:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very POV, essay-ish <3Clamster 00:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't belong in main namespace. - Crockspot 05:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psych Desktop[edit]

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

Software with no evidence of notability. No independent sources, article title gets 62 google hits. Weregerbil 06:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. An ad for software of no notability. BTLizard 07:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete According to its website, this doesn't appear to have been released yet. JavaTenor 07:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. No sources. An advertisement. Omega ArchdoomTalk 07:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parachute (smoking)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a "how to" manual Richard 06:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Where to begin? The article doesn't even say why it's called Parachute. No assertion that this is anything other than fiction and even if it isn't, it's completely inappropriate here. BTLizard 07:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As stated, wikipedia is not a how-to. Omega ArchdoomTalk 07:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless expanded Guycalledryan 11:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Expansion wouldn't save this. This is a how to article, and Wikipedia is not a how to guide. DarkAudit 14:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:SNOW Nyttend 15:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and other comments. Burntsauce 17:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a manual for "how-to-something". --Nehrams2020 04:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 16:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hayatabad Town[edit]

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

Duplicates Hayatabad and has even more POV than the original. Deprodded by creator. Morgan Wick 07:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Yep, duplicated and debased content. BTLizard 07:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This one is just bad! Biased (for example Hayatabad is the most beautiful town of Peshawar", badly written (very unencyclopedic), and much, much more. Omega ArchdoomTalk 07:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hayatabad, for duplication of subject? -- saberwyn 07:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could work, but even the Hayatabad article is poorly written, and again shows the POV used in this article (as this article is a copy). Frankly, I think both should be deleted, unless someone puts a lot of effort into fixing them up. Omega ArchdoomTalk 08:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My objection to a redirect (and the reason why I didn't just do so) is that it's an unusual title for a redirect. Also, Hayatabad appears to be a real town that may be notable. Just because the article has POV problems is not a reason to delete. Morgan Wick 15:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topeka Capitals[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:N guidelines and no verified sources (google) Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 17:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 07:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Without prejudice towards recreation if sources can be found that confirm notability.--Xnuala (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable --ROASTYTOAST 21:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poker mustang[edit]

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

Non-notable. Ideogram 07:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non notable, related to poker dream, which does not have its own article. Some parts a bit unencyclopedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omega Archdoom (talk • contribs).
If you can add references backing up your claims, it will be fine. --Ideogram 10:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Err, that would be a problem. WP:COI strongly discourages anyone writing about a business they have a financial interest in. If it is worth writing about, someone else will write about it. --Ideogram 11:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, verify, using reliable sources. If no reliable source has written enough about this web site to verify the accuracy of the information, then there's not enough reliable information to create an encyclopedia article. And no, the word of someone who claims to be the site owner is not a reliable source, because the conflict of interest means that the information is likely to be biased. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We do need an article on Planet Poker and we would be very grateful if you write it. I can pretty much guarantee it won't be deleted. --Ideogram 11:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Leaving aside the notability issue for a moment, it seems fairly clear from the protestations above that the article is primarily an advertisement. The originator would seem to have little or no idea of the purpose of an encyclopedia. BTLizard 11:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. From above: "3) it's so small with almost zero players". There's the notability issue, very succinctly stated. BTLizard 11:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. From above: "4) Peter Criss's 1982 album....can you name it?? Prob not, no one bought it, but it's listed here!

So is KiSS "The Elder" who the heck has those albums?? Why dont we exclude them items of interest as well from this site. In any rate, it doesnt matter either way, the site is there and thats that, maybe in a uear when it's bigger, we will then revist it sand include it because it's then "worthy", whatever. GmanIV 11:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete for reasons all too obvious now. 2005 11:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. per above. Also, is there a process to help GmanIV learn proper WP etiquette (eg not posting [14])? —Gaff ταλκ 11:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just leave him alone. Don't respond to him for a while. --Ideogram 11:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment note that there have been deletions from this AfD. See [15]. JulesH 17:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 01:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Jewish Humanism[edit]

Orthodox Jewish Humanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD[[)

There is no such animal! This is a neologism and this article violates WP:NEO, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT#PUBLISHER. Sure, Humanistic Judaism exists, but it does NOT have belief in God as one of its tenets! Hence it takes a "leap of imaginary faith" to posit that it can be somehow meshed with Orthodox Judaism to create such a hybrid. IZAK 07:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for above reasons. IZAK 07:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 07:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Zero ghits for Frum Humanism except this article and very, very few for Orthodox Jewish Humanism.It's doubtful therefore whether this is a "movement" as the article says. I think it would need to demonstrate the existence of some organised or at least recognisably discrete bodies that recognised the tenets outlined as their raison d'etre. BTLizard 08:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable - essay -Docg 08:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:VERIFY, google returns only 8 results and it looks like most of them are sourced from wiki Guycalledryan 11:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete humanism and Orthodox Judaism are clearly incompatible. It is possible that there is a tiny fringe group who call themselves "Orthodox Jewish Humanism" and do not understand at least on the those words. Nevertheless without any sources I have no reason to believe that any such group exists. The essay implies that any Orthodox Jew who does Charity work is a part of a Humanist movement - which is a misunderstanding both the ideas of humanism and the definition of the word "movement". Jon513 15:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article itself provides no sources, and I only found 7 ghits, none of them meaningful, and not a single item found in Google News/Archive. There seems to be no reason not to treat this as WP:NEO or WP:OR. Alansohn 18:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Origional research--Sefringle 00:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- looks like OR. --Wassermann 05:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I heard one of these OJH guys on Art Bell the other night, but I also heard a guy who was a time-traveling tourist on Art Bell too. - Crockspot 05:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to be a neologism that doesn't comply with WP:NEO. There's plenty of evidence that some Orthodox Jews are involved in various social causes -- Avi Weiss and Joseph Lieberman are prime examples -- and this may be what the article is intending to say (I can't really tell for sure), and an article on such a topic might well be reasonable. However, because of the existance of Humanistic Judaism with its own ideology (and ideological baggage), saying that some Orthodox Jews are humanistic has a completely different meaning. In general, if an article claims to describe a contemporary phenomenon but its sources turn out to be nothing more than quotes from the Bible or similar, it's almost always an OR essay that's advocating what someone thinks should be rather than describing what is.--Shirahadasha 07:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete according to IZAK and Shirahadasha. --Shuli [[User_Talk:Shaul avrom|talk to me]] 15:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No such thing -- Y not? 06:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. If just one example of someone notable or some organisation describing itself in this way were given, that'd be different. BobFromBrockley 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted as A7. Non-admin close. --Seed 2.0 14:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Mosler[edit]

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

This is nn bio. The band named does not have a WP page and would not meet WP criteria. delete. —Gaff ταλκ 08:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. NN. Only ghits are this article and the group's MySpace page. BTLizard 08:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - being in a band != assertion of notability. Note the nonsense at the end. MER-C 09:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merging could still be considered, but some arguments against it were made that should be considered. W.marsh 13:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal terrorism[edit]

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

This term is nto in widespread use, and much of that use is actually not as discussed. The reference link does not support the content. A few reliabel sources discuss it, but usually in editorials as informal usage, not in main content. I don't see a proper scholarly discussion of the term. Main use seems to be bloggers-after-truth, trying to get one over on The Man and failing, representing the results as legal terrorism. It is, needless to say, a grossly POV term. Guy (Help!) 09:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is entirely POV. Nick mallory 11:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep based on the terms reference in legal case. Article definitely needs more backing Guycalledryan 11:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge to Vexatious litigation. It seems to describe the same phenomonon. Chunky Rice 18:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Include the information in Vexatious litigation as suggested by Chunky Rice and leave as a redirect. --Nehrams2020 04:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Nehrams2020. It has been used in official legal sources, and does seem to be another name for the same concept, so should probably be mentioned on that page. JulesH 17:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Also, the term legal terrorism may be a more popular and informal than Vexatious litigation. Explain (and avoid) jargon per WP:JARGON. User:Krator (t c) 18:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly less formal, but I don't see any indication that it's more popular.Chunky Rice 18:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight merge per above, but redirect to State terrorism, which I assumed at first this was about. Sandstein 22:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - I'm sorry, but in reading this article, I think it is on a topic specific to India, using language specific to India, and therefore should not be merged into Vexatious litigation - or into SLAPP or Chilling effect, as a box in the article itself suggests. Merging into one of these will separate it from other articles about Indian law - such as 498a, which it references; and will bury it within articles centred around other nations' legal systems, where any refernce to the phenomenon in India will be lost. However, it's still a very stublike article and should be marked as a stub for further improvement. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
note: I deleted the box for mergeto:Chilling effect, as whatever outcome from this AfD should change that. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, there's no reason not to merge, really. The legal concept is the same. Take a look at Murder. We don't need separate articles on how each country deals with the concept and what they call it. We have one article that discusses the concept and how it is applied in different countries.Chunky Rice 22:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 18:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taryn Position[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:V. Not a widely-known figure skating position (no relevant GHits[16]), named for an amateur figure skater who herself has only 20 unique GHits[17]. ~Matticus TC 09:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable position. Also, it appears to be self-promotion. If/When someone does it as part of a competitive program, then I'd suggest sticking it into spiral (figure skating) or figure skating spins as a variation, but, for now, just delete. Kolindigo 21:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like well-written self promotion <3Clamster 00:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day -- or at the skating rink, either. Unless/until this skating trick becomes notable enough to be described in multiple external sources, this falls into the category of a vanity page. If I'd spotted it before it was AfD'ed, in fact, I would have just marked it for speedy deletion instead. Dr.frog 11:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kolindigo. Caroline Zhang is more noted for this spiral position, which as far as I know is unnamed. --Lmblackjack21 10:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep' * To Whom It May Concern--The Taryn Position has been done in both qualifying and nonqualifying competitions beginning at the Los Angeles Open in July of 2006. The position was created in early spring by Taryn Horacek during a lesson with her coach Mary Becktell. Caroline and Taryn are friends having both trained with Becktell. Taryn can be seen doing the position at El Segundo during elite freestyles on Monday and Friday of each week.

Recently, the Glacier Falls Figure Skating club president, Don Rabbit took the move to the Governing Council and was told to call it the Taryn Position and attribute it to Taryn in all discussions and when teaching the move. There is no other way to name a move, but it is correct to assume that the first to create it and present it should receive credit.

I find it amusing that the move is notable and amazing on Caroline Zhang’s page, but not so for Taryn Horacek.Sk8rmom2all 14:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I've gone through all the stuff from the GC that I can find on the USFSA site and I can't find anything about this position. Do you have documentation of this? Kolindigo 16:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed the text from the Caroline Zhang entry that claims that she both invented this move and is the only person to have performed it, since there are no sources given for that information, either. Again, regardless of who invented it, why is this spiral position notable enough to deserve its own Wikipedia entry? We don't have a separate entry for the far-more-ubiquitious change-of-edge spiral or dog-peeing-on-hydrant spiral positions, after all, and I believe those are at least specifically recognized in the ISU regulations. And this particular spiral variation is so obscure that there are not even any reliable sources describing it by the name given here! No reliable sources == not suitable for Wikipedia. And, the fact that you claim this skater has been seen at such-and-such rink doing this move is original research, not a reliable source, and again not suitable as the basis of a Wikipedia article. Dr.frog 19:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Discoveries[edit]

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

The article cites no sources, and is simply a list of episodes in a series, providing no additional information Monkeymox 09:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Expand - just a list. More needed and soureces. Think outside the box 09:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article asserts notability - "critically acclaimed" - although it doesn't as yet cite sources. Inasmuch as it's only been up since yesterday, perhaps the contributor might be allowed a little while to flesh it out? BTLizard 09:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs expanding. This is an actual show on the History Channel. More encyclopedic than all the Dances With the Stars type crap we have to put up with...—Gaff ταλκ 09:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 14:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Landon P. Jones[edit]

Landon P. Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

nn vanity created by user of same name as page. Listed for speedy, but user contested. —Gaff ταλκ 09:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Vanity, vanity, all is vanity.BTLizard 09:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as A7. I'm afraid there are a couple of things wrong here. First of all, the tag shouldn't have been removed by the editor who created the article (that's what hangon is for -- the db tag should have stayed in place though). Second of all, there's an excellent chance that the editor just didn't know that, which would also explain the lack of an explanation on the article's talk page. Since I believe the article to be speediable, I went ahead and re-tagged it as A7 for procedural reasons and notified the article's creator and only editor that it's up for AfD and CSD (in order to explain what's going on and to avoid being a biter. -- Seed 2.0 12:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per A7. No assertion of notability. Hosting a radio show on a campus station is not a claim. DarkAudit 14:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The JPStalk to me 10:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heathy D[edit]

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

Bogus article. —Gaff ταλκ 09:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looks like a hoax-in-progress. BTLizard 09:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. For the record, Stephen Hibbert played The Gimp. Your choice of G10-in-progress or A1/A3/A7 now. Serpent's Choice 10:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a legitimate work. Heathy D is an aspiring actor and if you think his "failures" are not work writing about that's not really the issue.

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

The result was speedy delete - no assertion of notability at all. Kafziel Talk 12:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirots[edit]

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

Generic band vanity. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Contested prod. MER-C 09:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Full of quite trivial information, with no indication of success. The JPStalk to me 10:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted as A7. --Seed 2.0 15:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe le Taxi[edit]

Joe le Taxi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band with an unsourced article. No real claim to notability. I appreciate the standard for music are lower than for any other subject but this is not an article about the notable Vanessa Paradis song. MLA 09:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete No assertion of notability. The JPStalk to me 10:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Added tag —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Corpx (talk • contribs) 12:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete article and then redirect page to Vanessa Paradis A Welsh zydeco band? Whatever next? Seriously, however, I agree that is absolutely zip in the way of verifiable notability for them. A1octopus 14:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Consensus and some holes in the keep arguments, eg the board is a lobby group with no article not a govt department, and the multiple sources may not actually be non-trivial, since some of them seem to be a directory. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Arbuthnot of Haddo[edit]

Robert Arbuthnot of Haddo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another of the numerous non-notable Arbuthnots. At first reading this person seems notable, but when one analyses the text he is not. The positions he held are not notable. Such phrases as: "He was instrumental in obtaining the chair of Moral Philosophy for his intimate friend, Dr James Beattie" beg the question - so what?. The references are a family history by a member of that family., and two peerages which will list him because he was the father of a baronet. I shall also be nominating his son the equally un-notable George Arbuthnot, 1st of Elderslie. Giano 10:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Perhaps I'm wrong, but his place on that board sounds impressive enough, if it's an official government-related board. If it's what today we'd call a special-interest group, that's different. Nyttend 15:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Does not satisfy WP:BIO. Edison 20:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being the secretary of the non-notable Board of Trustees for the Encouragement of the Manufactures and Fisheries of Scotland or even the organization Encouragement of the Manufactures and Fisheries of Scotland apparently is also unworthy of note does not satisfy WP:BIO; would the secretary of the Board of Trustees of Harvard University or the secretary of the Board of Directors of IBM be notable? Probably not; why should the secretary (is this they person who is an officer or just a go-fer?) of this obscure organization be notable? Presumably Mr. Arbuthnot has predecessors and successors to his illustrious secretaryship, and they'd all be notable no doubt? Carlossuarez46 21:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wikipedia is not a genealogical site —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pete.Hurd (talk • contribs) 21:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Needs more sourcing if we are to consider him notable. The info here is hardly anything more than genealogical. The board of which he was a trustee does not have its own article. EdJohnston 22:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Clearly fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:MUSIC and WP:N/HWY, and appears never to have played football in a fully professional league. However, the Oxford DNB includes a paragraph on Robert Arbuthnot of Haddo in its article on the Select Society, "an Edinburgh debating club for gifted and socially prominent members of the city's intellectual élite". That should be an inviting red link for anyone interested in Scottish intellectual history. Pharamond 22:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your wish is our command. We already have an article, The Select Society, though it has no mention of any Arbuthnots. EdJohnston 00:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not much of an article... It seems the poster had little info to start with, but there are plenty of sources listed in the DNB article. Anyway, I made the redirect from the name without the article. The content of this article could be merged there, once somebody gets around to expand it (now it would just look ridiculous) or to the Arbuthnot family article, if that is kept. It is funny that the author of the Robert Arbuthnot of Haddo article completely missed the one thing that made the DNB include him somewhere. Pharamond 06:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it can be shown he was a prominent member of the Select Society.Hornplease 06:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reality appears to be more nuanced than that. Robert Arbuthnot of Haddo has not been deemed important enough by the DNB to be given his own article (the society also included people like Adam Smith), but he is one of the only four members (out of at least 133) to be mentioned in boldface and with a significant amount of biographical detail in the Select Society article in the DNB. So is he notable enough to be given his own article here? Is he perhaps just notable enough to be merged somewhere? Or is he so disastrously non-notable that he needs to be purged to avoid making Wikipedia the laughingstock of the world? Pharamond 07:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: To Pharamond's questions, let's suppose that the most startling claim in the present article is true -- that he was the "intimate friend" of James Beattie and was the reason for Beattie's appointment. Fine. That, combined with the Select Society, would indicate either great brains or great money and some brains. Well, we have diddly in this article to explain, to justify, or to trace this figure's life as an intellectual. What we have here is more pedigree, more money as qualifications. Therefore, anyone with an encyclopedic desire and knowledge would not be aided by what exists there now. In other words, I do not see anything here to be saved in order to make a future article that fills the gaps between the mystery of the DNB 's (the 1898 one?) mention and actual encyclopedic standards. Geogre 12:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--From the DNB article: "the society was clearly a desirable club to enter, one which had no trouble rejecting peers and gentry in favour of men of talent." The UK DNB does not set the limits of our coverage, just as the Brittanica doesn't set the limits, and I would expect we'd have many more entries than they. I'd agree with George that anyone mentioned in either a full article or in bold as a paragraph is unquestionably notable. For one thing, they're a RS, and they always give references, so all of them will have two--and usually considerably more-- non-trivial references from RSs, which is the general standard. It's unfortunate that Kitty didn't think to use information from there, preferring his family genealogies as sources. Another example why paying attention to COI is important--not only will COI lead to insertion of dubious material, it can lead to ignoring good ones if one trusts one's private knowledge. DGG 02:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone with a subscription to the DNB tell us what the sources were for Robert Arbuthnot of Haddo? Until we know what the sources say, the long-term fate of this article can't be determined. EdJohnston 04:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know where people were finding the article, for my part. I jog down to consult the 2004 DNB fairly regularly, and I hadn't seen in it any of the prestigious societies getting articles, although that had been the sporadic case in the first edition. The fact that such an article wasn't picked up for 2004 doesn't mean that it's not worth knowing, or that it's dubious, but it does mean that I, at least, can't go check. Geogre 02:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, and particularly as per Geogre. Nothing of value here. DES (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep multiple non-trivial reliable sources, listed in the article. No question that this article meets WP:N. JulesH 17:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet more ArbuthNotNotable spam. You would not want me to start listing all the Morgans! Or, say, the Smiths! DewiMorgan 20:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Three sources: one (Memories of the Arbuthnots) is not independent, and the other two are from directory listings. The posts listed do not meet WP:BIO, and the subject's main claim to notability is his position as Secretary of the Board of Trustees for the Encouragement of the Manufactures and Fisheries of Scotland. That may have been quite a significant position, but we don't know, because we have neither an article on the Board of Trustees for the Encouragement of the Manufactures and Fisheries of Scotland nor any references in this article to confirm its importance. If someone writes an article with proper sources to establish notability, that would be great, but right now all we have is an inadequately-sourced stub on a person of questionable significance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge If he is in fact in DNB for his involvement in The Select Society, his information could be put in there. Probably there are other less notable members that could be included to flesh out that page as well. I keep hearing the assertion that Memories of the Arbuthnots isn't independent, but it's never backed up by any evidence. As for DewiMorgan's insistence on delete votes based on the Morgan and Smith families; I say write them up if they've done anything or include them in articles pertaining to institutions they held a prominent role in. As a final note I'll say that Pharamond's statement "and appears never to have played football in a fully professional league" will keep me laughing for a while. Aspenocean 03:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Memories of the Arbuthnots was published by a well-known, mainstream publisher. I find it hard to believe they published a book purely because of its author's vanity. JulesH 20:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was tragedy, delete! - Mailer Diablo 05:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tragedy![edit]

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

(Contested speedy.) This is an article about a Fringe play -- unnotable in itself (Fringe festivals have dozens, if not hundreds, of these shows). It has only yet been produced at the author's college, and offers to independent reviews. I wish these guys luck, but a future performance at a Fringe festival does not notability make. The JPStalk to me 10:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Until such a time when and if this production satisfies notability requirements. You never know, it could end up being a big one!--Xnuala (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable play Corpx 12:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well, it can't really be sourced if it's a fringe play. -- Chris is me (user/review/talk) 17:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Arbuthnot, 1st of Elderslie[edit]

George Arbuthnot, 1st of Elderslie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No notability whatsoever. This belongs like so many of the other Category:Arbuthnot family on a family history site not on Wikipedia. Please note he is not the 1st anything of Elderslie Giano 10:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete wikipedia is not a genealogical site Hut 8.5 15:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wikipedia is not a genealogical site Pete.Hurd 16:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Civil servant lacks sources to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison 20:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless clarified If he was deputy governor of Ceylon, I think that would be sufficiently note-worthy; I think that WP precedent supports Vice Presidents, Lieutenant Governors General, Lieutenant Governors of US States meet WP:N. But it's hard to tell if that's the case as he's termed the deputy governor of the governor; I don't know what that means in the government of Ceylon at the time, if anything, but seems merely a go-fer job unless it's "of Ceylon". Carlossuarez46 21:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ada Jane Arbuthnot's "Memories" has a huge entry for him; she devotes thirty pages of her book to quotations from his letters and diaries. He seems to have been content to be a reasonably prosperous guy and raise ten children. He turned down a chance to run for Parliament. He writes reasonably entertaining letters; that's the most that can be said. EdJohnston 23:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the number two administrator of an important province of British India. Seriously, people, I've said this before: shut down kittybrewster's project, sure, but some of these people are notable. Indian colonial civil servants are almost always notable; they had an extraordinary amount of power. Hornplease 06:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are we sure that's what he was? I would keep if he was really the 2nd in command of Ceylon, but the deputy governor to the governor may have a meaning no different that a deputy to a sherrif has in the US (e.g., lots of deputies for each sherrif, not the #2 but one of a multitude). Unless some RS can be found to support the construct you assume, I'm still unconvinced. Carlossuarez46 19:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. there is nothing notable mentioned in this article to justify its retention in WP, maybe it could be merged into a general article on the Arbuthnot family, could anyone explain what the title '1st of Elderslie' refers to as there is no mention in the article of how it come about or what its standing has.--padraig3uk 08:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase '1st of Elderslie' is part of the system used in Ada Jane Arbuthnot's genealogy book to identify members of the family. Since the same first names occur repeatedly, she needs 'epithets' to distinguish similarly-named people. '1st of Elderslie' was the guy who originally purchased the Elderslie house (see p.359), and later generations also lived there. (There was also a George, '2nd of Elderslie'). Her book can be downloaded as a 99 meg PDF file from kittybrewster.com. EdJohnston 13:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The man made it to deputy governor to a red link. Blue that link, and then mention all the deputies that person had in that article, or, better yet, establish an article on Governor General of Ceylon and list the names of those who served, but I can't see justifying more breeding stock memorials because of civil service positions they filled. This is made more the point because he appears to have gone off to the Raj and served fairly briefly, and there is no indication that he did something in that position that caused an historical ripple. I just can't see the balance working out. Geogre 12:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frankly, I don't know what to say in reply. We haven't a clue whether he caused a ripple or not, but these were extraordinarily powerful men. I don't think we can support deletion just because the governors of Ceylon aren't yet listed. Really! WP's still growing, especially third-world-related material. See WP:BIAS. Hornplease 01:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Careful with the "bias" allegation, there. I should be delighted if we had the information on what was done by the various members of the Raj who made a difference, but, barring that, we cannot honor the titles of that regime by saying that such an appointment indicates merit. I would be stunned to see anyone genuinely concerned with, or aware of, post-colonial theory wanting to say, "Gosh, deputy governor of Ceylon? Must be important." I rather thought that we did not regard the protectors of the people with such credulity anymore. Geogre 01:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - did he actually do anything of note? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Geogre but without prejudice if a well-sourced article indicatign that the man had significant impact or other notability is created in future. DES (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep One non-trivial reliable source listed in the article. Could do with more sources, but I dare say they exist somewhere. JulesH 17:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--if he were Governor (or Governor-General) of Ceylon then he would have an article as for any other head of state or head of government. I'd as soon merge the PMs into one article as the GGs of Ceylon. But our guy here was deputy to the Governor--and its not specific about whether he was perhaps actually Deputy Governor if there was such a position, or whether it was some lesser rank on his staff. If it turns out he did anything notable in Ceylon, that would justify an article. DGG 02:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (And of course redirect his name) into Arbuthnot & Co. This bank formed from Latour & Co later became Arbuthnot De Monte & Co which was one of at least 3 large banks to collapse in 1906. His work also led to numerous offshoots of Arbuthnot & Co: Gillanders, Arbuthnot & Co., of Calcutta; Ewart, Latham & Co., of Bombay; Arbuthnot, Latham & Co., of London; Ogilvy, Gillanders & Co., and Arbuthnot, Ewart & Co., of Liverpool; and Gladstone, Latham & Co., of Manchester. John Alves Arbuthnot worked for his uncle George in Arbuthnot & Co. before forming Arbuthnot Latham & Co with Alfred Latham (a governor of the Bank of England)in London. This family's business practices and societal connections could be compared favorably to the Rothchilds. If there were less blind deletions and more merges on the subject of Arbuthnot's, one would see the significant connections, particularly in the field of Merchant Banking. I'll grant that expansions need to be made, but deletion does not reasonably lead to expansion or the inclusion of multiple editors in contributing. Aspenocean 17:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note that your vote is 'Merge'. You seem to have a lot of specific information, but it is not yet reflected in the Arbuthnot & Co article. Are you willing to add your data there? EdJohnston 19:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet more ArbuthNotNotable genealogy spam. You would not want me to start listing all the Morgans! Or, say, the Smiths! DewiMorgan 20:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena[edit]

American Association of Electronic Voice Phenomena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Existence of this article constitutes undue weight. It also seems like an end-run around NPOV, avoiding the necessary inclusion of the sceptical perspective at electronic voice phenomenon. Only one formally independent source, which does not give it much attention. Google and Factiva do not turn up anything reliable, all mentions appear to be in the blogs and websites of proponents of EVP, a large proportion of whom appear from their sites to be cranks. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete The criticism section has been improved which means that the article is not completely one-sided. However, I was unable to find any reliable sources that dealt with the AA-EVP. Due to a lack of sources, notability is really not asserted in the article. --Cyrus Andiron 12:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless independent, reliable sources can be found. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Edison 20:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Keep - The involvement of the two directors of the AA-EVP in the promotion of the film "White Noise" (2005) earned it many references by mainstream sources [18]. Since one of the org's principals has been active in POV pushing on WP, recommend the article be carefully monitored for neutrality. - LuckyLouie 00:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As far as i can tell, the person is merely being identified as a member of the association, the links are not talking about the association. This therefore does not count as non-trivial mentions. The association has an external link on the Evp page, which is as it should be. DGG 02:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not notable because it lacks sources, re everyone's arguments above. Nick mallory 14:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails stated criteria at WP:N, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and each other." Some of the material could be folded into the EVP article. Raymond Arritt 00:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Home row. W.marsh 16:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asdf[edit]

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

These four letters on the keyboard are not very notable... the article itself is just a list of isolated and speculative trivia about the letters with no cohesion between them. Remy B 12:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Useless, non-encyclopedia trivia verging on nonsense. andy 17:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. ~Spebi 05:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has become a notable part of computing culture. -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 07:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no assertion of notability in the article (hard to see how there could be). No references. andy 09:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Is there a related article that any sourced notable characteristics of "asdf" can be merged in to, such as Computer Passwords?--Xnuala (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article just states the obvious. Corpx 12:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as long as ASDF continues to note that these are the first four letters of the middle row of a standard computer keyboard, sometimes used when someone types in gibberish, then I think it'd be fine to redirect this to ASDF. The sequence asdf shows up enough that a one sentence explanation at ASDF is worthwhile. --JayHenry 17:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unlike qwerty, nonnotable `'mikka 17:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete zxcvbnm doesn't get an article :) --ROASTYTOAST 21:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonnotable. Useight 23:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Home row; j, k, l, and ; deserve their screentime too. Phony Saint 00:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above. There are lots of links to this article (albeit most from talk pages). -- MightyWarrior 11:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to and merge good content with Home row per Phony Saint. --User:Krator (t c) 18:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect not notable for an entire article, is notable as a sub section of home row Urdna 00:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Phony Saint. —David Eppstein 01:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Krator DewiMorgan 21:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cathol[edit]

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

Neither notable nor verifiable; I can't seem to find any applicable google hits related to "cathol" "brandon wright". Bkkbrad 01:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not notable Corpx 12:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. No sources. No claims of having his work published. Only claim of notability at all is at a very local level. DarkAudit 14:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, no sources cited. Having a "cult following" (which could mean 2-3 people) at one university does not make something notable. Hut 8.5 14:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jason and Elizabeth[edit]

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

prod'd, prod removed and put back. Therefore, I removed the prod as per rules and took it here Postcard Cathy 17:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete We cant have articles for every couple in a soap Corpx 12:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CorpX. Wikipedia is not the Soap Opera guide. DarkAudit 14:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nope, this should be covered in the character articles Hut 8.5 14:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was listed in the wrong place. J Milburn 11:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewatch[edit]

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

This redirect was created by 66.32.71.1, the author of the website that is the subject of the Jew Watch article. He's also the original author of its article, which he created with the intention of gaining notability for his website. Unfortunately, AFDing that article may be premature, but deleting this redirect is a step in the right direction. -Etafly 22:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This is not the place to deal with redirects for deletion, that is what WP:RFD is for. Also, deleting a valid redirect to a possibly non-valid article is ridiculous. Nominate the article for deletion if you think it should be deleted, but this is not the correct place to delete a redirect. J Milburn 11:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Selket Talk 13:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OQO Model 2[edit]

OQO_Model_2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Article is not very significant other than being an example of the many small pcs in the world, and it is not the worlds smallest pc, the previous model was. In fact, the website states that the previous model was recognized by the Guinness Book of World Records as officially the worlds smallest fully functional pc [19] and it also says on the main page that this model is the "World smallest Windows Vista PC",because it is a bit bigger, but improved enough specs to run windows vista,which is less significant .Rodrigue 16:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's gained some notoriety in the review world. fethers 11:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I realize that it is a pretty well known example of a UMPC and there is alot about it on the web, but since the previous model is still technically the worlds smallest PC, shouldn't that be an article, regardless of wether or not this is? Rodrigue 15:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Bill Gates demonstrated a pre-production OQO 02 Model 02 in his keynote address at CES 2007" I think that's sufficient assertion of notability, and it's gotten some press coverage. Someguy1221 22:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand the article's content. --Madchester 22:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There seems to be a strong idea to keep it.But does anyone think that since the previous model technically is still the world smallest PC, that it shoudn't be an article as well?.Rodrigue 19:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also the proper tittle of this article is Model 02, not 2, as its the term used by the company.And this model did not appear in mission impossible 3, it was the previous model, but that should have been obvious since mission impossible 3 came out last may, and this PC was released this January!.

And why has no one uploaded an image yet, even though there are plenty of them on the website.Instead someone on the talk page suggests adding an image even though they can do it themselves.

All that just shows how much people really care about this article.Rodrigue 21:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and Delete Why not merge with OQO? It's already mentioned in that article and referenced from it. I say merge it and delete it.

Comment Well perhaps this article should be merged, but the other version is a world record holder so it is notable enough. Rodrigue 22:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as per previous poster. Neither artcle is particularly long, merger would create a better article. vLaDsINgEr 21:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Or else merge AND redirect. Qaka 20:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect... to the section about this pc on the OQO page. This PC is quite notorious, but like the others in the line, does not deserve it's own page. --711groove 18:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - I came here looking for this particular article. Not much there right now, but if you give it some time it will definitely be added to. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - and by the way, the nominator hasn't even given an argument as to why the article should be deleted. If I was an admin I'd close this. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge - definitely notable, expansion could be helpful, or merge it into the main OQO article. --Bhtooefr 22:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 13:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SIP Express Media Server (SEMS)[edit]

SIP Express Media Server (SEMS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This organization or product lacks notability per WP standards Calltech 14:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Based on the google hits Corpx 12:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of those ghits seem to be reliable sources. JulesH 17:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I went through several pages of google hits and found nothing to support notability - no coverage in reliable sources, awards, peer recognition etc. So, delete unless some evidence of notability appears.--Kubigula (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 13:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Rocha[edit]

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

Prod contested by an editor who should realise that wrestling fan sites are not reliable sources. Non notable minor league wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources. There's this article but it's impossible for an encyclopedic article to be created from that. Fails WP:BIO, and WP:V due to the lack of reliable sources. One Night In Hackney303 10:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undecided She has not been limited to just one wresting promotion, and has wrestled throughout the South and Eastern US, so she isn't just a "one promotion wrestler." Another thing is she has wrestled in the #3 promotion in the US, but it doesn't seem to have been more than a couple matches, so her notability there is questionable. I'd say that the links and suggested reading would more than substantiate the content of the article, so I would disagree that it fails WP:V, but I'm undecided on WP:BIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theophilus75 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Ana Rocha has been the subject of at least two news articles, one for the Boston Globe and another for South Coast Today, I believe this establishes her notability as per WP:BIO. Besides making significant appearances in IWA Mid-South, Ring of Honor and the National Wrestling Alliance as well as her feuds with several notable female wrestlers such as Mercedes Martinez, April Hunter and Riptide, hardly classify her as a "minor league wrestler". I should also note the interview was added as an "external link" along with other wrestling websites as opposed to a cited reference. MadMax 22:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Boston Globe article is trivial coverage, and therefore insufficient to establish notability, as would be clear to everyone else if you had the decency to link to it. The rest of your argument is typical wrestlecruft, yet again notability guidelines are at WP:BIO. The promotions you have listed above are minor league, the average IWA-MS shows are attended by less than 100 people. One Night In Hackney303 12:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. First the Boston Globe article supports the claim that Ana Rocha is a leading female wrestler among others wrestling in the United States (please note the headline "Glam Slam: Taking Their Place In The Ring, These Women Are Winning Devoted Wrestling Fans", Rocha is one of those female wrestlers the article is in reference to). Second, as I found the article though a subscription service, I did not cite the article as a reference but added it under "further reading". If you'll check the history, the article was under "further reading" at the time of its nomination. Could you please provide a source supporting your claims that IWA Mid-South's wrestling events are in fact regularly attended by less than 100 people and that Rocha has performed at these specific events ? And if so, while you may bring us such points in nominating IWA Mid-South, I'm not sure how this effects Rocha's individual notability as she's wrestled for several other notable promotions besides IWA Mid-South. MadMax 19:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I fail to see how the headline supports your claim that she is a leading female wrestler, and if she was surely you'd be capable of providing multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources? I checked the history, you're the person claiming that the article means she passes WP:BIO, when it isn't a non-trivial source. If you choose not to provide direct links to sources that are available, I will be happy to do so to prove the sources are not as claimed and are being used in a dishonest manner. One Night In Hackney303 12:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep based on cited newspaper articles, but clean up regarding in-universe issues per WP:WAF. JulesH 17:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for defeating the love of my life, Mercedes Martinez (don't tell the girlfriend I said that) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 19:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for not passing WP:BIO; Boston Globe article mentioned above is trivial at best, while the article from South Coast Today doesn't really prove any notability, only trivial facts, and nothing to prove her notable enough to pass WP:BIO. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 02:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The newspaper articles assert notability, but article is in dire nede of a cleanupxC | ☎ 19:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the newspaper articles and extensive coverage of indy work. I'll draw a parallel with the article on Vanessa Kraven, as they have similar number of links. Maybe a cleanup of the red links in Ana Rocha. Genericchimera 06:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Craze[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:MUSIC. Prod removed by creator without comment. FisherQueen (Talk) 11:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No sources, no proof, and virtually no content. DarkAudit 14:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DarkAudit. Nyttend 15:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --ROASTYTOAST 21:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non notable. Search shows 84 ghits for the name, not all for this subject, and mostly related to collegiate sports. Although article claims fame for collaboration with a Charlie Kemp, Google reveals no combined match. MDonfield 12:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cobas tree[edit]

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

misinformation JMK 11:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC) From the first entry this article gave completely incorrect information. Anyone can check that the Cobas (not Cobas tree) is not a Pachypodium but in the Vitaceae, genus Cyphostemma.[reply]

The article seems to mix up three species, Cyphostemma currorii, which is the Cobas of Namibia-Angola, Pachypodium namaquanum, the Halfmens of RSA-Namibia, and Pachypodium lealii, which is reported to be used for arrow poison, and then not by Van Wyk as far as I can see. Recommend: Delete and start over with correct name. JMK 11:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pachypodium namaquanum' should be the article title as per plant MOS. If all the info is infact wrong, apart from the name, then I agree Delete, otherwise move to correct name. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 22:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted as unremarkable web content. --Seed 2.0 15:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FFC, FlashFlashComics[edit]

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

NN comic website Gareth E Kegg 11:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 18:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Residence Hall Association at Florida Institute of Technology[edit]

The Residence Hall Association at Florida Institute of Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

one chapter of a national organization; no assertion of notability delete Cornell Rockey 12:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This exists at every university campus and is not notable Corpx 12:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Banal. Be aware that the author has threatened to move the material into the main body of Florida Institute of Technology which jeopardizes the whole idea of deletion.Student7 13:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non Notable residence hall association. I don't see a problem with merging some of this information into the main Florida Institute of Technology article. --Cyrus Andiron 15:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:ORG. No WP:RS indicating otherwise. --Kinu t/c 21:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable organization, and would hate to see similar pages arise for the other colleges/universities out there. Harvest any relevant information into the main article for the Florida Institute of Technology and delete. --Nehrams2020 04:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and don't merge While it's not true that this exists at every college, it's sufficiently common for an individual RHA to be nonnotable. Yet another case of overexuberant campus groups abusing the internet to flaunt themselves before the world. (Hey look at us, we hold programs!) I'm glad my RHA for one wasn't that presumptuous. No merge, either. The existence of an RHA at a college deserves at most two sentences in a college's article. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 17:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP or merge RHA in Florida Tech is one of the largest organizations on campus (it's even larger than our student and class governments combined. As the author and a current student, it is discriminative to assume it "deserves two sentences". RHA was in Florida Tech's article, but I believed that it did not serve the purpose of explaining the college, hence the creation of this article in the first place. And I cannot believe that Student7 is once again trying to remove residence hall-related information off of the university's content. It's not the first time, and it surely will not be the last. Just know this: I could care less what you do with the article and what you think of it since I'm no longer the vice president and I myself have left RHA because I was recently elected into student gov, but consider this, our organization is probably one of the most important student organizations on campus that is state/nationally affiliated (we're not trying to flaunt ourselves... we have our own .edu website for those purposes) Jameson L. Tai 15:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the relevant two sentences back in, and link to their "own .edu website" that has the rest of the info on. DewiMorgan 21:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 07:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The shows of yesSTARS[edit]

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

Non-worthwhile list of programmes shown on an Israeli satellite channel, none of which are produced by the channel itself. Other than advertising the channel's content, I can't see the point of it. Number 57 12:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not TV Guide. Nearly every one of these shows and networks have their own article. DarkAudit 14:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this has no purpose other than advertising Hut 8.5 16:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (was already deleted with proper capitalisation earlier) Orderinchaos 11:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmine lewis[edit]

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

The text provides no evidence of notability, and a google search of "Yasmine Lewis + Chess" reveals no reliable sources that would confirm notability FisherQueen (Talk) 12:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Well, it's all the work - and sole contribution - of one Yas12. I'm assuming this is a bit of naive autobiography rather than a cunning attack page but either way... BTLizard
  • Speedy Delete under CSD A7. This is a non notable bio about a middle school kid. Unless she's a grandmaster, she's not notable. --Cyrus Andiron 13:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre's Law and notability not being established. AniMate 13:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this myspacian vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 13:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable per WP:BIO. These awards are not of substantial merit, and it is not clear who awarded them. For all we know, they could have been given by her friend next door. DarkAudit 14:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. No sources provided that support the claims of this article. Hut 8.5 14:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, violates WP:V (*cough*), no WP:RS (the references have nothing to do with the topic of the article). Clearly a WP:COI grandiose autobiography by a bored kid. WP:SNOW applies. --Kinu t/c 21:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maybe it's just me, but the article seems slightly pov. Yay for Wikipedia, it's the new MySpace. --Bongwarrior 07:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. Possibly speedy. JFW | T@lk 10:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but article needs improvement. W.marsh 13:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interdictor (Blogger)[edit]

Vanity page about a non-notable blogger; neither his Blogger name (Interdictor) nor his real name pass the Google test. LoomisSimmons 12:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It is not a vanity page, I (not the subject of the article) created the page during Hurricane Katrina because I saw the blog become mentioned throughout the media as a source of information. The subject of the article has edited the page, but his edits have not been self-promoting. "interdictor" is a term used not just by the subject (and speaking of Google test, it is the #1 Google result for the word), but a Google test of "interdictor" plus "katrina" or "hurricane" (disambiguating "interdictor" from) turns up a lot of mentions of this blog as being involved with the coverage of Hurricane Katrina. It clearly passes Google test. --Wingsandsword 13:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not too sure if the definition of a vanity page means that the subject personally has to be the one to make it; after all, I could easily have a friend make a page about me. Be that as it may, it still reads like a vanity page, has no citations and seems to just be a reason to plug some guy's LiveJournal and shout out his girlfriend. LoomisSimmons 15:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do not use the word "vanity" in this context. From WP:VFD, "The accusation "VANITY" should be avoided [20], and is not in itself a reason for deletion.". WP has got into trouble about this in the past: look after WP and avoid using that word. DewiMorgan

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 17:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPlay TV[edit]

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

nominated by dannybriggs93 but no discussion page created Hotmann 10:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete then redirect to The Great Big British Quiz. Whilst I am convinced that this former company is definitely not notbale, I remain to be convinced even that its flagship programme is either now it no longer exists. It may be that we need to create one single article along the lines of United Kingdom Phone In Television Scandal of 2007 (or suchlike) to cover all the programmes and companies involved. A1octopus 12:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This duplicates page for the great big british quiz a now defunct tv channel.Hotmann 10:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topography (I/O)[edit]

Topography (I/O) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A poor quality article that cannot reasonably by improved.

It was proposed for deletion in Feb 2006 because "it is impossible to tell what the subject of this article is". The edits since then have only added more tags, instead of improving the article.

The title is wrong. It was probably meant to include the word topology, because it discusses things related to network topology.

The content is essentially a duplicate of building automation#Topology. Although that article also has problems, it is being actively edited. JonH 13:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electro Mental Ignition[edit]

Electro Mental Ignition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - We really don't need articles on every one-off power that appears in a TV show. There appear to be no independent reliable sources attesting to the existence of this term outside of this single episode, let alone its usage, making this a neologism that should be deleted. Otto4711 13:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete along with any other fictional superpower. At best, this is deserving of a passing mention in the character's article. I'm going to take a wild stab that this term has never been used outside the context of this show. It could be useful when in line at the BMV, but that doesn't make it notable. --Cyrus Andiron 15:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to Charmed. No sources to show notability outside the show. Edison 20:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't even exist within the show. This is a neologism based on speculation and original research about non-canonical events in the show's history which are not notable. Speedy delete by that rationale as patent nonsense and disruptive material.~ZytheTalk to me! 17:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable and non-notable (or potentially merge to List of superpowers, although if it remains unsourced that shouldn't happen) JulesH 17:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Streetsabre 03:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, is that picture ok to have on Wikipedia? Isn't there a copyvio there? Streetsabre 07:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Editorial decision. W.marsh 00:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Sumbhajee[edit]

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

Secondary character in upcoming film Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. Only present as a plot device. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mistress Ching. DarkAudit 13:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete At this point, not enough information/significance to warrant his own article. The information should be merged into the cast section about the character and change this to a redirect. --Nehrams2020 04:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Editorial decision, but precedent supports redirecting minor characters, I don't feel relisting is needed to determine this. W.marsh 23:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ammand The Corsair[edit]

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

Secondary character in upcoming film Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. Only present as a plot device. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mistress Ching. DarkAudit 14:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 20:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shenouda & Associates, LLP[edit]

Shenouda & Associates, LLP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I saw this page get created last week and although I suspected vanity (see the creator's username), I decided to hold off and give the author time to expand the article. So far nothing has happened. I don't think they meet WP:CORP as the only google results I can find for them are listings in various directories. There is also nothing encyclopedic on the page - were we to delete all the material which does not live up to wiki-standards, there would be an empty page. Bachrach44 14:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as spam. Article only exists to draw traffic to their own web site. DarkAudit 15:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Editorial decision, supported by precedent. W.marsh 23:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capitaine Chevalle[edit]

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

Secondary character in upcoming film Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. Only present as a plot device. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mistress Ching. DarkAudit 14:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yaniv Azran[edit]

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

Non-notable player. He was never international in senior's team. He played in weak teams of semi-professional leagues and he has never won a trophy. user:KRBN 17:09 14 March, 2005

  • Keep - Played first-team football in Israeli top division and also played for Israeli Under-21s. GiantSnowman 14:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why always putting professional player to AFD? How semi-professional were the Israeli top division? Matthew_hk tc 16:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - several years of playing in national top divisions is good enough for me. - fchd 17:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Because he plays in a semi-professional league. Also he never played in any strong team. Also when we discussed about in talk page of WP:BIO, the big majority said that international players are ok to be included but not of playing in U-21. Highest level are the Champions League or World Cup etc. not the israeli league. Also I will remind again,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Stylianou, he played in top division of Cyprus, however he was deleted. Why such article must be kept? User:KRBN 17:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Judging from the comments on the AfD page, that article was about a basketball player, not a footballer, so I don't see the relevance of the comparison......? ChrisTheDude 18:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I know we should assume good faith, but it seems the nominator's standard of notability is somewhat different than most others (and, I daresay a little political). For instance, he/she has just prodded the article for the Minister of the Interior of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. - fchd 18:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is a Israeli top division football club player, so he is obviously notable. --Carioca 19:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he plays for Ashdod which in turn plays in the UEFA Cup if they qualify. Seems notable to me. --Cyrus Andiron 19:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Stylianou is a basketball player, but yes it is very relevant of comparison, since both played in top league of their countries. What better does this Azran have? As about the so called minister, he is actually a non-recognized minister, since TRNC is an illegal country, but this is another matter and a very irrelevant comparison. I doubt if Israeli top league is a fully professional league. User:KRBN 10:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The basketball comparison is not relevant, as there may be vast differences between the top basketball league in a country and the top football league. In England, for example, the top basketball league is very small-time stuff and a million miles away from the football Premiership..... ChrisTheDude 07:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - However, WP:BIO says for players who have played in a fully professional leagueUser:KRBN 16:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In one of your comments above you said "I doubt if Israeli top league is a fully professional league", suggesting that you don't actually know whether it is fully professional or not, yet you have nominated this article for deletion based on a definitve statement that the player has only played in semi-professional leagues. Can you prove that the Israeli league is not fully professional? ChrisTheDude 13:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Played in the top flight in Israel, fully notable. And yet again from the same nominator, a nomination that should perhaps not even be considered for deletion. And I must also add that I fully agree with fchds comment. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 00:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Since unfortunatelly some of you, insist for doing political comments in such talk page, I have to answer about politics first. WP:BIO says Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures. however there is a note However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless. So it means that it is regardless to include all the ministers. It doesn't mean being a minister, it is automatically notable. Especially for someone who is not legal minister but he is considered minister by only one country (Turkey) and is not recognized as a minister.

The basketball comparison is not relevant, as there may be vast differences between the top basketball league in a country and the top football league. said here someone. However here some claimed that WP:BIO by saying Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports means top league of a country so Yaniv Azran since he played in a top league of a country, must be kept. And I said for the same reason Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Stylianou should have been kept as well since it satisfies that criteria. The article was deleted since it was accepted that, playing in top league of Cyprus does not mean notability. For what I understand according to ChrisTheDude, he considers him notable because the level of israeli league is notable. However, WP:BIO clearly says Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming and tennis are considered notable. Since Israel is not fully professional it can not be considered as notable. I ask the same question. Can you prove that the Israeli league is fully professional? User:KRBN 11:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apostolic Pentecostal Bible Colleges[edit]

Apostolic Pentecostal Bible Colleges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The page is a list of colleges, with the first two items being external links to the colleges' websites. I prodded a couple weeks ago with the reason "Wikipedia is not a repository of links, or a directory"; the prod was removed with the comment that the page would be improved, but it hasn't been edited further and still seems intended to be a list of links and nothing more (or forgotten altogether). The article is orphaned. Propaniac 14:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

19th century turnpikes in Massachusetts[edit]

19th century turnpikes in Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prodded as indiscriminate information; prod removed. This is mostly a long list of redlinks; all the blue links seem to be included in Category:Pre-freeway turnpikes in the United States (they make up most of the 21 articles in that category). This doesn't seem notable or useful to me. The article is orphaned. Propaniac 14:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the article below for deletion; it's another long list of redlinks, with no blue links at all. Propaniac 14:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19th century turnpikes in Rhode Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep. You can see in the references that there's a whole book written about these (ISBN 0942147057). The abridged version is 428 pages, so there's clearly enough information to write an article about each. You should also learn what indiscriminate means. Limiting a list from all roads in Massachusetts to turnpikes that were chartered by the legislature, and on which a toll was charged, is very discriminate. --NE2 15:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I took and used "indiscriminate" to mean the inclusion of the list itself in Wikipedia; the list itself does discriminate, and my prod should perhaps have been clearer in my meaning. Propaniac 16:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because they are mostly red links is not a reason for deletion. Many of the turnpikes are now state highways and can be redirected to specific highway articles. Also, as NE2 indicated, these road have significant history. If it helps, I am willing to create stubs and/or appropriate redirects for the entries in the list later this week since I can easily get a copy of the referenced book. --Polaron | Talk 15:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I want to clarify that it's not the redlinks, in themselves, that led me to nominate this article; it's that the list itself makes no assertion of why this content is notable, and obviously the items on the list cannot support the list's notability when the items have no articles themselves in which to make or imply such a statement. Propaniac 16:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, see no reason for deletion. Subject is notable and list is expanding. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 16:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Edit Conflict)Keep. I agree with Polaron and NE2.

    The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. Plenty of articles exist that probably shouldn't. Equally, because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they're missing before they're created, a lot of articles don't exist that probably should.

This is from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I think it's important, because you're suggesting that it should be deleted because the red links suggest that its not notable. I believe that based on NE2's argument, it is notable, but those articles just haven't been written yet. --myselfalso 16:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, by mentioning the red links, I don't mean that you are nominating this for deletion because of the red links; rather I'm responding to the argument "the items on the list cannot support the list's notability when the items have no articles themselves". --myselfalso 17:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to a "List of..." title. —Scott5114↗ 17:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- these roads are of potential historic interest, either as the forerunners of modern roads or as roads that were abandoned. This system (and the system in Rhode Island) probably isn't as historic as the National Road, but there's most likely history to be found in it. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has refs to satisfy WP:N and WP:A. Since the title implies more than a list, it would be good for the proponents of such articles to add some meat to the description of the turnpikes, such as, were they corduroy, gravel, cobbles, dirt, or what? What was the charge to use it? Edison 20:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. - Crockspot 05:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, the book has been scanned by Google Books: [21] --NE2 06:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep History of major transportation arteries is notable and does not need any claim of notability. Fg2 10:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are lots of reliable sources out there. Because all of these roads are historical, there is no need to have any claim of notability. Also supporting a move to a "List of..." article name. V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions 02:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maris Martinsons[edit]

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

Does not meet notibility req's, improper references 99DBSIMLR 14:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Note: previous AfD is here. Looks like he would pass WP:PROF as a significant figure in the field if the claims here are true ("According to Google Scholar, Martinsons has authored 4 of the 10 most cited articles on Chinese management.", "He has been published in many leading English-language journals and translated into languages such as Chinese, French, Japanese, Latvian, and Russian."). I don't have access to a LexisNexis-type database right now, but some Google hits like [22], [23], [24] are promising. -SpuriousQ (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 21:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Full professor at a leading university. As for his papers, using Scopus 33 papers, with the highest ones having 39, 30, 26, 19, 15 hits. h=9 for those who think it means something, I don't know how it compares in this subject. Decent journals, some first rate. What would have been translated would be a book, but LC only has one. I've added this. I've removed some fluff. DGG 02:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Associate prof, not full, according to the one news item I could find related to him (repeated in several publications), a fairly trivial quote about Chinese business leadership. And the article is unsourced and says very little that couldn't be said about any other business professor. But he does seem to be a (or perhaps the) leading expert on Chinese management information systems, a much more specific topic but still of some importance. —David Eppstein 15:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, 38 works in OCLC and article text establishes notability; RS for impact in the real world would be helpful. John Vandenberg 15:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Dinwiddie[edit]

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

This was originally speedy-deleted as a copyvio of IMDb. DRV overturned, mindful of the rule in Feist v. Rural that the copyright on compilations of public information is minimal. (I'm not sure the first edits of the article satisfied Feist, as they were in a style similar to IMDb, possibly betraying an infringement of the IMDb's "creative" element; the current revision is not similar at all, and does satisfy Feist.) Anyway, the question remains whether the actor meets WP:BIO. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Everybody who has an entry at imdb doesn't need to be here. This actor has a few guest spots on episodic tv and some minor film roles. Not notable. Corvus cornix 23:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no notability. One obscure nomination is not notability. And a copyvio dispute? Please, who has the time? --Dhartung | Talk 10:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The copyright issue is settled, it really was a misunderstanding to start with. As for the rest, two cinema films, three TV movies, nine other TV appearances, and an award nomination is not exactly the heights of fame, i will agree, but I think it is above the bar for basic notability, particularly since this actor's career is obviously in progress, and the entry may be expected to expand in future. Noter also that before this article was created it was a redlink on a number of articles where this actor is listed as a cast member. DES (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What links here shows two Charmed episodes and the two Au Pair movies. That's it. Corvus cornix 18:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete eminently non-notable actor --Steve (Stephen) talk 04:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merging can still be considered as an editorial decision that doesn't require AFD. W.marsh 13:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BRIMC (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

WP:OR; Neologism Limongi 15:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deletion - As BRICS, BRICA, BRICET and others, BRIMC it would have to be a section of article BRIC (the original and more used term). João Felipe C.S 15:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is hardly OR since there are sources indicating the existence of the term: BRIMC is a financial term being used since around 2001. See the sources already in the article ([25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]) I didn't "invent" the term, so it is not OR. Neologism? Well BRIC was invented in 2001 also, is it a neologism? Should we nominate it for deleteion? No, right? It is the same with this term. Sadly, this 2nd nomination is another Mex vs. Brazil crusade started by the same Brazilian users. Aditionally the other terms the first AfD nominator of BRIMC mentions (Joao) were deleted because he literaly copy-pasted the info and sources in the article BRIMC and created all of the other articles. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 15:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - BRIMC is a financial term being used since around 2001.??? The term BRIC is created in 2003, how a variation can have before been bred? Alex, didn't invent the term. But gave one emphasis more, what it makes of the BRIMC a more important term that BRICS, BRICA, BRICET…? Come on Alex, you only wants to favor your country. João Felipe C.S 16:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion - It is not Orignal Reasearch or neologism by the editor, but it does not deserve its own article, it should be metioned on the BRIC article and thats it. BRIMC is derived from the BRIC concept, the article does not add enough information to be considered a different subject. A redirect from BRIMC to BRIC should suffice Chico 16:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion - Here are a few reason why the article should be deleted:
  • The term is not used at all (with the exception of a newspaper article);
  • The term is not notable;
  • The term is based on one newspaper article: an opinion;
  • The term tries to advance the idea that Mexico is in the same category as a BRIC country. Though the idea may be true, creating an article for only that purpose is personal promotion
  • The article looks like original research WP:OR

Or, just search "BRIMC" on the internet and see what you find: nothing. In other words, this article misinforms the readers of this encyclopedia - leading them to believe that BRIMC is a Goldman Sachs thesis (which it is not) and is a term widely used in international economy and politics (which it is also not), and that alone should be reason enough for deletion. Limongi 16:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is interesting how you stole the words from my friend Hari (from when he hadn't seen the sources). You just copy-pasted his comment of months ago. It is also interesting how three brazilians voted consistently "delete". AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 16:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - He was not you who reverted my editions in Developed country article alleging: Sources must be in ENGLISH? What it is this then: [31][32][33]? João Felipe C.S 16:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is also interesting how one mexican voted consistently "keep". João Felipe C.S 16:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And now, the user AlexCovarrubias is practising Lobby. [34][35][36] João Felipe C.S 16:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is referred to in reputable, reliable sources, such as Le Figaro [37]. The article discusses how Mexico is expected to become one of the five largest economies in the world by 2040, thus qualifies as much as Brazil, Russia, India and China in the BRIC category. If the director of economic research of Goldman Sachs and inventor of the term "BRIC" has determined that the term BRIMC is more valid then the subject ought to have its own wikipedia article. Worldwide conglomerates such as L'Oreal use it to determine sales performance [38]. An Indian magazine mentions both BRIC and BRIMC as separate entities [39] and a Portuguese newspaper refers to BRIMC, not BRIC [40], as well as an Italian publication [41]. I have seen the term used in reliable and reputable publications of Mexico, US, France, Spain, Italy, Brazil and India. --FateClub 18:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FateClub, the concept BRIMC is derived from the concept BRIC, there is not enough information to separate the articles, yes some people refer to BRIMC, should'nt that be cited in the BRIC article? if yes, is it really necessary to have a different article for BRIMC??? Thanks for the civility!Chico 20:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it could be argued that since BRIMC is derived from BRIC and both terms were created by the same person then BRIC should be moved to BRIMC, since BRIMC includes BRIC plus Mexico. But, I think THAT would be more controversial, since BRIC is an older, more established term. To be perfectly honest, I had never heard of BRIMC until this wikipedia article was created and was going to vote "Delete" until I started realizing it is being used in more than one source, so I think having its own article would be more beneficial overall. At this point neither article has enough content, so they should both be expanded and improved. In the short term we can merge without prejudice and once they both have enough content separate them.--FateClub 21:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any relevant and sourced information into BRIC as this concept is a logical extension of that one, and makes more sense within the context of the larger concept. No need for a seperate article here. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. If the nominator intended to merge it and convert it into a redirect anyway, he should have gone ahead and done it rather than bring it here. Hornplease 06:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we can. Wikipedia:NOT#Paper--FateClub 16:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and attempt a merge. Accusations of OR and NEO are completely bogus as this term is being used widely. A merge should be suggested in the usual way as that does appear to be desirable. John Vandenberg 07:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion unless the article can be proven to have more relevance. Saber girl08 15:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More? How much is that? In other words, how would we determine how much relevance? I mentioned several international publications and conglomerates, that is usually more than enough. --FateClub 16:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The term and thus the article have proven their relevance as the previous AfD nomination failed. Most importantly, the term BRIMC is being used instead or along with BRIC, which clearly shows they are two independent terms (related, but independent). It is not only a matter of a "new letter added" it is not that simple, it is what that addition represents, a whole new country, a whole new financial reality for the emerging markets. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 16:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually the original term was BRIMC, but because of the illegal immigration issue, they excluded Mexico from the acronym, but later they rectified and mentioned that if they could re-name the group it'd be named BRIMC because this 5 countries are supposed to be the 5 largest economies by the year 2040.
I also googled the term BRIMC and I found 5,170 results, so I think that's quite a lot for a term that was "invented in Wikipedia" don't you think?. Supaman89 21:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you or anyone else provide at least ONE reference from Goldman Sachs that states that? Because from what I know, the term "BRIMC" was 'invented' by an economic analyst, and not by a thesis of Goldman Sachs as stated on the article's page. The fact is that the article "BRIMC" is misleading, and the references don't support even half of what is written in the article = ORIGINAL RESEARCH! The references only cite the term "BRIMC" that's it. Read it... if I'm wrong, just post the referenced information here!
Yes, they mention them, and use them, what else did you expect from a reference? --FateClub 00:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried searching for "BRIC" (3 million results) and "BRICs" (1.3 million results)?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Limongi (talk • contribs) 22:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
This is not a competition between the terms, we are trying to determine whether the term BRIMC is notable.

By the way, BRIC may also mean:

  • Biotech Research and Innovation Centre
  • BRIC studio,
  • BRIC Engineered Systems
  • Bric-à-brac,
  • BUILDING RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE AND CAPACITY
  • Biomedical Research Imaging Center (BRIC)
  • Bioprocessing Research Industry Club
  • Behavior and Reading Improvement Center
  • Bridge Research and Information Center
  • Boca Real Estate Investment Club
  • Bric hogar
  • Bric, a media company
  • Biotech Research and Innovation Center
  • Bric, a brand of handbags
  • Bric Della Croce
  • Block-like Representation of Interactive Components
  • Bric Fusta
  • Bric McMann
  • Bric's Life Travel Accessories
  • Brain Research Imaging Center at the University of Chicago --FateClub 00:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Using (BRIC economics development -brac) as the search , Google has 870 of which 2/3 are our meaning, including Bloomberg "BRICs, according to the 2003 Goldman Sachs report that popularized the acronym,..." substituting BRIMC for BRIC gets 7, note relevant. BRIMC by itself gets 437, including [42] which has the very helpful quote: "It should be BRIMC," he said. in closing, the PRESIDENT described how he wants to change Mexico's global image. "We want to revert the image of the guy ..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 17:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Parts[edit]

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

Spam. 99DBSIMLR 15:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not exactly my area of expertise and I do agree that the article could use some sources but I don't really see the spam aspect. There are some weasel words and the link to a retailer (which I've just removed) is probably inappropriate as well but I don't see anything other than that. The company also appears to be a major manufacturer of paintball equipment and one might say that the patent issue only adds to their notability. On top of that, we're talking about an article that has been around for almost two years. -- Seed 2.0 16:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Smart Parts is currently one of the leading manufacturers of paintball equipment, virtually a household name (in paintball households). At its peak, the patent dispute was huge news in the paintball scene, which makes it extremely notable. Any spam content can be edited out. --Donutmonger 07:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Smart Parts is known around the world to be one of the largest paintball suppliers. It offers some of the best paintball markers around; including the Ion marker. If you delete Smart Parts you may also want to delete Tippmann - who is also side by side in high quality markers with great prices. PLEASE KEEP SMART PARTS! Thanks, SmartPartsPros.com your contributor of the Smart Parts page. --User:Wikipaint 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Smart Parts deserves an article as much as any other well known (in a specific field) company. The article probably does need some references though, especially about the - very interesting - patent issue. Chandon 03:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Please add new comments to the bottom of the AfD. Thank you. -- Seed 2.0 15:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Several people seem to want to merge the useful content, so they might go about doing. W.marsh 13:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Bernard Arbuthnot[edit]

This man is totally un-notable so much so that even the article informs us "Arbuthnot Road is not named after him.". FGS delete it fast. Incidentally, both references are written by the primary author. Giano 15:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • He seems to be in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, had an entry in The Scottish Nation as late as 130 or so years after his death, and Project Gutenberg has his "History of John Bull". In mathematics, he seems to have been one of the earliest translators of works by Huygens on what is now known as probability theory. Unless there are reasons to doubt these references (I suppose I could toddle down to the British Library and check them out if Giano can give me reason to doubt them) this article is not a deletion candidate. --Tony Sidaway 15:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC) I think Tony you have linked to [43] and are comentating on the wrong page. Giano 16:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The silly statement about the road notwithstanding, this is a good article on a very notable and significant subject. -- MisterHand 15:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link you are comentng on is not the page I nominated Giano 15:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the link in the AFD. -- MisterHand 15:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think somehow there was a mislink [44] (anyhow solved now) Giano 16:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This fellow founded Beachcomber in name, although not in the form in which it became famous. This is important to the Beachcomber article but little else. So I suggest that any useful information from this article be merged to Beachcomber (Pen_name) and this article left as a redirect. --Tony Sidaway 16:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Tony - at present, the Beachcomber link is the only notable element and anything of note here should be merged there. It may be worth having an article on him in his own right if he actually did anything of note in the Boer Wars, or he did anything interesting to be awarded the MVO. Surely there are lots of other things that are note named after him. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too agree with Tony make, it into a redirect - so long as him being a beachcomber is verified by a references written by an independent source. Giano 18:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect: Over half the article is devoted to the quotidian and non-encyclopedic task of proving the breeding stock of a family. Aside from the pedigree, the material is better as a sentence in the literary achievement that might draw comment. Geogre 18:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Becoming a Major does not provide inherent notability. No sources to show the article is more than part of a family genealogy. Edison 20:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per User:Geogre. If this article were to be kept, the excessive genealogical details ought to be removed. Also there is a concern about sourcing. A look at the reference to thepeerage.com shows that some of the submitted data came from private emails. I can see accepting a little bit of not-fully-attested data to fill in the gaps in an otherwise well-sourced account, but this one seems very skimpy. EdJohnston 20:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Beachbomber bit and redirect. The thepeerage.com ref - He was author of the 'Beachcomber' column in the Daily Express - is misleading to the point of disingenuousness. As Tony Sidaway says, he had nothing to do with Beachcomber in the iconic comic form developed by later authors. Tearlach 21:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deputy editor of London's largest newspaper of the time, and one of the writers of By the Way. Note that By the Way was almost certainly not initiated by him; it was brought over when the old Globe shut down. One of the people who wrote By the Way for the Globe was PG Wodehouse, as I recall. Anyway, this is tiresome. Hornplease 06:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment
  • Weak keep, according to the material found by Tearlach and Hornplease, and their argument. There are probably sources to do careful bios on almost all of the adult Arbuthnots from printed sources, and if done really well with local newspapers and sources for the particular profession, there would be some element of notability in a great many. But anyone who puts in dozens of entries from a indiscriminate source on anything will not do justice to the material. (For comparison, In terms of intrinsic notability, we accept members of state legislatures, past or present. There are about 10,000 at any given time in the US alone, and most serve only for 2 years. Go back just to 1900 and there would be at least 50,000). DGG 05:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet more ArbuthNotNotable genealogy spam. You would not want me to start listing all the Morgans! Or, say, the Smiths! DewiMorgan 20:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I would like that - provided they are notable. - Kittybrewster (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Smiths were very notable, don't let me hear otherwise. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - many of them. We could use more stubs to build upon. - Kittybrewster (talk) 07:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/rename. W.marsh 00:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Osbourne judgment[edit]

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

article could be better incorporated elsewhere Berk2 15:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • neutral the article suggests that this is a notable ruling, but there are no sources. Google returns a whack-load of hits from various wikis, but nothing suggesting that this is commonly referred to by reliable sources. Article is of poor quality. Pete.Hurd 16:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is Osborne judgment.
osbourne.judgment -wikipedia = 9 results
osbourne.judgement -wikipedia = 41 results
osborne.judgment -wikipedia = 286 results
osborne.judgement -wikipedia = 408 results
which sounds about right for an obscure century-old court ruling to me. There are 600 Google Books results for osborne.judgment and a hundred more if you add the "e". It was only in effect for four years, but led to the legislation that provided a crucial turning point in British democratic institutions. --Dhartung | Talk 10:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Dhartung. The only move I could see would be to Trade Union Act of 1913, but I could see both becoming full articles, and don't support such a move. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 notability offered except being a captain. No achievements, only articles linking to the page are from dab pages, or the 1938 page when he was born. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Telfer[edit]

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

NN, no source. Matthew_hk tc 16:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable bio Corpx 17:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is not notable? IS it necessary to delete articles just because YOU don't know who the person in question is? He is mentioned on HMS Intrepid and noted by Margaret Thatcher. He also was mentioned in dispatches in recognition of his service in the Falklands conflict. Please don't delete the article before you have verified his credibility to be included. He served 37 years in the Royal Navy, attaining the rank of a 1 star captain, so should be noted for this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.46.119 (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2007
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Matthew_hk tc 12:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether you like it or not, you cant just blank this page. Corpx 16:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that Cokes360 and 217.42.46.119 are taking turns removing the AfD tags, blanking this AfD, and moving the article to a different name to try and hide it. The IP has been blocked for 24 hours. Cokes360 has been warned. IrishGuy talk 18:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He was mentioned in dispatches in the Falklands War and captained an important ship - HMS Intrepid - during the conflict. He's also notable for rising through the ranks to this position. It's not the best written article in the world but it needs to be improved, not deleted. Nick mallory 15:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Several SD officers have made Captain/ Cdre (one Cdre at present in fact is a former radar operator) and being CO of a Capital ship is not inherently notable. ALR 17:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several actors have acted in films as well, the point is not that he was unique, the point is that this achievement is notable. He also commanded a capital ship during a major recent war in a role which was pivotal to the success or failure of the war - the troop landings under heavy Argentinian air attack at San Carlos Water on the 8th of June. Nick mallory 02:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And my point is, that neither of those is particularly notable.ALR 06:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prepared to wait until Clokes360 provides some substantiation on the article before I make a judgement.ALR 19:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like Nick Mallory said, he was recognised for his duties in the Falklands War, and being honoured by the then prime minister Margaret Thatcher. Not only was he a naval commodore who made his way up from the lowest of the low to just below an admiral, it should be noted. And what doesn't seem to be recognised to people who haven't read the full article is that he was the head of NATO for the whole of the United Kingdom and the chairman of national events and commitees. Does no-one seem to realise this? It hasn't been an issue before now so why must he be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cokes360 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. The link in the article does not satisfy his individual notability requirement of WP:BIO. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The man was easily notable enough. But the article needs a lot of work. DewiMorgan 21:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. The article makes no claim of notability, and I can't find a revision that does. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shining Force II. W.marsh 23:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bowie (Shining Force II)[edit]

Bowie (Shining Force II) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Moved to gaming wiki as said in template. It can now be found here and here so either merge or delete the article. --Cs california 16:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Uh, there's no need for the machinery of AfD then. Just redirect the article, which will preserve the history for those who find something worthy of merging. Being bold and doing that. SnowFire 23:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to the album. This is what we do with most album track articles, and that people here want to delete suggests there's not consensus for keeping them separate articles. W.marsh 13:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right on Time[edit]

Right on Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Whilst updating the Californication (album) article, I turned a lot of the articles for the individual tracks in it into redirects as they weren't independtly important articles, there were no sources to back up the claims, and there wasn't anything that could be said that wasn't original research. Most of these redirects stuck, but two of them, Right on Time and Savior (song) have been reverted twice. I spoke with User:MiTfan3 about it and he seems to have ignored my comments about policy, etc, and so I believe it would be better if the articles could be decided about by outside parties and just deleted. There is (in my opinion) no reason for them to exist. Kamryn Matika 16:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating: Savior (song). Kamryn Matika 16:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both. There's nothing in those articles that couldn't be said on the album page. BTLizard 17:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, it wasn't me who reverted the Savior page, but it was who reverted the Right on Time page because there is sufficient enough information mentioned on that page, not mention on the Californication (album) page, to leave it alone. And don't say I've ignored your comments about policy, I left all of the other pages redirected except for Right on Time, like I said, I didn't revert Savior. - MiTfan3

I meant that in your reply you didn't respond to my comments about policy. Nevertheless, as you didn't reinstate the articles, I'll strike my comments. :) Kamryn Matika 02:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The song is released by Red Hot Chilli Peppers, a long running and famous band. According to the proposed guidelines at WP:MUSIC, it should at least give it a pinche of notability. However, more sources still are needed regarding the band's comments on the song.--Kylohk 10:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:MUSIC the songs need to be a released single by a notable band. These are not singles. Kamryn Matika 03:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - the proposed guidelines at WP:MUSIC shouldn't supersede WP:N, there's a discussion about that right now. If there are no external sources who have written about these two songs, then delete them both. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --lightdarkness (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Bossman[edit]

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

NN, youth player Matthew_hk tc 16:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Groups and individuals challenging the official account of 9/11[edit]

Groups and individuals challenging the official account of 9/11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jersey Devil 02:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ebba von Sydow[edit]

Ebba von Sydow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable as per WP:BIO. Yamla 17:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Corpx 17:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks idependent sources, speedy is fine since the claim to notability reads as hype. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if only to kick against the anglophone systemic bias. I've removed the hype and sourced it a bit: interesting family background, and chief editor of a notable Swedish mag that's been running since the 1930s. Tearlach 02:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yamla: just saw the context at Talk:Ebba von Sydow. Thanks. They're a NN bunch generally, but I think she has a bit more interest. Tearlach 03:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'd happily speedy if not for Yamla's request. Non-notable editor of a non-notable magazine, sources cited aren't near enough, and notability is not inherited. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you'd come to the same conclusion if it were an American magazine run by a Kennedy. VeckoRevyn has a far longer pedigree than many others already here: see List of women's magazines. Tearlach 10:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I strongly agree with Tearlach, not only the relation to important and well known public figures in Swedish society but also the fact the she is involved in a well known publication makes this article valid for inclusion. The afd and comments appear to be very biased. If she was from the US or the UK and in a similar position this article would most likely not have been nominated. According to the nominators userpage the nominator is a native english speaker, leading me to assume that Ebba von Sydow would not be notable to the nominator. However the fact that she is notable to at least 2 million Swedes does indeed in my opinion make the article worth keeping. It's also in my belief that the article fits very well withing the critera of Creative Professionals as stated in WP:BIO. I also think that each article should be judged by it's on merit not on what the creator may have had deleted in the past. Sweboi 23:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that Sweboi (talk · contribs) has only five edits in the Wikipedia article space. Furthermore, please note that I, the nominator, do not live in the U.S. and am not a U.S. citizen. However, I am also not a Swedish citizen. --Yamla 23:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note also that the Swedish edition of Elle outsells Vecko Revyn in Sweden while the Swedish edition of Cosmopolitan trails. We have no article on the editor of Elle (that is, the international edition, not the editor for the Swedish version) but we do have an article for the editor of the international edition of Cosmopolitan (though again, not for the Swedish edition). This random sample indicates to me that being the editor of a magazine is not necessarily sufficient grounds for notability but may contribute to notability. That this magazine is apparently not notable enough for a Wikipedia article and that no other claim of notability exists in the article makes me believe my nomination was appropriate. Note that no claims as per WP:BIO (creative professionals section) are made in the article itself. --Yamla 23:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am in no way trying to make out that user A is from country B or anything like it, I am trying to point out that certain personalities may not be well known outside a certain geographic area. However they can be very influential inside that area. I would also like to point out that even though I am a Swedish citizen I have spent the majority of my life elsewhere. Sweboi 00:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also fail to see the validity in the argument that sales figures of a publication determines how well known the publication or it's editor is. There are several examples both historical and present of publications that for example are so despicable and vial in content and opinion that they do not sell in larger numbers, they are however well known for being just that, despicable and vial. Hence their editors would also be well known for their contributions, positive or not. I am not saying that the publication in question, or it's editor is good or bad, I am merely pointing out that the sales figures of the magazine in question does not necessarily contribute to the editors notability or lack thereof. Several other factors weigh into the equation of notability. In this case I think that there is a certain amount of notability in this article as pointed out by Tearlach. Sweboi 00:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Very famous person, noted for her columns on fashion and the author of a recent book receiving considerable press coverage. As pointed out by Tearlach, there is no way a person of similar notability in the US or UK would be deleted from Wikipedia.JdeJ 03:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The referenced articles seem to satisfy her WP:BIO criteria of being the subject of an article in a secondary source. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd also like to request that voters restrict their commentary to the notability of the article itself, and refrain from making this a debate about perceived ethnocentrism of Wikipedia or making assumptions about other voters. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm sorry: I overstepped the mark, and got into the area of WP:NPA. But I do think regional/anglocentric bias is something we all need to bear in mind. Tearlach 23:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no intention to make assumptions about other voters, just used the comparison to make it clear that the person is notable. If anybody perceived it as criticism of their contributions, I offer my sincerest apologies. Nothing of the kind was intended, but I should have worded my post better. JdeJ 17:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vordhosbn[edit]

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

It is not necessary to recreate a new article for each single of the album. Shoessss 17:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Corpx 17:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally unecessary article. A1octopus 21:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Masalin Ceramics[edit]

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

Unreferenced. Contributors will not disclose primary sources. Emana 17:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Looks like an advertisement Corpx 20:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as promo and OR (since the author admits it's based on personally conducted interviews). Tearlach 01:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban Socialist Democratic Current[edit]

Cuban Socialist Democratic Current (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I belive this article should be deleted because it is not important enough to be in wikipedia. I did a google search for it here. The top results were wikiedia's and answers.com. This is saying somthing considering the article is a sentance long. The other top sites contained no direct information on the "current" just vague references. Also the only reference for the article is to a non existent page on a free hosting site. -Icewedge 17:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There is a reason for it being unpopular. It is not a legally recognized political party. I'd suspect that the members of this party whish to stay non-notable. -- PMshop 05:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Adams[edit]

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

Prod contested without any improvement to the article. Fails notability and WP:BIO a no non-trivial third party sources are provided. Burntsauce 18:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable Corpx 20:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete article is a single sentence, making no claim of notability for this "former professional wrestling valet" (whatever that is). Pete.Hurd 22:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pending Sourced Article This article did have good (and accurate) content, but unfortunately the content was unsourced, so the nom removed all the unsourced info leaving the article in its current state, then subsequently put it up for Afd. The person does meet WP:BIO guidelines, but that has not been established by the writers of the article. This person was notable in the late 1980s, and per WP:BIO, once a person is notability does not mean that they are no longer notable later in time because they are less notable now than they were 20 years ago; again though, the contributors to the article did not source the article...which is the real problem. I'd suggest deleting it and having it added to the to-do list of the pro-wrestling project. Theophilus75 22:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN: even if the prior version [45] were sourced, she still doesn't look notable beyond inclusion in the Chris Adams (wrestler) article. Tearlach 01:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mentz family[edit]

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

This is a genealogical article about a family which is not notable in the Wikipedia sense, and many of this sort of article have been deleted recently for exactly the same reason BoxCount | Talk 17:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment no real claim of notability, or reliable sources (all references are to mentaclan.com, except for two, one of which is www.fonebiz.co.uk/free-mobile-phone-ringtones/wiki.php?title=Mainz - I don't think free ringtone sites qualify as reliable sources). Pete.Hurd 22:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is a precedent to disqualify genealogical research. Placeholder account 04:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Arbuthnot. DewiMorgan 21:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The precedent was by a Wikipedian who created many dozens and dozens of articles with genealogical data, low quality, full of red links and mutual redirects. Cleanup was a non-trivial and took lot of time. Pavel Vozenilek 03:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prayer Gets Results[edit]

Prayer Gets Results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Isolated article about a CNN item. The content, whether prayer can effectuate healing, is already discussed in depth on prayer, and this article seems to be a content fork. Delete, no grounds for merge. JFW | T@lk 18:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- this is not an article, it's an op-ed. Even the title violates WP:NPOV. -- MisterHand 18:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - appropriate for wikinews, not here. The Evil Spartan 18:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete from Wikipedia. It's possible that it might fit into some other Wikimedia project, but none springs to mind just now. --Tony Sidaway 18:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —C.Fred (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner in popular culture[edit]

Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I prodded this: and it was removed. This is both cruft, and very trivial. How exactly is a list of mentions/references to these popular characters...helpful? This "popular culture" nonsense needs a lot of cleaning. Why exactly is Wikipedia turning into a mention/appearance guide for just about everything and anything? Exhibit A: Category:Fictional works in popular culture. Exhibit B: Category:In popular culture. Better guidelines need to be made for this, otherwise it's just going to get a lot worse. I know from past experiences with these types of articles: people move a big section from a main article into a new article. While that's not always the case: it still seems to be the case a lot of the time. CONDENSE the section if possible, before just moving it to a new cluttered article. Not everything notable should have a "pop culture" article, which ends up as listcruft, trivia and just clutter. RobJ1981 18:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep article was split out from the main article. Could do with a cleanup/sourcing though. Lugnuts 18:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My point is already proven then. It seems like people would rather split an article into other ones, instead of condensing very trivial sections. I've heard that cleanup/sourcing excuse many times in AFDs: a lot of the time it never happens. RobJ1981 18:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Splitting an article due to overcrowding of encyclopedic information is one thing - forking out a batch of fluff to trim down the parent article is another. Excised junk should head to the garbage bin, not recycled into its own content. No offense toward those who have contributed effort to this article, but a laundry list of trivial mentions/appearances is hardly encyclopedic. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - indiscriminate list and directory of loosely-associated topics, in violation of at least two provisions of WP:NOT. A list of every time someone mentions the coyote or the road runner in some other medium, with no regard to the importance of the mention either in the medium from which it's drawn or the real world, does not belong in an encyclopedia. Otto4711 00:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If any are truly notable they should be in the parent articles. Forking off an '... in popular culture' sub-article is not an adequate response to an overflowing of trivia. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but include the most significant examples (if there are any) in the main article. Masaruemoto 05:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Meep, meep? Maybe worth throwing this article off a cliff and dropping an anvil on it then... Lugnuts 11:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Storm[edit]

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

Prod contested without imoprovement. Non notable independent wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney303 18:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Agree with nom, fails WP:BIO. Theophilus75 23:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete couldn't find anything tangible about this wrestler. Govvy 11:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (talk | meet) 23:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Wayne Patriots[edit]

Fort Wayne Patriots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prodded twice as a non-notable group. Prod was deleted twice by the same editor, with no improvements or attempts to establish notability. BierHerr 18:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no assertion of notability on any of the versions in history, not even a link to the homepage, where the initial intro was lifted from verbatim. --Darkbane 18:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Blatant advertising. Blueboy96 19:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as spam. DarkAudit 22:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. There are (granted, slim) bio notes here and here as well as here. As to the Accelerators disclaimer of reliability cited by [[User:One Night In Hackney, this seems more a pro forma legal disclaimer rather than an actual admission of unreliability; the home page states "...this page now is one of the top wrestling information sites on the Internet". The truth is probably somewhere in the middle but there's no reason to completely disregard material on the site. Yes the Delete arguments are well taken but the Delete commentors just do not provide the "Phoenix Fury Leg Drop" killer finishing move. Herostratus 04:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sal Rinauro[edit]

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

Prod contested without improvement. Non notable wreslter, no evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO One Night In Hackney303 18:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - isn't ROH considered to be upper-level indy these days? Even so, his ring name gets just over 700 hits, which is less than one random local worker I checked gets - if he breaks into the big companies, then maybe an article will be merited. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The article is unsourced, though the article provides links to two other websites that could be sources. Additionally, he has won the tag team title in both of the two biggest independent promotions in the US (the 3rd and 4th largest US wrestling promotions). Theophilus75 21:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is a more then notable indy worker, appearing on several ROH DVDs. Kris 16:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral He's done more than some and appeared all over the place as his title history shows. However he has never (to the best of my knowledge) been booked as anything other than a mid-carder in small territories and a jobber-to-the-stars in RoH. There's no way of providing a lot of sources as Rinauro is kinda unremarkable. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 19:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Are wrestlers considered athletes or entertainers under BIO? Either way, I don't see any decent sources or other compelling argument to keep. Plus, that picture alone is almost enough to make me support deletion.--Kubigula (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per consensus. Redirect is unecessary since the title has POV issues. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious_degree_scams[edit]

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

Original Research, the creator of the article seems to have created it as a general essay on fraudulent degrees. Does not have the tone or form of an encyclopedia article, instead it's an essay from start to finish. As noted in Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day "Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance" Wingsandsword 18:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contested prod. WP:OR delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Evil Spartan (talk • contribs) 18:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Redirect to degree mill, purging current content. Original research as per WP:NOR: "introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source" --Darkbane 18:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to degree mill. Subject is adequately covered there. Blueboy96 19:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe that this article meets Wikipedia standards. It is not original research, and all key facts are referenced in the text of the article via links to sources, or via APA format to the footnotes and links there. - I dispute deletion of this article for those reasons. Thank you. PURFOEB 20:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: In the future, please add new comments to the bottom of the AfD. Thank you. -- Seed 2.0 21:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: PURFOEB is also the creator of the article. --Darkbane 21:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reads like an essay, sourcing is problematic. The article would require a major rewrite to remove unencyclopedic content which is inherently problematic with regard to WP:NPOV. The same goes for incorporating the good parts into another article. Hmm, I suppose one could make a case for soft deletion but as it stands now, I'm afraid it's either major rewrite or delete. -- Seed 2.0 22:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is redirecting not an option? A cursory read of it reveals it's pretty much the same material as degree mill. I was tempted to be bold and redirect it myself ... but wanted to see what the others thought before doing so.Blueboy96 22:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am the creator of the article - which was my first attemt to write for wikipedia. My original impression was that I had met the wiki article standard, but as I read the comments here, and look more into the wikipedia style pages - I agree this is too much of an essay. -- So... do I just delete it myself, or what? Thanks for the input/comments. PURFOEB 02:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentIn those kinds of cases, where no noteworthy contributions except for your own exist, you can usually blank the page and place a db-author template, which will put the article up for speedy deletion "requested by author". --Darkbane 02:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research essay, and redundant with the diploma mill article. (Pretty good essay though; hope to see more from the author that meets standards.) The article's creator wants it deleted. Now that the article is in AfD, however, it's too late to blank it and put a {{db-author}} tag in it for speedy deletion. -Axlq 04:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge some parts with degree mill perhaps. Otherwise, Delete, but hug author. DewiMorgan 20:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scary Movie 6[edit]

Scary Movie 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Scary Movie 5 is not even out yet and already a page on Scary Movie 6? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, unsourced and very little content. Atlan (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No verifiable information available for the next couple of years, thus no chance of article having any relevant content. Create again when information released. --Darkbane 18:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete way too early at this stage of production to have an article. Blueboy96 19:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as violating WP:V, and protected redirect to Scary Movie to prevent further crystal balling. --Kinu t/c 21:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete. Why would you delete this article? There are pages for films that will be released way after 2009 to 2010. -  GTAGeek123  talk  20:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: GTAGeek123 is the author of the article in question. Here is an example of a movie expected in 2010. Notice how much more verifiable information it contains. It's also notable for featuring Antonio Banderas. Many other future movies are the same. Here is a movie expected in 2009. It has thirteen references and three pages of text. That's quite a bit more than what this article has. Right now there isn't a single reference in it, it does not have an IMDB entry, and Google only turns up a fan trailer. Once there is enough valid information available to substantiate an article though, it should be created. --Darkbane 22:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Heh, didn't we just do this with Scary Movie 5 like a month ago? Will the Propellerheads be featured on the soundtrack? ;) Seriously though, the reason that article eventually made it through DRV was that there were new sources (and there's a reason why the editing history wasn't recreated). This article doesn't have any sources. Seed 2.0 22:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as complete crystalballism. There's no proof that the movie will even be made. DarkAudit 22:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:Crystal ball. No verifiable information available since even the fifth one hasn't been released yet. --Nehrams2020 04:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough material known and it is still a good 3 years away. --JForget 19:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pure speculation. Punkmorten 20:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fine, I guess since Scary Movie 5 isnt even out yet, that the page should maybe be recreated when more information about the film comes out. -  GTAGeek123  talk  20:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I think that this discussion is over and that the page is ready to be deleted.  GTAGeek123  talk  20:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then why did you add a link to Scary Movie 6 on the Scary Movie 5 page moments later? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.--Atlan (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, more of the same crystal balling. RFerreira 06:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the reason I put a link to Scary Movie 6 on the Scary Movie 5 page is because I thought visitors of the scary movie 5 page might wanna know about the little details surrounding Scary Movie 6. I think it makes perfect sense. -GTAGeek123 23:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if you want the page deleted, the last thing you want to do is have other pages link to it. It just means someone has to remove those links again later on.--Atlan (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And ill be the one to delete them, and besides its just one page...-GTAGeek123 22:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hilal-e-Istaqlal[edit]

Hilal-e-Istaqlal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

EXTREMELY POV, non-encyclopedic, little demonstration of notability, no sources. Hilal-e-istaqlal was already deleted once, though I can't remember what the content was. PROD tag removed without explanation. Miskwito 18:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Possibly merge somewhere with Flag of Pakistan or another appropriate article. My main issue with this article is that is has almost nothing to do with the subject. However, the flag itself seems to be part of a notable Pakistani military ceremony, so the fact that it exists could probably find a home somewhere in another article. Someguy1221 22:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just to clarify, when I said merge, I only meant merge the one whole sentence on the flag itself. Someguy1221 22:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hopelessly POV soapboxery. DarkAudit 22:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  15:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Its unabashed enthusiasm for its subject doesn't make up for its lack of any other merit. Nick mallory 15:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Completely agree article is appallingly written and un-encyclopedic, so if it is not deleted a lot of its content will need to be. BobFromBrockley 14:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this could be included after a re-write, but I just wanted to let you know that the AfD template was removed from the article. I restored it, but those watching this debate may want to keep an eye out. Slavlin 15:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - but is it bad enough to be included in the humour archive maybe? DewiMorgan 20:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

List of the writings of William Monahan[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 Speedy close. This isn't a delete request, its a merge discussion, the nominator states as much in the nomination, stating he sees "no good reason for a list of Monahan's works to be separated from the main William Monahan article". The recent deletion debate was closed with a note that if you want to merge you go ahead and merge, and I'm looking at the edit history of the article and I can see no attempt to merge. There's no merge discussion on the talk page either. AFD isn't dispute resolution, and if you want to sort this out I suggest you get a mediator in. I can't see any value in rerunning this debate so soon after the last debate, Wikipedia is not a game, you don't keep playing until you get the end you want. Take time out, see if you can agree on a merge discussion after listing at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, try the steps at dispute resolution and thenm if that all fails come back in a couple of months after it's all been tried seriously and with good faith. Hiding Talk 22:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of the writings of William Monahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page was previously nominated, and the result was no consensus. There is no good reason for a list of Monahan's works to be separated from the main William Monahan article. This list is basically a resume for its author. It fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and many, if not all, of the writings fail WP:NOTE, as not a single writing listed in the article in question has its own Wikipedia page. Also should be noted that a similar debate over the Awards of Aaron Sorkin and another one over the a list of Bruno Maddox's writings were both deleted after debates. Also, no page except for the main William Monahan article links to this list (excluding two redirects), and one author has been the only person to edit this page (with the exception of the two nominations)Black Harry 18:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC). I would like to also add that WP:NOT#REPOSITORY applies here because this list simply links to outside websites. Black Harry (T|C) 16:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Harry, I am much more interested in why you personally would like to delete this list (for the second time)?-BillDeanCarter 20:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its nothing against you, I just don't think that the "no consensus" In the first debate was the right decision. I would have been ok with a keep in the first debate, but the closing admin didn't have the fortitude to make a definitive decision. And also, check again cuz I wasn't the one who nominated the first one Black Harry 21:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close this nomination as far too soon. The original AfD debate closed nine days ago. If the nominator disagrees with the closure of that debate then an appropriate course of action is to bring it up on deletion review but renominating it here so fast is silly. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until WP adopts a policy of a waiting period, there is none. I think there ought to be one, but apparently the WP gurus don't, and they make the rules. A speedy close would be to impose by fiat a time limit that consensus has failed to establish. That said, the nomination is on the table and this list should go back to the bio and be deleted; if the list is too voluminous for the article, then pare it down to the essentials, or cut other less important fluff from the bio. Carlossuarez46 22:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may be the case that there are no time limits, but there are ways of handling cases like this where someone disagrees with the closing of a debate, and that's deletion review. Arbitrarily saying "Hey, I don't think this was closed right" and dropping it back here at AfD so soon is, in my opinion, a little unilateral of a decision and is improper. That's all. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the nomination of any article for deletion unilateral? Black Harry (T|C) 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - disruptive to reopen so quickly; also, please indicate how this fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY - do you believe all articles listing works by an author are somehow "directories?" Likewise, notability is criteria for the subject of the article, and I note this subject has a feature article that recently ran on the front page - he is notable. Please, to bring something again this quickly you should have some new information or change in analysis, not just a desire to try again. These points were vetted before.A Musing 22:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that a list of the writings of an author is appropriate where either A) the writings are notable and well-known, or B) A majority of the writings have their own Wikipages. Clearly, this sin't the case when it comes to this particular page. This debate, to me at least, has nothing to do with the author's notability (though he is more famous for his screenplays than anything else), and has everything to do with the notability of items on the list. Black Harry 01:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So the key issue is notability of the items on the list, not the directory argument. I see one element of support for this in guidelines, which is the notion that lists of people should be lists of notable people (e.g., a list of English poets ought not include non-notable poets). That guideline has a specific purpose, as it keeps those major lists from become unwieldy. This list is by its nature the work of a single person and not likely to become unwieldy, and I'd apply the same criteria we apply to an article to it. We don't apply notability criteria within an article. Can you point me to any reason why we should eliminate the list based on policy, having heard my objections to the policy reasons you've cited thus far?A Musing 15:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of nit-picking my argument, and criticizing me for not doing what you ask, why don't you explain why this fork from the William Monahn article is necessary. Black Harry (T|C) 16:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You nominated it for removal; you need to make an argument why it should be removed. Nothing on Wikipedia is necessary - but this is a good faith contribution by a contributor and should not be removed unless there is a good reason to do so. If someone wants to put it in an article, or separately in a list, that is up to the editors.A Musing 16:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, as the article links to no wiki pages, but to outside sources, it fails WP:NOT#REPOSITORY Black Harry (T|C) 17:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above; this debate is surely being held to soon after the last. I'm an inclusionist, but certainly under other denominations this list must be kept. --Phoenix 22:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, cite me a policy where any amount of time is given for a waiting period for a renomination. Second, under what other denominations does this need to be kept? Black Harry (T|C) 17:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, under that argument, articles such as List of Women Wilt Chamberlain Slept With, List of women beaten by Brett Myers, or List of men who slept with Paris Hilton wold be perfectly fine. Perhaps you, or another man who gets a high off of lists would enjoy writing those articles. Also, WP:NOTE#Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content specifically states the following: "list articles like List of English writers are expected to include only notable writers." I shouldn't have to explain what this means. Black Harry 01:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep As per above. Why are we wasting time with this? The last AfD was less then two weeks ago. - Shudda talk 23:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You wasted your time with this because the Bill Carter has a fetish for lists, and notified you and your ilk who defended this previously so that he keep his pet project alive. I wasted my time b/c I feel this list is unnecessary, and there is no policy concerning any waiting period Black Harry 01:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the following reasons.
  • Procedural:
  • This was discussed a mere nine days ago. Another discussion is not going to elicit a manifestly different result unless s/he has new information or arguments (I have seen none as of yet). If Black Harry disagreed with the result of the decision, he should have taken the issue up with deletion review, as Arkyan pointed out.
  • Substantive:
  • This is the definition of "directory" from WP:NOT#DIRECTORY: "Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules, programme lists, etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages." - In no way does this page qualify as a directory under this definition.
  • This is the first sentence from WP:NOTE: "All topics should meet a minimum threshold of notability for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Notability guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles." - I would argue that this list is essentially a fork from the William Monahan article, which clearly passes the notability standard. Not everything about Monahan has to be notable and not every Monahan writing has to be notable to be included, but Monahan himself has to be notable to be included in wikipedia. He has been proven to be notable as a writer, therefore a list of his writings is important to a complete article about him. Because that complete list would be unaesthetic on the main article page, the editor has (rightly, in my opinion) decided to separate it from the main article.
  • I am sorry that the list of writings of Bruno Maddox was deleted. That is why I think that it is important to consider what is being done here and why. The editors nominating these pages seem to feel that these authors lack "fame" or "importance." But their personal opinion regarding an artist's importance is not what is relevant in this debate (please see WP:NOTE). What is relevant is what reliable sources say (WP:RS). Literary and art critics study art of all kinds; they no longer elevate "great" authors, for example. For wikipedia to do so by eliminating lists of this sort would be to place it in the dark ages, essentially; it would certainly be POV and would not reflect the current state of scholarship on authorship. Awadewit Talk 23:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you argue that this article doesn't violate WP:NOT#REPOSITORY? Black Harry (T|C) 16:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I quote from WP:NOT#REPOSITORY: "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files." - I do not see how any of 1-4 applies to this page - which one do you see applying? Awadewit Talk 18:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say point number one, especially for the section on the Claude La Badarian stories. Black Harry (T|C) 18:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that the links actually enhance this article rather than detract from it, since its purpose is to give readers access to the work. But, more importantly, I would say that WP:MOS (list of works) rather negates this entire debate. It lays out exactly how to display a list a bibliography, a discography, a filmography, etc., thereby implying that such lists are acceptable. It also states "Bibliographies are included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other people who have published books, or substantial portions of books" - note, bibliographies are always complete, not incomplete, representative lists. Awadewit Talk 19:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to find the that section in the manual of style, but couldn't. But from what you quoted, it says nothing about a bibliography needing to be forked from its proper article. Black Harry (T|C) 19:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the link above. No, it does not say that the bibliography needs to be forked, but it does provide advice on making it readable and aesthetic and that is precisely what BillDeanCarter is doing. In fact, he is following much of the advice laid out on that page (even if he didn't know about it). To have the entire bibliography on the article's main page would be unsightly, as it would be for Charles Dickens (who wrote numerous novels, short stories, magazine articles and co-authored many other pieces of literature). Although more famous, I consider this list no different than List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven. Note that the Ludwig van Beethoven article does not include this entire list (again, it would be unsightly). It rightly forks it. Awadewit Talk 20:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would putting the bibliography at the bottom of the main article make it unreadable. It's a very different scenario than List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven because that list is 4 times the size of the one in question. Black Harry (T|C) 20:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looks like BillDeanCarter is violating WP:CANVASS again. See examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. As of my noting this, five of the people he informed have all voted to keep this article. Black Harry 00:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, Black Harry, you should respond to the arguments made above? Awadewit Talk 01:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, Carter could play by the rules, and not notify those who will defend his pet projects. Black Harry 01:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that wikipedia encourages editors who have worked extensively on a page that has reached FA to keep it up and even to improve it. That is what I see BillDeanCarter doing. Yes, he should notify everyone, but I still have yet to see you, Black Harry, respond to the arguments against your deletion. I think you should focus on engaging in the debate. So far, your arguments have not been relevant nor based on wikipedia policy as I understand it. Awadewit Talk 04:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, wiki policy does encourage notification of interested editors, but here is the exact message that Carter left User:Phoenix2 "Phoenix, would you mind chiming in with a Keep again? This list unfortunately 9 days later has been renominated for deletion." This crosses the line from notification to canvassing, and the similiar messages were left to the other users. Black Harry (T|C) 16:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are not responding. I agreed with you that BillDeanCarter "should notify everyone." But let us move on from this petty canvassing debate to the substance of the charge - you claim that the page violates WP:NOTE and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. You must defend your position and explain why those charges apply. I believe that I have shown why they do not. I have responded to your other claim above. Awadewit Talk 18:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to work on this list.-BillDeanCarter 02:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind coming back here to support the retention of this list; I think it's a worthy cause. For your sixth "victim" of canvassing, I think you intended to link to me, not here. --Phoenix 03:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another "canvassed" person chiming in. I think when someone violates wikipedia policy to renominate an article for deletion, informing others who may have an interest in the article is legit. Lurker 09:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And exactly what policy did I break when renominating this? Black Harry 12:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You renominated after 9 days, rather than takign it to Deletion Review Lurker 13:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have deletion reviewed it, however the only thing I could have challenged was if the timing of the closing was appropriate, not the decision of the closing admin. I have no problem with the timing, but I felt that the closing admin made a bad call. perhaps he wanted to outright keep it, but since 2/3 of the votes were for delete or merge, he thought he couldn't get away with an outright keep, he would declare no consensus, which led to a "back-door" keep. Black Harry (T|C) 17:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DRV states Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly. I recommend closing this AfD' and letting anyone who thinks the original decision was dodgy following the steps outlined in WP:DRV- namely contacting the closing admin and asking him to reconsider, and taking it to Deletion Review if you can't sort it out through direct discussion Lurker 17:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining that to me. I understand what you're saying, but do you honestly think a deletion review would work, especially if the original closing admin were the one in charge? Black Harry (T|C) 17:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it'd work. And I'd assume a different admin would be the one in charge of implementing the consensus. Lurker 18:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The notified the previous debate's closing admin about this renomination and asked for an explanation of the no consensus. Black Harry (T|C) 18:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Per reasons listed many times above way too soon. Lurker 09:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • VERY STRONG DELETE I feel this article is an unnecessary list of writings with little or no significance. The important ones should be placed in the main William Monahan Article, and this silly list and its redirects get deleted. Wikipedia isn't a directory, and I'd say that this qualifies as a directory. It might not be a phonebook but it simply lists writings which do not have their own articles.
And in the interest of full disclosure, I notified the users who voted to delete in the first debate, to help counter Carter's notification of users who voted to keep, so WP:CANVAS no longer applies to this debate, though Carter's actions may merit a review. I also think he could have been more open about what he did, and mentioned his notifications in this debate instead of waiting until he got caught to defend himself. WhiteKongMan 13:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think all bibliographies are directories? Would a list of all the works of Shakespeare or Dickens be a directory? A Musing 14:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, because Shakespeare's list wold more than likely link to other articles, whereas the Monahan one doesn't. And it was brought up in the firsr debate that Dickens (and also Hemingway) don't have lists for there writings, though they are more notable than Monahan. WhiteKongMan 14:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on Shakespeare we do several better, with a whole portal, categories, a template of his complete works pasted on multiple articles, and a List of Shakespearean characters. The question is, what makes this list a directory, when that Shakespeare list is not, and when you don't think a list of Shakespeare's works or Dickens works would be. If it is merely that there are articles on wikipedia, does that mean that a list of all the towns in New York would not be a directory? Or a list of all the actors in Hollywood? Aren't those much more like directories, as you read through the guideline on directories, than this?A Musing 15:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Each entry on the list doesn't have to be notable on a bibliography. Editors here claim that they want a bibliography for Charles Dickens. I suggest that they go look for a bibliography of Charles Dickens (wikipedia currently doesn't have one). It will contain plenty of "non-notable" works to their eyes (meaning only that they have never heard of them because Dickens was a journalist and wrote a lot of material that we don't read anymore). This is all so silly - these people are included in wikipedia because they are writers. One of the most basic pieces of information is a list of what they wrote. I can't imagine why we would not want to include that. The same is true of composers. Do we only list Beethoven's "famous" pieces? Which are those? Deciding such a thing would lead to POV. I really cannot believe that this position is being argued. Bibliographies are basic pieces of information for any author. Awadewit Talk 18:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ample reliable and verifiable sources demonstrate notability of the list. I don't buy the "offsetting penalties" logic in implying that two people canvassing opposing sides of the debate cancels out the issue. It would seem that both parties have violated WP:CANVAS. Alansohn 14:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only informed users to help counter the effect of Carter's canvassing, it seemed to be the only way to make this debate fair. I also made it clear that informed the users, and didn't try to hide it. WhiteKongMan 14:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, WhiteKongMan. Entirely appropriate and the proper remedy for canvassing. I had urged Mr. Carter to do the same when I received a note on my page.A Musing 16:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Amusing for trying to make this a fair debate by telling carter what he did wrong. I didn't realize you did that Black Harry (T|C) 18:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only one that finds this whole thing weird? I'm simply trying to do a bibliography about one of Hollywood's more prominent writers this decade, and I spend more time arguing the validity of literature. My Machiavellian moves (this is sarcasm) were to counter Black Harry's inexplicable desire to consistently eliminate a list of William Monahan's writings. I came to Wikipedia to write articles but I seem to have found myself in the loony section. I think it's time to have a WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY so that these arguments can come into focus.-BillDeanCarter 19:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against Monahan having a bibliography of his own. But when none of his stories are notable enough to have their own articles, I don't see why a list of them merits its own page. The bibliography belongs on the article. Black Harry (T|C) 19:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The quick response is: aesthetics. The long response: Merge back, more than double the length of the main Monahan article, debate forking bibliography versus paring it down, then return to where we once were (here). (Side Note: The Dickens bibliography will still be nonexistent, while in an alternate time-line you could actually expend energy creating it)-BillDeanCarter 19:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on, your math is confusing my non-creative, destructive brain (I can be sarcastic too you little shit). But any way, the Monahan article is currently 43 KB long, while the list is 12 KB long. How does adding the two together double the size of the Monahan article? Grow up and learn how to do math, you stupid S.O.B. Black Harry (T|C) 20:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aesthetics is a legitimate argument while notability is not. Sometimes a writer is known for writing in a particular genre but not another genre (to the general public) but that does not make his/her other writings uninteresting. Black Harry, you seem to be assuming that users only want a superficial understanding of each subject and only want to reinforce what they already know - why would they not want to learn something new about William Monahan, for example? Why include only his "famous" works which readers will already come to the page knowing about? Some of us want more than that and wikipedia has a unique opportunity to educate readers. BillDeanCarter, you should check out WP:LOW, which describes how to write a bibliography, discography, etc. I have already invoked it above. I believe that many of your concerns are addressed there. Perhaps a sentence could be added about the necessity of forking at times (this would have to be discussed on the talk page, of course). Obviously many editors have already done this, so there is a lot of precedent (there is even a category, as you know). In fact, the page itself references some lists already. All of which should demonstrate to those debating here that this is an accepted and necessary practice amongst those of us who write about art and artists. Awadewit Talk 20:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Normally I'd consider this too soon for another AfD as well, but like the nom I think the closing admin's call on the first AfD was a bad one. There were over two-thirds consensus against keeping the article, but since some editors typed "Delete" and some "Merge" and delete, the admin waffled. That aside, gosh, I wonder why user:BillDeanCarter curiously left me off his canvassing list?  RGTraynor  17:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a straight vote or do the best arguments win? Because I would say that the "delete" votes both then and now have flawed reasoning. Awadewit Talk 18:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per RGTraynor; I too believe the first AfD was incorrectly closed (I did not participate in it, so this is not "sour grapes"). As to the substance, this is a laundry list of notable and non-notable works; the more prominent ones should be in the main article, and there should be a link to a more comprehensive bibliography elsewhere: Wikipedia is not the right place for attempting exhaustive bibliographies, directories, statistical compilations, etc. --MCB 17:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTE says "Notability guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles."-BillDeanCarter 18:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is precisely the place for a bibliography of a writer since that bibliography (in toto) is what made them notable. Furthermore, wikipedia is not paper which allows us to include these bibliographies rather than limit ourselves to a mere mention of a few works (which would inevitably fail to represent the writer's oeuvre). Awadewit Talk 18:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what about WP:NOT#REPOSITORY? I haven't heard a response to that one yet Black Harry (T|C) 18:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC) I retract that statement having not seen the reply above Black Harry (T|C) 18:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I was going to post a notice at the WikiProjectBooks, WikiProjectFilms and WikiProjectMusic (other suggestions welcome) regarding this AfD because I felt that the editors who participate in those projects are the ones most invested in these sorts of pages. I thought it only right to solicit the opinions of a broad range of people who use these sorts of lists. Since I do not personally know their opinions regarding this issue, I do not believe this is canvassing, but I thought that other editors might interpret it as such. I wanted to post this query before I posted the notices. Do you think it is canvassing to ask other editors who may have in the past created bibliographies both within pages and as separate articles to weigh in on this AfD? Awadewit Talk 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead, they would be able to help solve this. And thanks for asking us before you did so Black Harry (T|C) 20:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A plea for some civility[edit]

  • Given that this page has degenerated into name calling and charges of incest,[46], I have opened a report at WP:ANI. Please, people, let's calm down and discuss this rationally.A Musing 20:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it's reasonable to list at an obvious wikiproject, and to notify people (like myself) who participated in the earlier AfD. I even think it would be wrong not to notify everyone from the first debate, and of course all should have been notified. (Otherwise it looks like one is trying to avoid earlier people in the hope of a different decision. Trying for a wider audience seems particularly important after a no consensus--it's not trying to upset the earlier decision, but to get a decision, & the wider participation the better. I was notified, but I would have seen this AfD in any case a few hours later. DGG 20:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in spite of the rapid re-nomination, because the earlier one was a no consensus, not a decision. i think the article is absurd,; A separate article for such a list is out of proportion entirely, and a very bad precedent. We have tens of thousands of articles on people of much greater distinction without a separate article.
The man is important, and he has an article. If any of his works can be shown to be important enough to have an article by itself, it could. But that's no reason to have two. Only the most exceptional authors indeed with the longest number of works make sense for that. After all, he is just a journalist who became an important screenwriter. Perhaps he actually has hundreds of items, not just the 30 listed here--many active journalists do, for they write one a week. I wouldn't think it reasonable to include them all either in the article or a separate article. That sort of coverage is for a specialized bibliography, not a general encyclopedia. I have no animus about the man or the article. But I really wonder at such a duplicative article: WP is NOT A FANZINE. I would like an article on every even moderately significant writer--I am certainly an inclusionist about this; but i would like one article, not two. DGG 20:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the list is a legitimate fork of the main Monahan article.
    • While the list may only be 12kB it is in fact half as long as the main article itself because of its list format. Therefore it causes aesthetic problems in the main article. As well, it is not yet complete, and it can be expected to double or triple in length. That is the reason for the fork.
    • It complies with WP policies. It follows the List of Works criteria WP:LOW#Ordering where it is stated that lists should flow chronologically and sometimes be split into groups to keep series together like the Claude La Badarian stories, or articles that were all specific to a publisher.
    • Monahan's bibliography is the reason he has an article at Wikipedia, so it's important to have a clear idea of what he wrote, for whom, and in what numbers.
    • per WP:NOTE which says "Notability guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles." meaning that each individual article does not have to be notorious to be included in the list.-BillDeanCarter 21:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is essentially the logic that led me to create this list.-BillDeanCarter 21:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How To Make a Movie for 200 Dollars[edit]

How To Make a Movie for 200 Dollars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As near as I can tell, it's a pet project of Kevin Kline and Phoebe Cates teenage son that never got off the ground. No IMDB entry. All the web references seem to be stale and/or written be Kline himself. Created by an SPA (Kline himself?) - Richfife 19:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as crystally. The article in its present state is nothing but speculation. IMDB is not at all a reliable source, but even key grips have their own pages. What does it say for this film when it isn't even mentioned there? And, i thought they took everything. --Cyrus Andiron 19:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Tough go to prove notability if it's not even on IMDB. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:CRYSTAL. Cool Bluetalk to me 01:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:Crystal Ball; "rumored" isn't a good way to go. --Nehrams2020 04:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. If it ever gets released, it can have an article then! BobFromBrockley 14:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 13:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Attack[edit]

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

Non-notable game. Article is unsourced and I was unable to locate any reliable secondary sources. Prod was contested with message "lots and lots of g-hits for game." Chunky Rice 19:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lots of G-hits for the game, yes. And other games that seem to have the same name. WP:WEB requires multiple, non-trivial references, at a minimum, but there's nothing in the article now, and I doubt this would make the other guidelines either. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 19:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I removed the original prod because of the number of g-hits (110,000). While I'm aware that sheer number of g-hits don't make a subject meet WP:NOTABILITY, I find it hard to believe that in there aren't any non-trivial sources in any of those g-hits. (Not to mention magazines, etc.) Yes, the article needs a complete rewrite and sources, but I don't believe it's a hopeless case.--Kathy A. 21:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are really only about 500 hits on google [47]. And not all those are even about this game. Those that are are mostly sites hosting the game itself or forum posts. I did look through several pages of google hits and found no reliable sources.Chunky Rice 21:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yep - I get that many Google hits, and I'm hardly what one would call notable. And quotes around a phrase are important when counting hits! DewiMorgan 20:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by User:David Fuchs. Log PeaceNT 14:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Altered (Movie Series)[edit]

Altered (Movie Series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence that this film's star even exists--or even that this film exists. In any case, it's way too early at this stage of production for this to merit an article. Blueboy96 19:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can't find any indication that the person mentioned as the creator has any notability whatsoever, nor is there anything out there to suggest the movie will. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Completely non-notable. The reason you can't find anything is these aren't real films, they are computer films generated using the computer game The Movies. Ben W Bell talk 21:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to self: learn to read. The article even says that. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, salt it ... or is it too early to do so?Blueboy96 23:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Original author has removed the text body since the AfD tag. MDonfield 13:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just tagged it for speedy deletion, per G7.Blueboy96 21:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. While the keep advocates pointed out that things like Kennedy family, Kapoor family, etc have a history as a family, the key point is that those articles have a prose body which summarises the activities and evolutions of the family through history, while this article is not, as pointed out by the nominator. Of course, a prodified version created in future with the relevant details of the family's evolution, will provide something useful that a category alone, eg one for a fmaily or dynasty, would not. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbuthnot family[edit]

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

We have a long tradition of not doing genealogical articles. This article is simply a list of articles created by one Arbuthnot about his ancestors. Many of the articles included are of dubious notability anyway. Further we already have Category:Arbuthnot family linking them all.--Docg 19:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't even come close to meriting its own article, even though there are numerous articles on political families (see Kennedy family, Taft family, etc.)Blueboy96 20:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the family has plenty of notable members, so it's notable to have its own article with the family history. But currently it's just a list of its members, which isn't very helpful, considering the existence of the category for such things. bogdan 20:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:per nomination Giano 20:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a genealogy site. Ancestry.com would be a better venue for the listing of all one's ancestors and sisters and cousins and aunts. At least dfrom reading it I know that the name is pronounced far from the way I would have thought, apparently "ah-BUTH-n't" rather than "ARR-buth-not." Wonder if the UK pronunciation has survived on this side of the pond. In any event, the category seems sufficient to link the family members who are notable to have articles for reasons besides simply being a member of the family. Edison 20:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answer. In the UK, the emphasis is on the second syllable, the third syllable being a very short "nert". In North America, the emphasis is often on the first syllable, the third syllable being pronounced "not". The descendants of James Lycurgus Arbuthnot pronounce the name "Arbernot" which is not otherwise heard. (Arbuthnot has a different value from Arbernot under the soundex system). - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wikipedia is not a genealogical site Pete.Hurd 22:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete far more notable family articles have been axed. Carlossuarez46 22:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are articles on other prominent families that act as disambiguation pages just like this. This is not genealogy at all. Its a disambiguation page. Genealogy would be me writing about my grandmother. This is history. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The person who created this article is presumably Kittybrewster, an Arbuthnot who wrote almost all (if not all) Arbuthnot articles. Phony Saint 00:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answer. Many - not all. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and use this article as a merge target: "Wikipedia-is-not-for-genealogy" seems to be excellent advice if it is understood as "don't write about your otherwise unremarkable grandfather the Wisconsin farmer and his obscure siblings and their boat trip from Norway that was more or less identical to that of millions of others". I don't think it should apply to articles on old well-documented families that have produced several, sometimes dozens, of individually notable members over several centuries, or families that have some collective importance through major land holdings, noble titles or long-established investment banks or other businesses. There are articles on the Medici, Fugger, Rothschild family, Kennedy family, Bush family, Roosevelt family, Astor family, Du Pont family, and many others, including obviously a number of royal and lesser ruling dynasties. I think one can have an article on an ancient Scottish family that has produced a long series of peers, has held a couple of baronetcies, and includes fourteen members notable enough even for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.

    Even if many of the current articles on Arbuthnots are going to be deleted, at least a couple of dozen seem likely to remain, as will the articles on the Arbuthnot viscountcy and the Arbuthnot baronetcies and the two notable businesses that have been run by Arbuthnots. A better idea than deleting all of these pages would be to merge the most basic info on most of those sort-of-semi-notable Arbuthnots and all those who are mainly genealogical links into this article, add one of those nice "family tree" templates (see Template:Familytree, exemplified in the Roosevelt family article) and make it an overview linking the actually notable members and branches to one another. That is information not easily available now. (I also think it would be reasonable to merge Viscount of Arbuthnott and Arbuthnot Baronets with this article, if space allows that.)

    The category is far less useful for this, and should probably be deleted, as should many other family categories. The basis for these categories is still genealogical, but while an article can take chronology and relationships into account in the presentation, may include sourcing and mention when exact genealogical connections are conjectures, none of this is possible with a category. Pharamond 05:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all sure though these people are in fact related. I beleive some merely share the same surname. If all Arbuthnots are related I wonder how many globally are aware of their good fortune. Of course though we are all descended from Adam, so in that case.....Giano 08:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge as proposed by Pharamond above. Catchpole 12:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Pharamond's suggestion makes sense, if these persons function in a dynastic unit. Astors and Rockefellers and Roosevelts and Kennedys are unusual in acting as a chronologically close unit. On the other hand, the various Percys, scattered across 400 years, do not. In other words, we can have an article on "Astors" because it meant something to be one. For some reason, there was a culture and purpose imparted to the group, and whoever lives now with the name is no longer acting like a part of a single organism that is "the Astors." For the family to have an entry, the family needs to have an identity and character in history. I cannot see anything like that in these various articles that have been up so far. The only common link is military service and wealth. Furthermore, as Giano says, Doctor Arbuthnot, who made a huge splash on the world (invented John Bull), isn't actually in the line kittybrewster wanted to gild. No. The articles involved are preserved here not because of a family historical identity but because they reproduced with the aim of producing the glorious contemporary heirs. Geogre 12:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Limiting myself to the family to which both the peerage and the baronetcies appear to belong, I am assuming that the issue of social reproduction determined almost every important decision, and that already existing family connections was perhaps the most important single factor in the social success of any individual family member. When many individual members of even minor branches of such a family succeeded in various fields, I would normally assume that their genealogical network is at least a background factor that enabled them to build the platform (get an education, get their first commission, etc.) from which to start their career. Pharamond 14:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, it is merely the position of wealth and access to cultural resources that is at stake, and, in such a case, we do not have an article on a family, but on a position. It is not the family that is acting in such a way, but the economic and legal network crystallized into "Earl of Smedly Head" that is culturally and historically active. I would not agree to any pretense of a family being honored for its inherited wealth. I can only see a family lemma when a family is a recognizable historical entity. In British history, I would point more to the Churchills (and we have no article on that as a family, even though they produced for generations, but in a way that was not consistent) than to the scattered Arbuthnots. Geogre 02:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Firstly, this is a very bad faith nomination (see nominator's Talk Page). Secondly, every country has a collection of famous families containing strings of notables in a variety of contexts. In the case of small countries such as Scotland the famous families concerned are inevitable tightly knit and related. Throughout Wikipedia there are hundreds, if not thousands, of stubs and articles which are poorly sourced or not sourced at all, and a great many of no notability whatsoever. The right approach, as I see it, is where someone appears to have some credibility/notability is to search for more sources and improve an article - not wreck it out of some misplaced duty. What I would like to know is why User Kittybrewster has been singled out in this very nasty schoolboy 'I'm going to mess up your work' fashion by less than half a dozen determined editors. For those of us who came to Wikipedia thinking it was an adult forum I am shocked at the number of people whose prime task appears to be deletions and disruptions. David Lauder 15:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ad homium arguments, assumptions of bad faith, and personal attacks have no place on wikipedia. And the above is quite the most venomous piece I've encountered in a while. As for the substance of the argument - really? Please point me to the secondary source material that discusses the Arbuthnots as a family down through the ages? Show me how this family are notable as a family? Do that, and I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination. But you've provided nothing to support your contention. Actually, I did search for sources to improve this article and many others in this series - and when I could find none, I nominated two for deletion. Since you obviously believe people should do their research before coming here - perhaps you'd share your research that's brought you to a keep decision? If you engage with the substance of the argument and refrain from the scurrilous juvenile attacks, you'll find me quite a reasonable debating partner - and always happy to be proved wrong.--Docg 15:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply:If I have said something that was untrue, I naturally apologise. From a trawl of current activities they were my conclusions. It appears to me that people sit in front of their computers and if they cannot locate something on line it does not exist. I'm afraid that the internet has not yet replaced books. Moreover, just because you have not heard of this family is surely just as relevant as to whether I too have heard/not heard of them. What is clear is that a great many of them have been prominent Scots, from (deletable) Provosts to MPs, to baronets even. Anderson's Scottish Nation gives the family in general and several mor eprominent members mentions. The DNB also has a few. It is a question of researching sources. You and another have sneered at a book by Mrs Arbuthnot, but she has quite clearly produced a very extensively researched history of this family, not dissimilar to the several books on other families written in the 75 years up to that time, notably by people like Sir William Fraser. So we have here a very good source on many of this family which is being rubbished on Wikipedia yet it is a published source available in the National Library of Scotland. It therefore fulfill's Wikpedia's requirement as credible source materiél. Why is it being dismissed? I fully agree that if there are articles on Wikipedia that have no evident notability whatsoever then delete (although I myself have no wish to take part in wanton deletions). But notability comes in all shapes and sizes and many popstars appear on Wikipedia and my personal opinion of them as notable is not printable here. David Lauder 20:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid the Mrs Arbuthnot whose "memories" references half these pages equates to Lady Blanche Addle Giano 21:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not remotely true. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No of course it is not true Kitty, becuase you just altered my edit to make it untrue [48] - you can be blocked for that sort of thing so please do not do it again Giano 16:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even going to respond to Mr Lauder's rants since he is engaging in nothing but assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks. You don't win arguments by imputing false motives and strawmen to your opponent. I have dismissed no source - but all sources need to be assessed - and encyclopedic articles need multiple sources.--Docg 21:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now who is showing bad faith and making an implied personal attack? Why is it that people like you are unable to accept the comments of others without instant denunciation. I based my comment on your approach from looking on your Talk Page, under "Arbuthnot (yet again)". David Lauder 21:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I give up. I will be trolled no longer. You may have the last word.--Docg 21:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to briefly defend Ada Jane Arbuthnot's "Memories of the Arbuthnots", published in 1920, which can be downloaded from kittybrewster.com. It's a competent and serious attempt at a genealogy, and has a good index. It is not easy to determine the relative importance of the persons treated in her book, since the amount of coverage seems to depend on which papers happened to fall into her hands. It does not seem to be a proper work of history, and we don't know of any citations to it by historians. EdJohnston 16:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT the Arbuthnot family's own personal Genes Reunited. We don't have articles on familis of this level of prominence (i.e. well below the Windsors). Look at the families listed by Pharamond - would you really put the Arbuthnots (of whom most people have never heard) with these iconic dynasties? Guy (Help!) 16:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre. Mackensen (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As long as we have more than a handful of Arbuthnot articles, it's worthwhile to have something to serve as a disambiguation page for them. —dgiestc 16:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Em, why? Dabs are only useful if they have the same title. Anyway a dab would be at 'Arbuthnot' and simply have a list of articles with that name. By your argument we'd have a Smith family Jones family and McDonald family we have a lot of articles on them too.--Docg 16:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a page for Smith: Famous people with the surname Smith --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to Arbuthnot or Arbuthnot (disambiguation) would be fine. It's good to have disambig pages and this is basically just that, plus some background info. —dgiestc 18:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, and particularly as per Geogre. No notability here, and no coherence except by name and in some cases geneology DES (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete or Merge There is already a Clan Arbuthnott article dealing with this family, so either merge this with that or delete.--padraig3uk 23:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete In view of kittybrewsters claim below that the Clan Arbuthnott is non-existant then I have changed my vote to delete on this article, and I think that Clan Arbuthnott should also be deleted.--padraig3uk 12:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a rather boring, not useful, family article that doesn't come up to the standards of Macdonald or Rutherford. If you want to see a wonderful article of the genre, look at Medici. Somebody just mentioned Clan Arbuthnott as a possible merge target. That one is my nominee for the worst of all the Arbuthnot articles. (Old-fashioned, stuffy, uninformative, doesn't define its terms [e.g. "lands of Arbuthnott", "of that ilk", "the chief family"], based on potted history that could well be false). Since I don't see how to vote for quality in this debate, I'm abstaining. EdJohnston 00:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move most of the content in Arbuthnot family to a disambiguation page located at Arbuthnot, where it may continue to provide very helpful links for searchers. Then, Merge the rump of Arbuthnot family with Clan Arbuthnott, as they are essentially synonymous. Flozu 01:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question for those who know : is Clan Arbuthnot essentially the same as Arbuthnot family?DGG 05:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answer. There is no such thing as Clan Arbuthnott, Clan being highland, family being lowland. Arbuthnott is a Lowland family. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technically true. However, we narrate verifiable fictions as well as facts. Their is an entity called 'clan arburthnot' in the secondary literature - it has a tartan and a (perhaps spurious) provenance. Walter Scott's fictions are notable. However, there seems scant secondary literature discussing an Arbuthnot family as an entity. (Although granted there are a large number of very notable individuals - who do merit articles).--Docg 10:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It may be that there is one, large family Arbuthnot, or perhaps a couple of verifiable families and a few strays, but I see no good reason not to keep the genealogy or genealogies of those that are indeed related together somewhere, be it at Arbuthnot family, Arbuthnot families, divided into Arbuthnot family (of Dunfoo) and Arbuthnot family (of Dunbar) or some other way. I think information like that is as encyclopedic as all the minor technical data on every model of Porsche or every 19th century steam engine. (See also my reply to Geogre above.)

    As for the Clan Arbuthnott, I am much more skeptical: I am no expert on Scottish history, but as far as I know a lot of this clan stuff is a product of 19th century Scottish national romanticism and the American market for Old Country nostalgia. This is a lowland family and the article points out that the tartan was registered in 1962. This seems not even to be a Victorian construct but much more recent. That there is at least one significant Arbuthnot family is verifiable and clear from the peerage. It seems from User:Kittybrewster's website (this page), that the viscountcy and the two baronetcies belong to the same family (I am assuming that there is good evidence for these connections). If that is the case, I'm convinced a good article could be written based on some of the genealogical secondary sources, such as James Balfour Paul's The Scots Peerage, that I saw cited somewhere (in another strange case of omission, it is not even cited in the Viscount of Arbuthnott page, but it was in one of the pages on a minor Arbuthnot). But is this clan real? Would people like Robert Arbuthnot, 1st Viscount of Arbuthnott (died 1655) or John Arbuthnot, 6th Viscount of Arbuthnott (died 1791) have regarded themselves as clan chiefs, or would they have been regarded as such by their contemporaries? Pharamond 14:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point here is that the Head of the family is recognised as such by Lord Lyon. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dgies. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kittybrewster, may I remind you of WP:COI? "if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when: 1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with; 2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors". Wouldn't it have been good practice here to consider abstaining, and if not clarify to the closing admin (and to other editors) that your !vote here is on an article about your family, in which you are listed, that 81 of the 104 edits have been by you, and that one of the two external sources listed is a website maintained by you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is simply not a disambiguation page. (Create one by all means - but after this genealogical page is gone) Aatomic1 17:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly not a genealogical page since (i) not everybody is related and (ii) no relationships are shown. I would be happy to merge Clan Arbuthnott into it since Arbuthnot is not a clan but is a family. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kittybrewster, if you accept that Clan Arbuthnott is non-existant why did you edit that article and add links and info to it, instead of nonimating it for deletion. --padraig3uk 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not really a deletionist. I tried to change it to Arbuthnot family for reasons stated above. - Kittybrewster (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Your not a deletionist? Are you sure about that - what about all the articles on Irish republicans that you !voted to delete on a "i dont like it basis" despite the fact the articles were referenced with multiple non-trivial sources. You are an embarrassment and are contraticting yourself with your lies.Vintagekits 09:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Members of a family, by definition, are all related. Phony Saint 22:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not always. In this case they all recognise that they hail from the same place and acknowledge allegiance to the same head or chief. Having said which, 95% are related albeit 15th cousins. In any event they all share the same surname even though we cannot prove the relationship of a few (eg Robert Arbuthnot (auditor)). - Kittybrewster (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So out of the about 80 odd articles on the family in WP, how many of them would you say are part of or accepted as part of your family today.--padraig3uk 23:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the criteria for inclusion in this list: having the surname Arbuthnot or a variant, claiming to be part of the Arbuthnot family, or actually being part of the Arbuthnot family? If we can't prove a specific relationship, why are they listed here without sources? More importantly, how is the Arbuthnot family notable? Phony Saint 23:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT a directory and WP:N. The article as it stands is simply a list of family members, and amounts to little more than a simplified family tree, so fails WP:NOT. I would not object in principle to an article which substantively discussed the family's history, provided that the sources were not simply directories of gentry and family memoirs; the current article fails WP:N because the listed sources are simply two family websites. If (per WP:N) there are reliable, non-trivial and independent sources discussing the family as a whole, than an article on the family would be a clear keep. However, the only source which I am aware of giving substantive consideration to the family as a whole (rather than to individual family members) is "Memoirs of the Arbuthnots", which fails the independence test because it is written by a family member. Many of the individual family members receive mentions in Who's Who or Debrett's etc, but even if we consider those sources indepemdent and non-trivial (discussions at WT:N were a very long way from agreeing to that proposition), collating them all to create an article on a family starts to look rather like WP:NOR. But that's another day's work: there has been so much discussion of articles on this family that we should not keep the article in the hope of suitable sources appearing; if they existed, I think that we are entitled to assume that they would have surfaced by now.
    BTW, please please please could editors try to restrict this discussion to testing this article against WP policies and guidelines? The personal acrimony, allegations and counter-allegations above do nothing to assist a decision on the after of this article, and in several places this AfD is sufficiently acrimonious that editors who don't enjoy a usenet-style flame war are likely to be deterred from participating. WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA please; as they say in football, play the ball not the man. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is now stupid, the Arbuthnots are not the Medici or the Hapbsburgs they are a collection of varying achievers such can be found in any other group of people with the same surname. I don't even buy the story they are all from the same place (but so what if they are anyway) people have surnames for all sorts of reasons birth, adoption or they just like the name and change it or want an alias. The Arbuthnots are no more related to each other than are all people called Higginbottom, Smith or Jones - Most of the stubs are a load of old tosh, and as for Clan Arbuthnot words fail me. This whole debate is now descending into the farcical - it just needs to be closed and the Arbuthnots deleted leaving only those that were truly notable, baronets (God knows why - but that is the rule) and MPs for the same odd reasoning. Giano 13:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The discussion has shown that the article is made up of too many non-notable individuals. Or perhaps more of them are notable than is apparent, but it's supposed to be apparent, notablity needs to be shown—and not shown by referencing in the circular way that's been demonstrated to be the case here, either. The article is also irredeemably incoherent, in that the individuals in it have no overarching connection with each other—they're not a family, nor connected in any other way that stands the test of logic, and the referencing for their connection is also circular (in other words it's referenced to kittybrewster's website). So there are two damning problems: the bits are non-notable, the whole is incoherent. These two simple arguments are made repeatedly and eloquently above. The angry ad hominems with which the supporters of the article meet them don't prove anything either way, I suppose. As for the suggestion to keep this central, or hub, article and to merge in content about the individuals from their individual articles, I have to say most of these stubs seem to have little or no content worth merging(see Geogre above), unless I've been very unlucky in sampling them. The few brilliant exceptions—John Arbuthnot and Harriet Arbuthnot come to mind, authored respectively by Geogre and Giano—are clearly not candidates for merging either. Incidentally, I think Category:Arbuthnot family needs deleting too. The category is even more incoherent than the family article, yoking together as it does unrelated people, roads, and paddle steamers. Please consider joining the category discussion here. Bishonen | talk 19:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Delete - genealogy spam. You really do NOT want me to start listing the Morgan family. DewiMorgan 20:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right Dewi no we don't - but there is another member of the family here George Bingham Arbuthnot that needs some attention. Giano 21:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still delete this, but create a disambiguation page at Arbuthnot, similar to Smith and Olsen. At least one editor here claims that the clan mentioned isn't related to this family, despite the fact that both of the articles contain several of the same names. Also add a reference to the dabpage from Arbuthnott. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 15:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I think most of this information can be put into the Clan Arbuthnott page or vice versa. Some of these people will likely become redlinks and will be edited out in the near future. As for the Lowland/Highland argument regarding family/clan, it should be clarified along with the difference in Arbuthnot spelling. Surely some of the people in this list are Highlanders and the Lowlanders can likewise be pointed out. Kincardineshire and Aberdeenshire contain both Highland and Lowland. Perhaps some editors would prefer a heading of "Prominent Arbuthnots" rather than "Prominent members of the family." Regarding Geogre's question of dynastic function, I can say some of the people on the list did. (These being decendants of Robert Arbuthnot of Haddo in relation to banking. (Another redlink in waiting.)) It might be interesting to note here that the previously mentioned Harriet Arbuthnot was at one time being considered for non-notability and was also started by Kittybrewster. Take a look at it now. Aspenocean 12:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No Arbuthnots/Arbuthnotts are highlanders. If the article survives I will add a section on the difference in spelling. - Kittybrewster (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- a list of family members is not notable - most of them are up for deletion or have contested notability United and Free 14:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Almost all contestations and AfD's are by the small group of determined deletionists. I just wish people would concentrate on creative, not destructive, work. David Lauder 14:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
United and free is a week old and an irish republican. Most of the articles are not up for deletion and do not have contested notability. - Kittybrewster (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ````kittybrewster as you have a COI in these discussions maybe you should refain on comments about other editors.--padraig3uk 14:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kittbrewster, please refrain from disparaging other editors on the basis of what you believe their political affiliations to be. Discuss the article and the guidelines, not the person. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but reconfigure. The family clearly has some notable members; especially given the repetition of given names, it is reasonable to have some sort of list/disamb. page clarifying those, and delineating relationships a little. The problem now is that there are too many non-notable folks in this article -- it needs to be trimmed, and refocussed on only the families more notable members. An article on the Astors would also look silly, if it listed every offspring of every minor relative. Xoloz 16:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 1805[edit]

Action of 1805 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Action of 4 July 1805 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article on a military action that I'm struggling to verify. It may exist under a different name, or perhaps it doesn't exist at all, but I can't tell. Also nominating Action of 4 July 1805 for the same reasons - I confess to not being up-to-snuff on my European history in advance if it turns out there's information I'm missing. badlydrawnjeff talk 20:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Both - No references have been given it has been marked since February and the user who started the article is still active. Also I have a book called, Napoleon's Regiments: Battle History of the Regiments of the French Army, 1792-1815 which lists all French naval losses from 1792-1815, but does not list any losses in February 1805 or on 4 July.--Bryson{Talk}{Edits} 20:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article calls HMS Centurion a 'battleship'. The Centurion in the Royal Navy at the time was a 50-gun fourth-rate ship that existed from 1774 to 1825. By no stretch of the imagination could she be described as a 'battleship'. This leads me to think the rest of the article is equally unreliable, but as it doesn't have any good sources that's hard to prove either way. The article says the battle took place in 'the east'? Does that mean the Nile or Japan or Scarborough for instance? Nick mallory 15:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Editorial decision based on what we normally do with album articles with not much encyclopedic info. W.marsh 00:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Name of Gore[edit]

In the Name of Gore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I suspect this is a hoax/vandalism. What do others think? Postcard Cathy 20:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS This AfD was added before the author added who the band was. I still have my questions though. 172.162.78.73 21:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Personal judgments aside, it's a real album. --Kinu t/c 21:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As it stands this article contains nothing that couldn't and shouldn't be noted on the band's page. A1octopus 21:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nebuvite[edit]

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

Original Research, article is speculation without context about a creature on the TV show LOST, treated as if it's some kind of real-world creature, the creator of the article says in the talk page that without that article fans of the show would know nothing about the creatures and the article itself is a "major scientific breakthrough" (sounds like an admission that it's "Original Research" if anything). Creator of article has removed AfD tag, which has had to be replaced. Wingsandsword 20:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Fiction presented as if its fact. Apparent original research, no citations for events from show episodes. —C.Fred (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article does contain a lot of speculation. Wikipedia should not be used for speculation, especially no sources are given.--Kylohk 18:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: OR and fiction-as-fact. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 00:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - it's worse fancruft than laser cannon. However, blanking by User:Antisora was a poor move, I feel, and against AfD policy. DewiMorgan 20:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Felicity Arbuthnot[edit]

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

She's a freelance journalist - so you can find a bit she's written using google - but really nothing about her. She suggested this - and is a friend of another - but nothing notable unless being an Arburthnot counts in itself. Some unsourced stuff has also been removed (see talk)-Docg 20:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest deletion unless some reasonable notability is shown. (Note: I removed the large quantity of unsourced stuff from the article.) - David Gerard 20:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete She has written a couple of stories which are included as references, but they do not prove notability since she is not the subject. She receives passing reference in a third, and is in someone's family tree. Not quite enough, but more references might turn up to tip the balance. Edison 21:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The family tree is on a website operated by the creator of this article.--Docg 21:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Being a friend of someone who got killed isn't notable, though it got her much-quoted in relation to the Margaret Hassan abduction, which account for about 2/3 of her 75 refs in NewsBank since 1998. Otherwise, mildly prolific journalist on Iraq topics; campaigned re children in Iraq ill allegedly due to depleted uranium use; speaker at various Stop the War Coalition events (understudied for Tony Benn when he couldn't make it to Faringdon Peace Group's Day of Peace in 2005); gets a lot of letters published on Iraq topics, etc. Tearlach 00:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom Giano 06:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, some public visibility but no real notability. Writes mainly for non-notable publications. --Dhartung | Talk 09:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: She's still working, and she might hit the public more forcefully in the future, but, at present, she does not pass the writer standards. Geogre 12:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after merging the two sentences of intersting information into Margaret Hassan and Reg Keys. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not seeing her as notable based on the current information that is available. FloNight 15:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delte as per nom. No significant notability. DES (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not know if her work is what I would call notable, but there are 2 BBC references to it specifically, and one from the Guardian, and as long as we're going to keep going by the present Wikipedia rules, that's 3 nontrivial RS, and that is notable for WP. Although I rather agree with Tearlach's evaluation of it, it's besides the point. She fits the rules. Is she a good example for why we should change the rules?--that's another matter but this individual AfD with 10 or so people participating is not the place to revolutionize WP. DGG 05:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is factually incorrect. There are no biographical references to her at all. There are a couple of rent-a-quotes in articles about other people. That clearly is not enough. Hell, I've been quoted in three newspapers.--Docg 07:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can find multiple articles in three newspapers in which i was the subject, but I don't think i'm notable enough for an article. DES (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point, exactly.--Docg 16:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N.J. Slabbert[edit]

N.J. Slabbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced Computerjoe's talk 20:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I added a References section and the {{reflist}} to the entry so the previous IP editor's inline citations would show in that section. That said, I've looked for some period of time and can't find many references to this person or his work. 26 unique Ghits, some of which are from uli.org, for which he works. Third-party cites of his work tend to be blogs or speech tournament results. I don't think it meets the notability standard for authors, unless verifiable sources can be found and cited. KrakatoaKatie 08:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per page history: "(DELETION BY ORIGINAL AUTHOR; SUBJECT OBJECTS TO BEING LISTED)". I think that prettymuch sums it up. Page is blank now anyway. DewiMorgan 20:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO-205[edit]

DO-205 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete for two reasons:
    1. It has no assertions of notability.
    2. It refers to a standard that is no longer available from the company that published it. --Kevinkor2 20:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support deletion.
    • DO-205 is an old standard, and has in fact been superseded by DO-240, DO-250, DO-280A, and DO-287.
    • However, when I looked up the deletion of Aeronautical telecommunications network (ATN), it appears that article was deleted due to a misunderstanding. CNS/ATM stands for 'Communications-Navigation-Surveillance/Air Traffic Management' which is not at all the same as 'ATN', which only deals with the 'Communications' portion of CNS/ATM. The article was only a stub, so no great harm done. --Aarky 05:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - regardless of the deletion of the other page, this one is not significant. DewiMorgan 20:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Universal Life Church. Herostratus 04:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor of Immortality[edit]

Recommend Delete. Degree is non-notable and only issued by on organization. Additionally it does not fit with many of the other catagories listed on the main page. JDBlues 21:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Fitting with the other categories on a mysterious list is irrelevant. As for being notable or not, it's cited, and most certainly notable. There are other religious degrees such as Doctor of Divinity on the template. --GreenJoe 21:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • it clearly does not fit in the WP:N guidelines. JDBlues 21:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It does fit in with the WP:BOLD guidelines and WP:IAR. As well, notability isn't the be all and end all. GreenJoe 21:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "… but don't be reckless." pretty much says it all from the WP:BOLD guidelines. JDBlues 22:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two sentence article on "degree" offered by a religious organization that offers anyone semi-immediate ordination as a minister free of charge. "After the study of the book A new life do you want it and passing the exam, this degree is awarded." Doesn't quite reach the notability level, or academic gravitas, of a Church of the SubGenius bumper sticker. Pete.Hurd 22:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The Universal Life Church is notable, and there is no reason why the information in Doctor of Immortality cannot be presented there.--Xnuala (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't specifically mention the Degree of Immortality, so if someone feels strongly about it there is potential for a merge.--Xnuala (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ULC has about a dozen or so degrees.JDBlues 01:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mrege - it really isn't a notable degree -- Whpq 17:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I wouldn't hire anyone because of it. But maybe fire them for gullibility, so deserves mentioning somewhere. DewiMorgan 20:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - not notable in itself. It seems quite pointless to let this article languish on a merge list for 3 years (or whatever the backlog is) for two pointless sentences, when the gist of gaining easy degrees is already in the Universal Life Church article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WjBscribe 12:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hugin (software)[edit]

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

This software is a front end to Panorama Tools and is covered on the Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities page. John Spikowski 20:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This have been discussed already at Talk:Hugin (software). So, no, it should not be deleted!
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Is this AfD about notability or about overlap? I thought that the notability issue had been resolved at Talk:Hugin (software)#Notability but if Hugin really is a front-end then maybe it should be merged into one of those other articles. What is the rule for software wrappers and front-ends? (Requestion 21:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
hugin is not only a front-end to other command line apps but also has it's own functionality that needs some space to describe. It has some similarity e.g. with PTgui or PTMac but merging all those programmes with their respective special features makes no sense in my eyes. Hugin is completely Open-source software while the other two examples are based on the same basic free software but are sold as shareware. PTGui is available for PC and Mac, PTMac only for Mac, hugin for almost everything that can crunch big chunks of images ;-) Just to name a few of the differences... PTMac maybe deserves it's own article as does software like BBEdit. Einemnet 16:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep already discussed, per above —Pengo 14:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this AfD is about notability. (Requestion 16:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong Keep this is an important software and an important page. Its not a pure warper because it adds many features that can't be found in PanoTools. Its as much a warper for Panotools as Gimp for libTIFF. Mr. John Spikowski has just (three days ago) created a promotion page for his sponsors and now he wants to raise the value of this page. --Wuz 19:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas, every active panorama vendor is on the new page. The few sponsors the Panotools groups does have also sponsor the other panorama resources. The personal attacks aren't appreciated when I put a lot of work into the page to clean up this mess of all the personal promotional pages added to the Wikipedia. John Spikowski 22:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep hugin participates in the Google Summer of Code which I just added in the article. Important software. Einemnet 21:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Carl, It was announced by Yuval Levy (project administrator) that the Google Summer of Code 2007 projects are Panorama Tools SourceForge related projects. When did Hugin (Panorama Tools GUI stitcher front end open source project) take over? John Spikowski 00:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no take over, the Google project page and Google's overview of mentoring organizations list both projects since they are related. This is how development of Open Source Software sometimes work. Google understands that. Read the article you want to have deleted. --Einemnet 07:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does Google funded programming projects have to do with product promotion pages? (open source or not) Should every SourceForge project have a page here on the Wikipedia? John Spikowski 07:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem in having wikipedia articles for interesting SF projects. Does wikipedia have a restricted number of pages or why do you ask that? BTW hugin already was mentioned in several articles in German c't magazine as an important app for panorama stitching. Interesting that not only Google but also computer magazines (print) write about that app but an own article on wikipedia is questioned. Einemnet 15:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Hugin stitcher is covered on the Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities page. Hugin having it's own promotional page makes no sense and will be hard to find anyways. This product is still in it's early stages of development and doesn't deserve the 'press' your giving it. You are trying to give it the same status and notability as Panorama Tools. John Spikowski 18:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can we get feedback from others not directly associated with the project? Lets focus on the reason the page is up for deletion which is notability and if a the software should stand on it's own rather then being part of the Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities page. John Spikowski 21:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I should mention the sponsors of John Spikowski who filed this AfD are Kekus, RealVis, Easypano,.... see [49] which are commercial products that do the same as Hugin. All these products are listed in suggested replacement page Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities with very shiny words and promo talk. Why can not have Hugin it's own page? --Wuz 00:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Yuv 04:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I see no one good reason to delete Hugin pages. It's a matter of love and hate, and this John Spilowki seems to be more on hate.. than love. Dominique Salino, Nouméa
  • Strong keep -- This article should be kept.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omicron Sigma Omicron[edit]

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

Procedurally saved from speedy A7 as a contested PROD. Appears to be a fraternity based at single university. Ignoring the WP:COI-style nonsense in the article, no WP:RS indicating notability per WP:ORG. Delete. --Kinu t/c 21:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. In general, a fraternity operating at a single university is not notable unless it is Skull and Bones at Yale or if it has been associated with a crime or tragedy of some kind. There is no evidence that this fraternity is notable. --Eastmain 21:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. concur with Eastmain JDBlues 22:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --GreenJoe 02:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preserve This fraternity, with nearly 80 years of tradition has been an intregral part of Augustana College's tradition (a school which is a link on wikipedia). Furthermore, this fraternity is famous for starting the very first "panty-raid" in the country (FYI: The first reported panty raid occurred at Augustana College on February 24, 1949 when 200 to 300 men raided the Women's Building.). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.217.160.142 (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

http://yawiki.org/proc/Panty_raid (an article about the first panty raid can be found here!)

      • Another Wiki is hardly a reliable source. Please actually read the information in the links provided above. --Kinu t/c 17:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preserve Omicron Sigma Omicron has a rich tradition of serving the community of Rock Island, Illinois and its surrounding vicinity. Even though it lives under modern standards and keeps in touch with reality the group always remebers its roots and will never give up its obligation to the city. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GMonty (talk • contribs) 08:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - Possibly mention in the college's page, in a "list of fraternities", but doesn't deserve its own page. Incidentally, both the "preserve" links smell alike to me: and like ads. Maybe that's how they talk in that fraternity? DewiMorgan 20:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 13:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Verreos[edit]

She is an NN Survivor contestant who did nothing overly of note on the show and nothing else she has done really warrants giving her an entire page. Appearing in a couple pageants (and the article doesn't even say how she finished), appearing in a minor role in a film and having a relationship with a famous singer does not make her notable. A google search gets an unimpressive 16,000 hits, less than most of the other Survivor cast members this season. -- Scorpion0422 21:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless pageant source found - the article states she "represented Venezuala" in pageants. If she won a national title equivalent to Miss America or competed as a state-level representative in a notable national pageant, and it's verifiable, that would satisfy me regarding her notability. Otto4711 00:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She competed in the Miss Venezuela pageant as Miss Vargas 1988,(near the bottom of this link - in Spanish) and appears to have placed second while representing Venezuela in the 1988 "Reinado del Banano" pageant.[50] --Maxamegalon2000 20:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the WINNERS of these pagaents don't have pages, so what makes her participation in them so notable? -- Scorpion0422 23:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep national pageant contestants are notable - and Miss Venezuela contestants even more so. Plus she's been on Survivor. PageantUpdater User Talk Review me! 03:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Miss Venezeula participants are so notable, then please explain to me why half of the winners don't have articles and explain why Rita Verreos is such a notable participant. Did she actually do something notable there or did she just compete? And the bit about being on Survivor has already been explained. -- Scorpion0422 03:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While in this instance I agree with your nomination, it is important to note that arguing against an article by pointing out that other articles don't exist is not particularly compelling. The other articles may not exist simply because no one has written them yet. Notability of Miss Venezuala participants as a whole can't properly be judged on the basis of whether articles for them exist or not. Otto4711 18:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She played a very minor part in survivor. She was voted out early, and the only thing I remember about her is that she was voted out for being too annoying and useless in general. That said, the Miss Venezuela participation should suffice. Unless topics from Venezuela are inherently less notable than topics from the United States. So Keep.--Sucherror 04:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But she didn't do anything notable, she just competed in it. MANY people have competed in national level pageants and the vast majority don't have pages, usually just the winners and the extremely notable other finishers. The article does not allege her doing anything notable. -- Scorpion0422 04:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She didn't win Miss Venezuela, but she did win Miss Municipio Vargas State. If we're keeping wikipedia pages for every small town pageant winner in the US, it doesn't seem fair to delete the equivalent overseas topics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sucherror (talk • contribs) 04:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Actually, very few American pageant winners on the state or town level have pages. I just picked a couple at random - Miss Montana, nobody has a page, Miss New York, 6 of 70+ and Miss Hawaii, 2 of 60+. Going international, there's Miss Canada International, 2 of over a dozen, Miss England, 3 of 40. And of those that DO have pages, they all went on to either win national level pageants or compete in Miss Universe (or another of those "big" international ones). All Rita Verreos has done is appear in a couple of episodes of Survivor. -- Scorpion0422 04:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Delete.--Sucherror 04:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems to be where Scorpion and I differ regarding notability of Survivor contestants. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but it seems that he requires individuals to be notable based on a single area of their biography; maybe they're notable as a Survivor contestant, or perhaps as a beauty pageant winner, but there must be at least one thing by itself for which the individual is notable, and the rest of the individual's biography need not be considered in the discussion. If my perception is inaccurate, Scorpion, please correct me.
    My viewpoint is different; I prefer to look at the individual's entire "portfolio," if you will. Consensus seems to be that being on Survivor does not confer notability by itself; I'm not so sure, but if everyone else is I'm more than happy to go along with it. Perhaps being a beauty pageant winner does not confer notability by itself; I'm not familiar enough with the pageant world and the Wikipedia community's consensus regarding it, but I'm also not so convinced of whether the lack of articles on pageant winners is a result of lack of notability or lack of them having been written yet. Certainly, being a pageant contestant consultant is not enough to meet the notability criteria, nor is being related to a Project: Runway contestant. However, I consider the Survivor appearance, the beauty pageant career (and, to a significantly lesser extent, the consultant position and the family note) to, when taken in total, sufficiently establish notability. --Maxamegalon2000 19:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, lets just go make pages for EVERY person who has ever appeared in a beauty pageant. The article doesn't say that she did anything notable there, so why should we keep a page just because she appeared in a pageant when many winners don't have pages? You seem to think that just APPEARING in an establishment of noitability. She appeared in a couple episodes of Survivor, she appeared in a couple pageants, she appeared in a movie. But, she did not do anything of overall note. -- Scorpion0422 19:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention the film appearance, which I would place somewhere between the Survivor & pageant stuff and the rest in terms of importance. It sounds like my interpretation of our different viewpoints is correct; as I said, I consider the total sum of the things you've listed to sufficiently establish notability, rather than require a single one of them to establish notability by itself. --Maxamegalon2000 20:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you think that 1/4 + 1/4 + 1/4 = 1. Why don't you explain to me why doing these things is so notable that she deserves her own page? -- Scorpion0422 20:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scorpion, I don't consider it a necessary or reasonable goal to convince you to adopt my position. I don't mean that in a negative way; your position is not unreasonable, and you seem to believe it very strongly. I suppose your math example is a reasonably accurate representation of my philosophy, though I wouldn't necessarily want to plug in numbers, and I think the numbers you chose are an unfair attempt to undermine my position. I guess I give a "value" to an individual's appearance on Survivor based on their status as a character on a top-20 television series. Though this "value" is subjective and certainly not numerical, winning a season would certainly confer at least a "1", with the values of the others based on the number of episodes and amount of coverage for the individual. As I said earlier, I don't know much about the pageant world, but the Miss Venezuela pageant seems to be one of the more notable ones, and she did represent Venezuela in another pageant. If I really had to assign numerical values to parts of Rita's "portfolio", and I don't think I do, her Survivor appearance and her pageant experiences would probably each be greater that 3/5; again, though, I think assigning numerical values is rather silly. --Maxamegalon2000 21:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page still only has one English source. -- Scorpion0422 23:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and fixed that. --Maxamegalon2000 20:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - none of the individual accomplishments are particularly notable, and even aggregating it together doesn't pass the notability bar for me. -- Whpq 17:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Possibly put a lit on the survivor page of the contestants of there isn't one already: but "being on survivor" is not notable, any more tan being a contestant on any other gameshow. This is not a case of "1/2 + 1/2 = 1". In this case, it's more like "1/100k + 1/100k = 2/100k". There are literally hundreds of thousands of gameshow contestants and pageant contestants. The vast majority of them lose: this is one of the vast majority.DewiMorgan 20:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 03:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good News Lutheran School[edit]

Good News Lutheran School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

School that is non-notable Phgao 10:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Appears to be of little note, although most of the time you're pissin in the wind by posting one of these AfDs for schools. --NMChico24 10:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable school. Keb25 10:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please explain what you mean. Phgao 10:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Assuming you're directing this to me, I'm just saying that most of the time a bunch of dogoodnicks come on here and defend every schoolhouse on the planet as being inherently notable. Since we can't possibly get enough of worshiping children these days... --NMChico24 11:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This school is real! type it on google. There is enough information. I searched some website about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisnatasha (talk • contribs) — Mynameisnatasha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment: Just being there does not make it notable. - Rjd0060 15:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If all we can identify from reliable sources is that it exists, there are many classes of things or people which exist but are not notable. Orderinchaos 13:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N. STORMTRACKER 94 14:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: NN school (one of a thousand+ on WP). - Rjd0060 15:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Being real is not enough; notability is required. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't assert notability and doesn't seem to have any. Maybe I'm a deletionist, but if there's an overarching school district by which this school would be contained, adding or confirming a single line acknowledging its existence would be sufficient, then delete this article. Accounting4Taste 19:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete csd/a7, claims no notability whatsoever, and wp:not#theyellowpages, wikipedia is not a directory of indiscriminate information. And no I'm not a "deletionist", I just want articles about schools to be encyclopedic.--Victor falk 21:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Primary schools are generally not notable. Fails WP:N, WP:ORG. It might be worth a mention in the Lutheran schools in Australia article? Twenty Years 11:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This school is fairly new and does not have a great history.I think there is enough information and references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisnat (talk • contribs) — Mynameisnat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete - fails WP:N and WP:RS. The problem is that the school being fairly new and not having a great history actually suggests that the subject is, at least for the present, not notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. Notability requires "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". I can't think of any independent reliable source which would verify anything other than the existence of the school (and often, sadly, my observation is that newer schools meeting our notability criteria do so for the wrong reasons, such as extensive media coverage of sexual abuse at the school, or a fire burning it down). I've never been particularly deletionist and have tried to save articles before (sometimes successfully) which are in a poor state but about a subject worth covering - however this isn't one of them. Orderinchaos 13:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per above. Too new to really be notable, and no real reliable sources apart from totally trivial ones that merely establish its existance. Merely existing has not normally been held as sufficient reason to keep a school article. Lankiveil 09:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • KeepWhat do you mean not Notable!!! This school has won many awards in music, got gold in athletics and came first in Numeracy and Literacy Day. This school is notable and is you delete it, you will not know any information about it. Look at the website: http://www.goodnews.qld.edu.au/schoolweb/home.php b00349 20:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC). — b00349 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • OK, basically you need a source of all this "stuff" that makes the school notable. For example: newspaper articles, books, websites. Without these, its not notable according to wikipedia. Also, these books and websites etc, cannot be produced by the school or any affiliated organisation. Twenty Years 13:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, just another primary school. Loopla 15:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not yet notable. • Lawrence Cohen 16:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CrossLoop[edit]

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

Delete Another article about non-notable remote desktop software. See previous debates for similar articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RM-X General Purpose Control, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vncscan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Remote, etc. AlistairMcMillan 21:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was: seems pretty clear that this is a keep, with agreement that the article needs cleanup. I elected to close it early -- Samir 22:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Lost on Jeopardy[edit]

I Lost on Jeopardy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's a single about which there's little to be said; the article makes no claim to significance (it reached eighty-one on an unspecified U.S. chart for an unspecified period). The bulk of the article is made up of a list of trivia, little of which is of any interest to anyone but a hardcore Yankovic fan. Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:MUSIC "Has been the subject of a music video that played on a major music network". The video received substantial airplay when it was released, and continues to appear every now and then. DarkAudit 22:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's basically a trivia article masquerading as a song article: one great nugget one learns from the article is what "Secret ingredient found in both Cheese Whiz & Crazy Glue" (Potpourri for $20); what other encyclopedia would have that and its ilk? case closed. Carlossuarez46 22:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable music video from Yankovic's debut year. The article could use some improvements to integrate information currently bundled under the poisonous "trivia" heading (from any given person's perspective, anything on Wikipedia is trivia), but this is no reason to delete the article rather than just, for example, culling its trivia section outright, if that is what's seen to be the problem. This AfD comes after the article was improperly speedied and deleted by the nominating admin. Robert K S 23:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable song, which charted, from a notable artist. No good arguments exist for deletion. The fact that the article needs clean-up is not a deletion criterion. Newyorkbrad 23:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article, while it contains a lot of trivia, is still about a notable song. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Useight (talk • contribs) 23:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:MUSIC. --W.marsh 00:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep as previously mentioned per WP:MUSIC - the #81 rank, incidentally, was achieved on the Billboard Hot 100. --Scani 00:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've listened to the song, incidentally, and it is a notable song, from a notable artist, and it meets WP:MUSIC. Cleanup is not a reason for deletion. Cool Bluetalk to me 00:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Meets all relevant guidelines. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it does meet the current standards for music inclusion. There's gotta be some Weird Al fan out there willing to improve it...--Xnuala (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The song is a well known Weird Al single, the video included not only Art Fleming and Don Pardo to cover the Jeopardy! aspect but also Greg Kihn who did the song Al's spoofing (Jeopardy). I can't think of an earlier spoof with so much "official" participation. Anynobody 05:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep satisfies WP:MUSIC criteria and all other relevant guidelines. After all, where else but Wikipedia would you go to discover the secret ingredient found in both Cheese Whiz & Crazy Glue? Alansohn 11:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:MUSIC as stated over and over again, but slash and burn the trivia. RFerreira 06:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, satisfies guidelines. Abeg92contribs 18:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies WP:MUSIC. I am also very pleased to see that my views are quite similar to the views of a number of other Wikipedians in this discussion. Andy Saunders 00:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, You can talk dismissively about anyone, we've got articles on guys just because they happened to leave the atmosphere. The fact is that like leaving the atmosphere, charting on the hot 100 is a significant event in itself. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Everyking 16:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - WP:SNOW, a song by a clearly notable artist -Halo 21:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam McGuffie[edit]

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

This high school football player does have one article, in the Houston Chronicle.[51] That's not enough to satisfy WP:N though. If after arriving at college there's a significant increase in media coverage, this article can be undeleted at that time. ··coelacan 21:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless he's declared for the draft, has qualified for the Olympics, or is a national player of the year, he's not notable.Blueboy96 23:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No statewide coverage, let alone national. come back when you've made Parade All-American. DarkAudit 02:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A single article in the Houston paper is not enough. Mwelch 02:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not yet notable, but good luck though. Delete for now. --Nehrams2020 04:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Anynobody 05:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems more like an ad than an article. Bring it back if the time comes. --Wordbuilder 13:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dolamyte[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Abandoned article created by SPA which has been inactive for almost a year. No incoming links. Seed 2.0 21:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Speedy Delete per G11 Band is not notable and article is a blatant advert. A1octopus 21:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no sources provided or findable -- Whpq 17:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom DewiMorgan 19:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fatty 357[edit]

Fatty 357 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unimportant nonsense, just a group of friends with a website. Gareth E Kegg 21:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This article clearly fails WP:NOTE. A Google search turns up about 50 results, which are almost all copies of this article. The "COX" cable channel that supposedly aired Fatty 357 is a link to an enzyme! --Ali 00:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NFT. Placeholder account 04:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a website, public access and a cafepress store do not make you notable. Heck, I have 20 times the web footprint that these guys have. And I'm far from notable.DewiMorgan 19:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete no assertion of notability. Gwernol 23:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young Kadi[edit]

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

Nom - Fails WP:MUSIC - no published albums, no airplay, no tours - nothing but a self-published album. Sources are both self-published. I tried prodding this article in hopes there might be more, but a novice editor and friend of the subject kept removing the tags even after notification that this wasn't appropriate. I wouldn't object to a speedy delete, but at least one other pair of experienced eyes should verify my reasoning Rklawton 21:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per A7. Attempted notability by association by mentioning Chamillionaire. No DJ Scraps at AllMusic. DarkAudit 22:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete No Notability at all. Uses his own myspace page as a source. Raerth 23:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Aquarius &#149; talk 00:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waldek Darłak[edit]

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

Not notable. —Visor (talk • contribs) 21:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non notable local DJ per WP:BIO. No substantial outside coverage. Sources are not independent of the subject. No claim to meet any of the guidelines for entertainers. DarkAudit 22:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all and nominate particular songs separately if further deletion debate is sought.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Round and Round (Aerosmith song)[edit]

Round and Round (Aerosmith song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Adam's Apple (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Angel's Eye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Back in the Saddle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blind Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Draw the Line (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Falling in Love (Is Hard on the Knees) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Full Circle (Aerosmith song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Girls of Summer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Head First (Aerosmith) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Home Tonight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kings and Queens (Aerosmith song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Last Child (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lightning Strikes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lord of the Thighs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mama Kin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nine Lives (Aerosmith song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
No More No More (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nobody's Fault (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Round and Round (Aerosmith song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
S.O.S. (Too Bad) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Same Old Song and Dance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Seasons of Wither (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shut Up and Dance (Aerosmith song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sunshine (Aerosmith song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toys in the Attic (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These articles fail to meet the criteria for songs at WP:MUSIC. Most of them are also written in a non-encyclopedic tone, and contain original research or other unattributable statements. Some may be mergeable into their albums' pages, but most should be deleted. --DCrazy talk/contrib 22:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are stubs and need to be extended. Just have a look on the following category. All those articles are stubs. To add an article to this category, please use {{Single-stub}}. Janadore 23:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe most, if not all of these, are worthy of extension. At best they can be merged into their albums' pages. I went through each article in the Aerosmith songs category and took care to omit the ones which met the notability guidelines. Plus, not all of the above are singles. --DCrazy talk/contrib 01:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Enough with the deletionist stuff. This is absoultely sickening. Aerosmith is one of the most important and influential musical groups ever and are listed as a high-priority musician on Wikipedia, one of only a handful. If the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, and AC/DC get articles for every song, Aerosmith should at least get articles for their most notable songs. Additionally, many of these are singles...17 in fact. Seven reached the Hot 100. One is deemed one of the 500 most influential rock songs of all time. One has a tour named after it. Others were big rock hits, concert staples, or are featured on so many compilations, on the radio, in concert, or covered so many times that they are practically hits. This is absolutely ridiculous. Maybe try Wiki-fying or expanding these articles if they aren't to your suiting. Abog 02:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here regarding song notability standards, which are only a guideline, still under construction anyway.
Adam's Apple (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Major radio network hit
Angel's Eye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Part of motion picture score
Back in the Saddle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Hot 100 and Top 40 (U.S.); Publicity campaign (NFL 2003 & Nascar 2007); Major network radio hit
Blind Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Hot 100 in U.S. & U.K. (Top 40 in U.K.); Video on major network; Major network radio hit
Draw the Line (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Hot 100 in U.S. (just shy of Top 40); Live staple; Title track; Re-mixed; Signature song of a notable performer (Joe Perry)
Falling in Love (Is Hard on the Knees) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Hot 100 in U.S., U.K., and Australia (Top 40 in U.S.); Certified gold single; Major video network hit; Major radio network hit; Major award (MTV VMA)
Girls of Summer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Top 40 in Latvia; Major video network hit; Publicity campaign (had a tour named after it)
Head First (Aerosmith) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - technological innovation: one of first full-length commercial products available for Internet download
Home Tonight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Hot 100 in U.S.
Kings and Queens (Aerosmith song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Hot 100 in U.S.; multiple versions/mixes
Last Child (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Hot 100 in U.S., just one place shy of Top 20; signature song of a notable performer (Brad Whitford)
Lightning Strikes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Major video network hit, one of Aerosmith's first videos; notable as only hit away from original lineup
Lord of the Thighs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Major radio network hit; Featured on B-sides and live compilations; covered by the Breeders
Mama Kin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Featured on numerous compilations; Guns N' Roses prominetly covered it; Had a nightclub named after it; Steven Tyler's tattoo bears its name; Aerosmith's first single; Major radio network hit
Nine Lives (Aerosmith song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Publicity campaign (featured on SNL, roller coaster, etc.)
No More No More (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Defines the band; covered by Velvet Revolver
Nobody's Fault (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Defines heavy metal genre; Covered numerous times
Same Old Song and Dance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Major radio network hit
Seasons of Wither (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - featured on numerous compilations; major radio network hit; live staple
Shut Up and Dance (Aerosmith song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Hot 100 in U.K.; part of motion picture score
S.O.S. (Too Bad) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Released as single; Major radio network hit
Sunshine (Aerosmith song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Major video network hit
Toys in the Attic (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Part of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's 500 Songs That Shaped Rock and Roll, a very prestigious honor; Major radio network hit; Covered numerous times
Also, some food for thought: AC/DC, who has a similar amount of songs in their catalog as Aerosmith's, similar genre/style (hard rock), similar career lengths, and similar success (60-70 million albums sold in U.S.; Over 100 worldwide) currently has 106 articles in Category:AC/DC songs. Conversely, Aerosmith only has 65 song articles, a number that would be reduced to the forties range should these all get deleted. Nevermind the fact that Aerosmith has over 30 Hot 100 singles and over 40 Mainstream Rock hits. Abog 02:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The songs you claim were "major radio network hits" would be backed by chart placements if indeed they were, because charts are generated from station playlists as well as record sales. Top 100 placement is not as spectacular an accomplishment as you might think, and not every song, no matter who wrote it, must be included in Wikipedia, especially when the primary content of the page is the (unverifiable) statement that it is "possibly one of Aerosmith's hardest-rocking songs". Don't get me wrong, I'm an Aerosmith fan, but this is not an Aerosmith wiki. --DCrazy talk/contrib 03:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you're not familiar with the article Aerosmith discography. Go down to the singles section, and you will see that almost all of these songs are singles and charted high on either rock raido (Mainstream Rock) or the Hot 100. I feel that all of those should be left alone. Also, I'm very baffled at some of the songs you want to delete versus those that should stay. Seriously, you want to delete "Last Child" and "Back in the Saddle" but not "Fever" or "What Kind of Love Are You On"?? "Blind Man" but not "Walk on Water"?? "Lightning Strikes" but not "Shela"?? Your logic makes absolutely no sense to me. Also, you say this is not an Aerosmith wiki. Well, this is also not a Beatles wiki, but they have about 198 separate song articles and probably 100 other Beatles-related articles. Still, both groups are prominent musicians and cultural icons, and their songs thus deserve a place here. I'd like to increase knowledge on Wikipedia, I don't know about you. Abog 02:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. I dislike bulk nominations in general especially when at least some of these songs are clearly notable as singles and/or well known Aerosmith songs. Capitalistroadster 03:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you'd like to delete only Aerosmith article. What happen next? You'd like to delete all stub articles? In the history of these articles you will find many edits by different user and I don't think that they have your opinion as well. It doesn't matter singles or songs. You can use {{Song-stub}} to add a song to this category. Please revert your own edits. Janadore 03:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, you'll find that it's mostly you and User:Abog editing the articles. And no, I wouldn't like to "delete all stub articles." I nominated articles which I feel do not meet the guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia. And I happened upon the Round and Round article and prodded it. Abog reverted the prod, so I did the logical thing and took it to AfD, and in the process decided to include other articles I also felt should be included. --DCrazy talk/contrib 03:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all: please, no bulk nominations like this. Argue each case on its merits. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all to avoid the chaos that a multiple nomination like this will invariably bring. Looking at the list and the arguments thus far, we've got a bunch of songs which need citations for reaching the Top X in Country Y (depending on precisely what values X and Y are given, that's notability), the first single by a notable band (notable first, therefore) and a collection of other songs which have done various things which may or may not equate to notability. Mass-nominating a large number of them isn't a good idea at all. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it have been preferable for me to have nominated each article separately? I would think it's better to have one place to debate the merits of each article. Does the AfD process require that every article nominated receive the same judgment? (I tend not to get involved in too many AfD debates.) --DCrazy talk/contrib 14:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. Just evaluating all of those articles for deletion would easily take an hour. Actually saving all of these articles(I believe it's possible for us to write an article about almost any song by almost any noteworthy band. The key is completely ignoring WP:SYNTH and borging together comments from album reviewers.) would easily take 10 hours of work, assuming only half need substantial rewriting and doing so only takes 45 minutes each. People generally prefer that nominators spread mass AfD's out over a few days so the limited number of people willing to improve them aren't so overwhelmed. Chris Croy 16:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another option would be to bundle together the songs which have articles suffering from the same problem. If there are three articles which assert notability by saying that the song is "a fan favourite" (for example) and nothing else, then bundle them together, since that's a relatively similar problem. Someone may happen along with sources to demonstrate that two of them are notable, in which case the system is doing its job. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most. Most of these are not notable enough for their own article. Placing in the Top 100 or beign on a soundtrack is not enough for an article. It needs more than that, like being frequently covered. Of course, there are lots of other songs on wikipedia with equal lack of notability, and rooting them all out would be a painful job. But the rule should be not to let them proliferate, because potentially that would mean hundreds of thousands of such articles. Where the song is a track on an album, the info could easily be given at the album's article. (AC/DC do not deserve all their songs to have articles either!) BobFromBrockley 14:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, improve the articles if they aren't good enough, the topics are worthwhile, and no argument has been made that their current state is so unacceptable as to require deletion. Let me also express my sincere disapproval of this bulk nomination, too: with so many different songs of different quality and popularity in the list, this debate turns into a debate on the principle of whether to have song articles or not... which I think clearly we do allow in many cases. Mangojuicetalk 21:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, due to bulk-nom farce. Nom them separately or not at all, then each can be voted on its merits.DewiMorgan 19:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aquarius &#149; talk 00:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Witchdoctor Records[edit]

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

A7'd twice (once after my neutral rewrite), then moved to reasonless prod. Brought to AFD since the small amount of research I did suggests notability and it's clear that its notability is questionable. 166,000 Google hits, recipient of several awards, thus I "vote" Keep. -- Chris is me (user/review/talk) 22:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if label has at least two notable bands which have Wiki pages. Otherwise Delete for lack of notability. A1octopus 14:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep per consensus and article's improvement. diff PeaceNT 14:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sosatie[edit]

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

WP:NOT#OR, WP:NOT#DICT, just to name a few of the policies this article fails. ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 22:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It is just a stub, please tag it properly and wait until it gets fixed.- Flubeca t 22:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Magnus Animum jumped the gun nominating this one. I did basic some cleaup. A minimal amount of research on Google could produce some infomation to expand this stub. —Gaff ταλκ 22:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - here is a better reference. Tearlach 00:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but this article does not read like a dictionary definition - rather a stub that needs some work. --Ali 00:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Its whats for dinner. Minimal rewrite has addressed concerns flagged by nominator. RFerreira 06:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is all fact and is WP:V in South Africa. IZAK 04:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor 16[edit]

Survivor 16 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Except for one source (which is a picture about it being an all-stars, which is from the unreliable photobucket), we have no confirmation this is happening. Usually, we wait until this page shows the application for the season, which is the official confirmation by CBS.--TeckWiz is now R

As if CBS has been watching this conversation, the application is now available. This is no longer crystal balling. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 21:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC) ParlateContribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 22:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, just like last time. I don't really see what has changed since then. And I'm not sure that image is kosher; in fact, if it falls under fair use, it should have been uploaded with a regular GFDL-compliant FUR. Anyway, I went ahead and removed the image link from the article. -- Seed 2.0 23:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball! We cannot create articles about things that may or may not happen. --Ali 00:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Survivor 16 is going to happen. According to this, Jeff Probst is contracted to Survivor 16. -- Flowerkiller1692 19:58, 14 May 2007
  • But how long is Mark Burnett contracted with CBS until (and vice versa)? If they don't have CBS to show it on, and no one else wants them, there will be no show, and no Jeff Probt. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@ (Let's go Yankees!) 11:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing has changed since last time and it's still not set in concrete. I agree that we should wait for the application form, because contracts can change. THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 03:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Way too early for early for article. Nothing confirmed from a reliable source. Gogo Dodo 07:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to Keep now that application form is available from CBS and linked into article. -- Gogo Dodo 06:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporary Delete Not enough info + article made a bit too in advance.--JForget 19:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Crystalballery. Not enough information to validate this article yet. A1octopus 14:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The relevent information from the newly released application form is now added thanks to yours truly. Now this article is up to standard and is confirmed - not sure about the all-stars thing though. The link doesnt go anywhere but a post on some forum, i say delete it. But the other info is now true. Survivorfan101 06:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deleted the all-stars rumor as unverifiable. -- Gogo Dodo 06:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom, it would seem. The application is up, which I understand to be the traditional impetus for the article's creation. Maxamegalon2000 20:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Maxamegalon2000. Irk(talk) 21:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ScottAHudson.User: ScottAHudson 5:34pm 17 May 2007(UTC) You should keep because the season is going to happen. I would object deleting it.
  • KeepThe author clearly linked the application form to this new season of Survivor. CBS, being an accredited TV station is extremely unlikely to lie to the public. Hence it can be assumed that the event is proven to occur, and it's not a speculation.--Kylohk 19:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GSI Commerce[edit]

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

Page was flagged with AfD notice as "not notable" by contributor with no other edits. The editor did not finish the nomination and did not respond when contacted so I am finishing the listing as an act of good faith, although I have added sources that I believe establish notability. --TexasDex 23:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_May_14&oldid=1081100772"