Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 17

< May 16	May 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was nomination withdrawn per this edit. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dyke Island[edit]

I looked for more information about the Falkland Islands, and just couldn't find any other mention of "Dyke Island." No, nor "Smylie Channel" As much as I'd love to visit this place, is it possible that it could be a hoax? FisherQueen (Talk) 18:43, 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 Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 22:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Duquesne spy ring[edit]

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

"Duquesne spy ring" is a non-encyclopedic article. The article plagiarizes in its entirety a U.S. government source document. Sections of the plagiarized article have also been incorporated (wthout discussion) as sections into existing non-espionage articles (see SS America (1940) as an example. The article violates the first provision of Wikipedia:Five Pillars. See Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources, and also Plagiarism for reference. See source #1 here, believed to be the true source of the article, and source #2 here, the source originally cited in the article's {USGovernment} citation. Source #1 is not acceptable for inclusion in Wikisource (see Question 4.12 here for the reason). However, the original document released under FOIA for source #2 here might possibly meet the Wikisource criteria for inclusion, since it is a .pdf file copy of the original FBI document released under the FOIA. K. Kellogg-Smith 02:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I said at the Village pump, "In this specific case, I am perfectly happy with transcluding information from the FBI site. Editors considering transcluding other text and images from U.S. government sites need to bear in mind, however, that some material may be false or misleading. Sometimes politicians lie." This is a useful and encyclopedic article. It should be kept. Nobody owns a Wikipedia article. --Eastmain 02:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Copyvio. Copy/Paste material has existed since first version[1] CitiCat 03:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep Right you are.[2] CitiCat 04:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Keep. This topic was already discussed in depth on the Village pump View AfD ... Ctatkinson 03:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, original is public domain, no plagiarism and thus no deletion rationale. It would be better if expanded from non-FBI sources, particularly in light of WP:NPOV, but there is not a problem because it was originally created from a public domain source. --Dhartung | Talk 07:51, 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 or merge Unclear if consensus is to merge/redirect to the episode list page, further discussion is necessary, but that should be on the talk page, you don't need AFD to do a merge.. W.marsh 17:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lilly, Do You Want to Know a Secret?[edit]

I am nominating this page per last week's discussion on episodes of The Suite Life of Zack and Cody. This page only contain their plot and useless trivia. They can be covered in the list of Hannah Montana episodes. - Disney768User 07:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating these related pages:

Keep - almost every notable tv show has a episode guide with plot summaries here on Wikipedia. Most of the nominated articles here are well written, formatted and in an encyclopedia tone. Think outside the box 10:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - Sorry, but individual episodes of this kid's show just aren't all the meaningful or notable on their own. The only external links that mention them are to IMDB, tv.com, and disney's own page. The list page covers the info well enough. Tarc 14:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per precedent. Perhaps there needs to be some broader discussion on this topic, perhaps even consideration for writing up a guideline on television episode articles, but thus far there is a definite community consensus to keep individual episode articles for pretty much any television series. While notability of each series may be entirely subjective, it would be unfair to say that this show is less notable than, say, Star Trek and therefore less deserving of individual episode articles, as that would be introducing an unfair bias. On their own merits I would gladly say that television episode articles are not encyclopedic and should be deleted - but the precedent for keeping them is too strong to ignore. So then my recommendation is to keep these articles until a broader consensus on what to do with television episode articles can be reached. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 15:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. lets hope this dosn't get as bad TSl did
Week Keep most tlevision shows have articles for each episode Black Harry (T|C) 17:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I agree with Black Harry Arnon Chaffin ^{Got a message?} 19:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to a single list article or perhaps an article for each season. In looking at a number of these articles, it does not appear that they meet any sort of standard for being standalone articles. They consist of a plot summary, a trivia section and a "goofs" section. These are the sort of articles that would be best served by a single list article where all of the repetitive information on cast could be listed once with brief plot synopses for each episode and annotation of any particularly notable non-trivia information. See for example the many articles contained within Category:Lists of television series episodes. Should particular episodes of the series become independently notable apart from the series (if any of them won a notable award for example) then an individual article can be written for that episode. Otto4711 19:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to list shortening the plot summaries and removing trivia. I've said this before and I'll say it again. We don't keep/delete based on precedent, we judge the articles individually. Saying other TV shows have individual episode articles is a silly reason to keep. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to list(s). There is a guideline on TV show episodes - WP:EPISODE. And the gist of it is that if the only information about an episode comes from the episode itself, there shouldn't be an article. Confusing Manifestation 23:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think that there are so many other articles on TV episodes that are out there it would be pointless to go out deleting all of them. It would make a lot of people mad, and cause a lot of work and time to be wasted on the part of both admins, and normal editors. I don't really like the practice, but precedent supersedes personal preferences. Just putting my 2 cents in. Neranei 23:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to List of Hannah Montana episodes. Precendent is not a good reason to keep article. None of the articles in question indicate they are notable according to WP:EPISODE, they're all just rehashing of the plot of each episode plus useless trivia. Plus, it's treading on copyright violation to have episode summaries this detailed; the articles should not be a replacement for watching individual episodes. Unless one of these episodes has the critical acclaim of The City on the Edge of Forever or the ratings of Goodbye, Farewell and Amen, I fail to see how they warrant individual articles. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Episodes are notable and precedent is rather strong to maintain such articles. Alansohn 02:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give an example of notability? Just saying that they are doesn't make it so, notability is established when outside sources make note of the subject. Tarc 12:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up. Many people are currently working on improving the Disney Channel episodes to remove trivia, fix-up the plots and add more information. It's easier to improve an article rather than start it from scratch later. This is going to be another fun filled war like with The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episode AfD. You'd think editors would notice continually AfDing all the episodes you find isn't going to just all of a sudden work. Current consensus among the editors is to improve these articles so that they can pass all applicable guidelines rather than just outright deleting them. If people spent as much time improving these as they do AfDing them, they'd be decent articles. And hey, if albums are notable because the musician who made them is, why aren't episodes notable if the series is? --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Last I checked, albums by notable artists, books by notable authors, etc. are not inherently notable. Notabilty is not inherited. Do these episodes meet the WP:N guideline? Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into something like the List of Naruto: Shippūden episodes, preferably. The plot summaries don't have to be entirely discarded, even though the episodes are not strong enough to stand as individual articles. Deranged bulbasaur 12:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia not paper. Reasonably popular and notable show. No need to throw away the work that's gone into these articles. Herostratus 16:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of "work" put into it is not a valid argument at all, if the subj matter is not notable. Tarc 14:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Other television shows have individual entries for each episode in addition to a larger list. See List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes and an individual entry at Darmok. I don't see why there should be any difference. JCO312 16:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Trekkie by any stretch of the imagination, but Star Trek is far more notable than a `tweener kid's show. There is nothing notable about any of these individual episodes. Put em all in a list with brief plot summaries next to each. Tarc 14:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes Star Trek far more notable than this show? Obviously the early series are, but what about Star Trek: Enterprise? As far as I can tell no individual episode won an award or was critically acclaimed. According to this list, the number of viewers for the fourth season (as well as most of the third) is less than this episode, so what makes it less notable. The only reason individual Enterprise episodes are on here is because they have the Star Trek name. Now I'm not claiming that these episodes are notable or not, I just think we need to be clear on the notability guidelines. If, as someone suggested above, episodes are only notable if they have the critical acclaim of City on the Edge of Forever or the ratings of Goodbye, Farewell and Amen then that is an almost impossibly high standard and there should be almost no individual episode articles on wikipedia. (Note that this is just a comment not a "vote" per se, I'm not going to give a "vote" based on this comment because it comes dangerously close to arguing that other crap exists) Phydend 16:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Although other TV shows have individual entries, the series is not notable enough to. I suggest merging as the nomination suggests. --Trumpetband 01:09, 24 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 as a blatant and evident hoax. Newyorkbrad 01:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mousetrap Industries[edit]

suspected hoax Postcard Cathy 00:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neither sourced nor witty nor true. CIreland 00:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it did well to last over 3 weeks. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as nonsense. DarkAudit 01:04, 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 Zsinj^Talk 02:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dome Snipe[edit]

References are missing, and I doubt that this term is notable/widespread enough to be included in an encyclopedia. High on a tree 00:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 2 google hits. Neither of which match the given definition. CIreland 00:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as nonsense. the_undertow ^talk 01:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete even if this isn't nonsense, it's still a violation of WP:OR.Shindo9 Hikaru 01:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe it to be nonsense because the article ends with 'no logic behind it.' That makes the article incoherent, as far as I am concerned. the_undertow ^talk 01:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Blatant failure of WP:OR, WP:N, and WP:NONSENSE--Elfin341 02:06, 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 02:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Windsor municipal election, 1991[edit]

Two issues to deal with here. I can't see that election results for local council elections are encyclopedic enough to support their own articles. Also, these articles (there are more which I will deal with based on the result of this AfD) are being used to provide potted bios of NN candidates. So, leave as they are, delete the potted bios, or delete completely? EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments

There are probably thousands of these local election results articles, internationally. In particular, for developing countries it may be extremely difficult and time-consuming to determine significance/notability/regionality of a given election.
From 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. This seems to me to justify to greater number (if not the overwhelming majority) of local election results.
As for the potted bios - WP:N only deals with inclusion of articles, not with their content [3]. The potted bios probably best come under WP:TRIVIA but not very satisfactorily.
It might be better to debate this on policy talk pages rather than in AFD. CIreland 00:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, CIreland, for your comments. Assuming that the afd moves forward, my preference is to keep the page. I would also argue that the "potted bios" are innocuous, and may be beneficial to those interested in the subject matter. CJCurrie 01:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm not sold on the idea that municipal elections (as opposed to "local councils", whatever those are - counties? Rural areas? Surely not cities) are by definition notable, but this article is attributed to multiple independent reliable sources, so it passes WP:ATT and WP:N. --Charlene 03:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CIreland. This is actually the perfect place for these potted bios, as for the most part, the candidates have no notaiblity independent of this election. Resolute 04:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In which case the argument would be that they don't have any notability at all, and their details shouldn't be here. The other problem with having bios in articles about other subjects is that it makes WP:BLP very difficult. EliminatorJR ^Talk 09:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this event clearly received press coverage, and I'd welcome as many articles about elections as we can find sources (beyond mere results tallies) to support. The numerous cited newspaper articles clearly qualify as sufficient to make this a valid subject. Whether to remove the biographies is something to be worked out among editors on the talk page, not at AfD. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with CIreland's second point and Charlene's comment. I'm not saying there should be these types of articles or that they would ever be good articles, but current guidelines do allow for them. For interest's sake there is Wikipedia:Articles on elections. --maclean 05:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, individual pages for elections in each and every municipality in the world is faaaaaar over the top. Punkmorten 06:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Obscurity of a subject is certainly no reason for deletion. The details on this page are both citable (not original research) and of interest to people studying the field of relevance. Personally, in my own studies, I would love to have a rich collection of municipal election articles dating back as far as possible. To be able to trace the history of local elections and try to discern patterns or trends would be very relevant to my work. I also include in that study the details of otherwise non-notable candidates. Seeing who is running (including unsuccessfully) is a critically important detail when studying elections. —GrantNeufeld 07:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. WP:PLOT 9, WP:NOT#LINK 3. Wikisource is a better place for this. If the article gave more encyclopedic background, eg, controversies during the election, major campaigning points, etc, it might be worth keeping here. --bd_ 07:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, this is an article about elections for people who fail WP:BIO, that is, fall short of the state/provincial division standard (however ridiculous that may be in comparing The Comoros to China). As Windsor is a substantial city I'm OK with their mayor having an article per "attention in the media" politician loopholes, but not councillors, so an article on the election is very dubious. Wikipedia is not a gazetteer or directory. Particularly since local political articles tend to attract less rigorous editing and vandalism oversight, I feel these will be a magnet for potential WP:BLP violations -- I shudder to think of the crap that could be written just for the last couple of city council elections in my city. --Dhartung | Talk 07:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Wikipedia is not a gazetteer or directory does not apply, because this is not simply a list, it is an article about an election, covering people and voting. WP:BIO covers articles on individuals, so clearly does not apply here (insofar as this article is about people, it is about a group of people, which is a different issue). This in article primarily about a defining process in the council, and it is really stretching a point to say that including a few brief notes about the candidates somehow turns the article into a biography: if any article including brief mentions of several people was assessed solely as a biography, we'd have to delete thousands of useful and important articles on sport, culture and politics.
Finally, please judge an article on its contents, not just because someone may add crap to it at some point in the future. This article doesn't contain crap, so don't treat it as if it did. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep municipal councils are inherently notable to people in the area concerned and to people who are interested in learning about that area. Wikpedia is not paper. The potted bios add to the article, especially as they are concise and NPOV. If they were lengthy or promotional, I would agree that they should be deleted, but they are not. Ground Zero | t 10:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Elections to public office clearly meet the WP:N test of being covered by two or more reliable sources; and if people want further reasons beyond WP:N, then consider that elections are one of the defining aspects of any democratic system. My only regret about this article is that there are not more articles on elections. For goodness sake, when we have zillions of articles on video games and the characters therein, and plenty of precedent for keeping them, why on earth is an election in a major city not an obvious keep?
Per Cleland, there is a broader policy issue here, because this AfD is clearly being used to set a precedent: public bodies have a wide range of powers and significance, so it is very hard to set an objective threshold for inclusion. Do we include only nationwide elections? I so, we lose elections to state legislatures in the United States. So maybe we decide to include them ... but if we include state elections in Delaware (pop 843,000), it would be bizarre to exclude elections to the City Council in Birmingham, England (pop 1.1million). If someone want to create a guideline on which elections are notable, then open discussions on such a guideline, but don't do it on an ad-hoc basis, and don't compare the readily-verifiable election results of a major city with those of a place where verifiability is problematic. If there are any improperly-sourced articles, deal with them by WP:RS, not by trying to eliminate articles which are well-sourced. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether it's sourced or not isn't the issue, it's whether it meets our guidelines (WP:NOT). Is it notable who the mayor is? Yes, of course. Is it really notable how many votes he/she got? In every local election in history? Probably not, I'd say. Apart from the mayor, you've got an election between (usually) non-notable people. That doesn't sound encyclopedic to me. Furthermore, User:CJCurrie has majorly expanded this article since it started, with even more statistics, not to mention canvassing other editors on their talk pages. EliminatorJR ^Talk 11:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're correct to note that I expanded the page after the afd was started. My reasons were quite simple: (i) the page was an incomplete stub, and should have been been expanded some time ago, (ii) if this is going to be a test-case afd, we might as well indicate the page's full potential. For the record, I contacted three other editors on their talk pages: one has voted to keep, one cast a neutral vote, and the third hasn't contributed to the discussion. CJCurrie 16:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, the expansion comment wasn't actually a criticism as some of the information you added is actually more notable than what was already there, though some wasn't. I don't believe this is a test case, btw: more a measure of how we should approach the recording of election results on Wikipedia; there will always be exceptions. EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Eliminator, your comment that "apart from the mayor, you've got an election between (usually) non-notable people" misunderstands what a city council election is about. A general election at any level (as opposed to a by-election) is not just a contest between individuals, it is a collective choice about the political priorities and direction of the city as a whole. Even if each of the individual councillors are individually non-notable, their collective election is much more notable than the sum of the parts. For example, an election which replaces a socialist-dominated council with a conservative-dominated council (or vice versa) marks a significant change of course in the running of a city. None of the defeated councillors and none of their replacements may be particularly interesting of themselves, but since their powers are exercised collectively, their collective significance is much greater. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I can understand that having too many articles can make things hard to find, documenting the issues and opinions expressed in elections in Local Governments can be quite useful. An encyclopeadia is often a starting point, and so being able to find that ""joe Blow"" ran for 5 consectutive times and lost may allow the reader a starting point to look for other sources in their own learning process.cmacd 16:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But you can't find out that information from these articles without trawling through every single one... EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Elections are very notable, and we've had afd debates over smaller communities, and they have been to keep. I just wish CJCurrie would actually finish all of these election pages ;-) -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since notability has no expiration date, and since every election is reported in the local newspapers, then if we keep such as this we would have to keep an article on every election in history in every town and village, as well as every issue in the election, such as resolutions and bond issues, which also get reported in multiple newspapers. Much of this info is a miscellaneous collection of information. We are not a gazette, and do not have to repeat everything which was ever published in multiple newspapers. Edison 17:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If extensive coverage in multiple nontrivial sources isn't sufficient, what is? We're not paper, we don't need to worry about having thousands of articles on any particular topic. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Note that there are millions of towns in the world which have had elections for a hundred years or more reported in muliiple local and regional papers. Too trivial to be in an encyclopedia. I could create 100 such articles for small towns with newspaper microfilms but it would be too WP:POINTy. "We are not paper" is a poor excuse for limitless articles of no importance or use. Think of the number of stub articles if someone even stuck to elections for state assembly and nation office, by district. [4] for instance lists local votes from the states and counties from the 1780's through the 1820's. Each of these local elections was certainly written up in state and local papers, but what purpose is served by importing the data from such an external archive of election results into Wikipedia? Whyt attempt to mirror all information there is rather than just linking to it? More articles means more potential for accidental error or vandalism as well, and more things to occupy space on the watchlists of editors.Edison 17:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment More articles means more potential for accidental error or vandalism as well? What sort of argument is that, except an argument for deleting huge 95% of Wikipedia to retain only those articles which are important to everyone? Similarly, we are not discussing a small town, we are discussing a major city. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Elections are inherently notable as has been stated above. As long as they are sourced, as we are not a paper encyclopedia, they should be kept. Davewild 20:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Elections usually have some stories which would keep this kind of article from being as dull as it currently is. A few paragraphs of narrative about the election issues and events would be nice. Keeping due weight in mind, we should emphasize the final results and the major news stories, and not give undue publicity to people who didn't get much attention. Kla'quot 06:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at other municipal elections, I found another method of doing this (also from Canada). Instead of having one page for each year's election complete with irrelevant stats and bios, have one page for each electoral district, with a history of its elections - have a look here Beaches—East York (I know this isn't a municipal district, but the concept's the same). This is a much better way of doing this, I think - all the Windsor Municipal election pages could be condensed into one far more encyclopedic article. EliminatorJR ^Talk 09:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. So, like a "Ward One (Windsor)" article? But all those provincial & federal electoral districts are are collected into general election articles like Ontario general election, 1995, which is equivalent to Windsor municipal election, 1991. If there are going to be articles on municipal elections I prefer one general election article. Other options could be one article per province like British Columbia municipal elections, 2005, where all elections occur in the same year, though I'd make exceptions for large cities like Toronto (Windsor would be cutting it close); or one article for each municipality like Windsor City Council or Government and politics of Vancouver. --maclean 17:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CIreland. GreenJoe 22:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking 06:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly wouldn't support having an article for every individual city councillor, or for every election in a town of 10 people, but municipal elections in one of Canada's 20 largest cities are suitably encyclopedic. Sure, they'd never get into Britannica, but that's why WP:PAPER exists. We do have articles on plenty of other major cities' municipal elections — if we'd like to decide against them as a general policy, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that, but in the meantime as long as they're currently permitted there's no good reason to single Windsor's out as uniquely non-notable. (And no, this is not an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument; it's more like "let's actually hash out a policy on whether we want these as a general rule or not".) And it's precisely because past municipal elections aren't well-documented on the web that there is value in having somebody put the work in to find the appropriate references and documentation. Keep. Bearcat 17:12, 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 snowball delete. Sr 13 20:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second Sunday in March[edit]

Very little content; little possibility for expansion. greenrd 00:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Absolutely no need to keep this thing around. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 00:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Absolutely worthless to keep. And just pointless, If you know what I mean. We alrealy have an article on March 11.Elfin341 02:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing more than a calendar entry. Resolute 04:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For a couple of months I've been wondering "what was the date of the second Sunday in March this year?" If only I'd known this article existed I could have solved this mystery before! WTF? Delete of course. Masaruemoto 04:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, indiscriminate information at its finest, not encyclopedic at all. WP:NOT an annotated (non)perpetual calendar. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
neutral, apparently this is the day daylight savings begins. Apparently an attempt to gain search engine results (googlebot sometimes scans articles like this and picks out random facts and allows you to use natural text queries, such as [5] Nardman1 07:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not true outside of the U.S., and you'll find that the situation with DST even in the U.S. is far from that simple. We have lengthy discussions of this subject at Daylight saving time around the world#United States and its related articles. Uncle G 12:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per other delete entries above. --Metropolitan90 07:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As redundant, and possibly also redundant.Charlie 08:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a certain Zen perfection in this article's perfect uselessness. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per above, in spite of Zen perfection. BobFromBrockley 14:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete. I only wish I could come up with a reason to speedy this .. this is consummately unencyclopedic. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Slavlin 16:03, 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 a wintry delete per clear precedent. Krimpet (talk) 04:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs that are also the name of a TV show[edit]

A list of unrelated song titles that coincidentally happen to be the name of a TV show as well. List of loosely associated topics, and an indiscriminate reason for a list. Almost as bad as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English songs whose title includes the name of a fictional place, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English songs whose title includes the name of a landmark, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs whose title includes dates and times. Masaruemoto 00:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this reminds me of an earlier one. Anyho isn't even deserving of a category. DBZROCKS 00:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arbitrary list. OR. the_undertow ^talk 01:43, 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 Would you keep Green Eggs and Ham? I would not keep it, Sam-I-Am. Krimpet (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Green Eggs and Ham in popular culture[edit]

Another very trivial list of mentions/spoofs. An example from the article: In Daddy Day Care, Charlie (Eddie Murphy) is reading this book to the children during a session of child-minding. It's a popular book, but a list of spoofs, mentions and references certainly isn't encyclopedic. Also: there is no need to merge this into the main article, as this is a cluttered crufty trivia list in my opinion. RobJ1981 00:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, this is a very trivial list for the most part. A couple of the more important ones (such as the opera) could be merged into the main article, however. By the way, I took the liberty of categorizing this discussion for you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 00:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong retain. Grrr! It's really hard to maintain a decent article on a topic like Green Eggs and Ham unless a repository is provided for the endlessly-contributed pop culture items. I speak from experience. Green Eggs and Ham in popular culture isn't hurting anybody, is conceivably of interest to some, and serves an important function, so please leave it alone. Opus33 01:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The correct response to people trying to insert unsourced trivia into an article is to delete it, not send it to another page for unsourced trivia. Delete. --Haemo 07:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the usual cycle of these lists goes as follows:

People add various notable popular culture references to an article
Other users, mostly anons, add tons of useless, obscure references to the list in the article
The list is split out to a new article.
It gets even worse.
The list is deleted.
GOTO 1.

Its sort of unfortunate, and the best course of action to avoid it is to trim the list to something short, simple, and only containing the most notable references, rather than passing mentions in the Simpsons. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 01:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually inserted this into Raul's Rules of Wikipedia awhile ago. --Haemo 07:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article Green Eggs and Ham, delete non-notable bits. Notable, yes, but not enough to get it's own article. Elfin341 02:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but have a sentence for the most significant examples in the main article. Masaruemoto 03:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not want this list to stay. I hope the mods take it away. It's far too useless, far too fluffed -- what Wikipedia dubs as cruft. The trivial mentions just aren't fit for 'cyclopaedias, not one bit. Even worse, it's quite unsourced! (Sorry if my verse is forced -- I did it just for fun, you know. Can't think of more, so I must go.) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 03:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete everything except the "sponsored items" and put those in the main article - adaptations of the work to other media, in this case a film and a computer game, are notable and should be in the main article. The rest of the "I Spy with my little eye" items constitute a directory of loosely-associated items and should be deleted. Otto4711 13:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modifying my opinion to say include all of the actual adaptations, including the opera mentioned above. Otto4711 13:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or possibly merge as per Elfin341. Most trivial things should be removed, sources should be sought for some things. But Green Eggs and Ham is actually very important in popular culture (as article demonstrates) and deserves to have this importance reflected on Wikipedia. BobFromBrockley 14:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One, nothing "deserves" an article on WIkipedia. Wikipedia articles are not rights or entitlements. Two, the article on the actual book attests to its notability. Deleting this article has no effect whatsoever on the notability of the book itself. While the book is clearly notable, that does not mean that every mention or appearance of the book in every other place ever is also notable. Otto4711 14:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to a subpage of the article's talk page and keep. If it is felt that this largely self-verifying data is too unorganized to appear on the main page of Green Eggs and Ham, one of the established functions of subpages of talk pages is to hold material for further editing. As observed above, some of this stuff, like the official spin-offs, definitely belongs in the article in chief. What this wants is better organization and some minimal characterization of matters that are now just a list. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is about as crufty list as you can get - Trivia, even in volume, is almost by definition not notable in its own right. The only purpose might be to illustrate the there are populatr references, in which case, this fact can be incorporated into the article itself, and only where the fact is not the synthesis of the author (i.e. a reliable source has made that conclusion. - Tiswas^(t) 15:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A proper repository for unencyclopedic trivia content that is clogging up an article is the backspace key, not a new article. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would really love to see more of these "Pop culture" articles go away. They lend nothing to the article. If a major television program did an entire episode in the style of Green Eggs and Ham, that might be notable. A book on a table is not. Slavlin 04:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Glorified trivia section that thinks it can be an article. Biggspowd 21:07, 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 keep. Krimpet (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All-female band[edit]

This article presumes all of the listed bands should be tied together because of the gender of their members - this is stigmatizing, as many of these bands are barely similar, also associating classical female composers of the past to garage rock.. what is the correlation, apart from the fact they're female? The existence of this article implies that female bands deviate from the "normal" band, that is, all-male. If anything, it overcredits them - if they are relevant bands, cite them in "normal" music pages. It is proposed for deletion for WP:OCAT Betina 00:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There's an encyclopedic article on the history of all-female bands and how they differ from generic 'women in music', though this needs rewriting badly. Also, incidentally, even in a quick scan of the article I see at least 3 bands (The Breeders, The Raincoats, Bikini Kill) that weren't all-female. EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How so? I can see references ranging from bands in punk to irish folk music.. how are they correlated apart from gender? Would this article make any sense if they were male bands? Are women in bands subjected to being in "female bands" evaluated in "female music" as opposed to simply "bands"? Betina 01:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was suggesting that there is an encyclopedic article here about the history and development of all-female bands more in a sociological sense than a musical one. Maybe that's not the case, and even if it is, this article does need a lot of work so I believed it may be worth keeping as a starting point despite its faults. (Having read it again, I've changed my vote to Weak Keep btw). EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How would WP:OCAT apply here? That's a guideline for categories, not articles. Masaruemoto 01:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a perfectly legitimate topic and this article, whille not perfect, is certainly a good start. It's referenced and should be improved through editing rather than dispatched through deletion. I fail to see how it's sexist to discuss all girl bands. Nick mallory 03:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you need my personal input, it is sexist because it assumes they can all be grouped together under the umbrella of gender, which is not a fair parameter. But even using that parameter, the article fails in organizing anything - and so do the sources. It's like attempting to relate irish folk music to punk rock - they do not have a correlation! And the gender of the musicians do not make them any more similar, as the case is in male bands.
~~Weak delete~~, reads like a personal essay. The assertion that 'all-female band' has a specific definition needs verification. I agree with the nominator that the justification for tying these bands together is weak.--Nydas^(Talk) 07:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to weak keep per Uncle G.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the six books cited in the article itself, a mere 1 minute's research on my part turned up a seventh, ISBN 0822333171, from page 207 of which I was able to verify several of the points made in the article, and which discusses The Go-Go's, Bikini Kill, and L7 almost in the same breath. Another minute's research turned up pages 134–136 of ISBN 0896082407 discussing all-girl bands, in a section entitled "All-Girl Bands". The concept is discussed in depth in many sources, and is discussed in the same way as it is discussed in the article, even to the extent of discussing such disparate groups under a single umbrella. We are here to report what the sources say. The objections above are simply editors disagreeing with the sources. Pseudonymous Wikipedia editors don't get to override sources. Verifiable, notable, and not original research. Keep. Uncle G 09:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable sociological phenomenon. There's no generic reason to keep All-Female X. I was far more inclined to keep until I noticed that girl group exists. MLA 12:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The books that discuss the subject say that it is a phenomenon, and document it. In a conflict between what a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor says and what sources say, the sources win. And saying that we should delete an article that cites books in favour of an article that contains no citations at all is patently wrongheaded. And that's not even to address the point made in one of the sources given above that the members of a "girl group" do not play instruments, whereas in an all-female band one will find female guitarists and the like. Have you actually read any of the sources at all on this subject? Your rationale does not seem to be an application of our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Uncle G 14:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The issue itself is also present in the books that discuss it - these all-women bands are not related to each other. This is different from girl groups or riot grrl, which refer to specific band setups, scenes and genres, with actual collective similarities and the characteristics of a "sociological phenomenon". This article simply ties all the bands together because of the gender of their members. The fact that "All-women band" has the specific implication that all the girls play the instruments isn't reasonable, either, nor does it bring them closer to each other - Radiohead and Korn are bands in which males all play instruments, and this does not make them any more similar. The article even fails at making itself consistent by citing several bands that have a male member, making the attempt to label said bands under a loosely defined "chick music" genre. The sources have a similar inconsistency, and the method of grouping of such bands in said book chapter is too subjective. Betina 17:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The issue itself is also present in the books that discuss it — This exemplifies what I said above: Your objection isn't based upon sources at all, and is solely based upon the fact that you personally disagree with the sources, which discuss all-female/all-girl bands by those very names, and the fact that this notion exists and is documented. Once again: We are here to report what the sources say. That you personally don't think that the sources are reasonable (You clearly haven't read the either the source, what I wrote above, or even our girl group article, if you think that "all the girls play the instruments" was the definition, by the way. So your charge of unreasonableness is actually aimed at a straw man of your own making.) is not a reason for deletion. It isn't even a reason for cleanup.
      Please read our Wikipedia:No original research policy. We don't get to make our own novel interpretations of things simply because we disagree with the interpretations that the sources have. And that includes not having articles merely because we personally don't like the fact that quite a few writers have chosen to document the concept of all-female bands and include a wide range of bands in that category. In a conflict between your unsupported personal opinion, as a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor, and an actual source, the source wins. In this case, we have quite a few sources. (At least one of them was written by an assistant professor at UCLA, incidentally.) Your argument that the sources are "subjective" when your entirely subjective personal opinion, with no sources to back it up, is the sole basis for your own argument is clearly a double standard, also.
      Human knowledge is unfair, uneven, and imperfect. If you here to set it to rights, such as by not discussing all-female bands because it unfair that there isn't a parallel discussion of all-male bands, you are here for the wrong reasons. This is an encyclopaedia. We aren't here to change human knowledge and change what the sources say. We are here to document human knowledge and report what the sources say. If you want to document all-male bands to the same degree that all-female bands are documented, or dispute what all of the sources variously say about all-female bands, or just generally go on a crusade to change human knowledge, go and write a book of your own. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Uncle G 17:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you for taking this to a personal level - as if this was a "straw man of my own making", and that I have personal issues with this without any rational point to make. I am making clear statements here: girl groups have specific requirements of arrangement (i.e. three girls doing vocals with a backup band, choreographies, etc), therefore they are a category of their own, as is riot grrl (feminist background, not necessarily all-female but relevant to women, etc). They are referent to gender-specific traits, but they represent an actual collectivity. If their articles are not well documented, that is an issue for edition, not deletion, as they represent well-defined (or at least better defined) categories. You say this is an encyclopedia that only documents human knowledge, and I agree with you - there are articles on racist organizations, the Klu Klux Klan and their beliefs out there. But they are shaped specifically, as a definite category related to an actual organization, an actual separation. The All-Women Band article does not have such standards - if the standard is not "girls playing all the instruments" then what is the point of the name? What then defines an All-Women Band? What does the article represent? I am not saying we should ignore what the sources say, my point is that their organization does not meet the same standards of an encyclopedia. Organize the info in a form that meets a standard. And creating an article that does not have a particular standard for inclusion is the issue. It's for similar reasons why Wikipedia does not include "Top 500 best" or "Top 50 most influential" lists in their directories, for instance - they do not have objective, listable, distinguishable standards. They might be cited in the relevant articles (as the bands' profiles) but for their lack of organizational quality, they do not constitute articles. Also, could you for the love of god contain this discussion to what the article is, as opposed to what you think I am doing, my reasons and personal beliefs, and also contain your hyperboles of crusades against human knowledge? I think the issue is much simpler than that. Thank you. Betina 20:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You're not addressing the pint that the sources disagree with you. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I am addressing the issue by saying that the sources do not collectivize all of these bands in a satisfactory manner, similarly to rankings, top 50's and so on. They are not gathered by genre, time period, cultural similarities, similarities in setup, not even gender of the band members. I have addressed this strongly enough. I do not disagree with the information contained in the sources - I do disagree how some feel that this encyclopedia should reproduce the inaccurate grouping of all of these bands, without any proper standards, under the same umbrella - while this is acceptable in a book, it is not acceptable in a database that proposes to organize human information - not simply reproduce it directly from the source. Lists such as "Popular Tourist Destinations" have been deleted for similar reasons - no one disagrees that Paris is everyone's favourite traveling destination, yet we have no distinguishable standard for that, even though it is probably called a popular destination in several sources! Why does the citation not make the list any more credible? Because the standards for inclusion in the article are unclear. They are imprecise and vary in different sources Not mentioning that a wide array of hundreds of "All-Women Bands" is ignored in this article - and attempting to cover all of them would result in a very inconsistent essay (which it already is), simply because they are not related to each other in similar ways as other types of music category would be. Even the All-Women Bands listing has a better standard by only choosing bands that are truly All-Female.

I cannot make my point any stronger, and if you still insist that I am choosing to ignore the knowledge of the source, I understand that you take Wikipedia a simple search engine that reproduces the organization of every single of its sources without discrimination - however confusing, conflicting and inaccurate that setting may be. Oh, and organization and content are absolutely the same thing.Betina 12:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Concur entirely with Betina - this is not a specific and discrete subject for an article. I'm not going to expand on anything here bar saying that documenting all of human documentation is a very disappointing outcome for this project. MLA 10:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject, this is just he politically correct article title for "girl band"... "girl band" gets 674,000 ghits MPS 19:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to the more common girl band (note that we also have boy band). Obviously a distinct type of band worth discussing. Sandstein 22:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep don't move. L7 is most certainly not a "girl band." ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as referenced article. I tend to think that a merge might be a good move but I will leave that decision to the editors of the articles. Capitalistroadster 02:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable topic. Do not merge with girl group or girl band; these are distinct types of groups. Badagnani 17:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whatever we think of the political correctness or otherwise of using the terms "girl band" or "all female band" et cetera, the facts remain that such bands do exist,and the terms are notable in so far as they are in widespread use the media. Therefore this article is encyclopedic. Also I agree that this article should not be moved as "All-female band" is a better overall description than "Girl band" in that all girl-bands are all-female bands but not all all-female bands are girl bands. A1octopus 12:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be beautiful if the bands cited actually were all-female bands. Girl band would make a better article title as it describes its intent more properly. Whatever. I guess it's my very personal perspective of seeing a greater number of so-called all-women bands out there that makes the narrowness and invalidity of this article more evident.Betina 02:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic and I think that this has the potential to be a very good article. daveh4h 20:31, 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 snowball delete. Sr 13 07:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ear Piercing Instructions[edit]

Contested prod. A step by step guide, nothing more. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide DarkAudit 00:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clear-cut violation of WP:NOT. --Hnsampat 01:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Hnsampat. —Ocatecir ^Talk 01:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious violation of WP:NOT#IINFO criteria 4. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody else.Shindo9 Hikaru 01:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge It should also merged it with Pierced ear Ear piercing instrument Earring. --Cyberman101 00:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Earring. --Cybergirl215 01:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)--Cyberman101 00:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should not be merged per WP:NOT#IINFO criteria 4. And please do not use sockpuppets to a votestack. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete or Merge Violation of WP:NOT#IINFO, however, some parts can be merged. Elfin341 02:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. We are not a howto repository. Wikihow would be a better home for it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and put up on Wikihow. As stated many times above, WP is not a how-to place. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Actions • Words)))} 03:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a how-to guide. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:51, 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. Article move has already been done. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3WC[edit]

NN Radio station. Reads like an advertisement. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. Yechiel Man 01:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Changing to neutral per Eastmain. Yechiel Man 04:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an FCC-licensed broadcast station is notable, but this article is just spam. DarkAudit 03:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Generally, FCC-licensed stations like this are considered inherently notable. I suggest a move to something like WWWC-AM, rather than a branded name that can change on a whim. DarkAudit 04:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an FCC-licensed broadcast station. I added a link to the FCC database to confirm this. The text was taken from the station's web site, so I replaced it with noncopyvio text. I would normally say that the article should be moved to its call letters, WWWC, but WWWC is currently a redirect to World Wide Web Consortium. --Eastmain 04:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still doesn't seem notable G1ggy ^{Stalk - Talk - Chalk} 04:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just created WWWC (AM), copying the contents of this article. Radio stations seem to be notable per Wikipedia standards, from I can see. Might this be a candidate to redirect at this point? Wildthing61476 04:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do NOT do this. Moving pages by merely copying the content breaks the page history and screws up things in many ways. ALWAYS move an article with the tab at the top. If you can't, ask someone else. I've deleted your copy and moved the page properly Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, FCC licensed station, massively cleaned up from version nominated for AFD, give it a chance to turn up some sources since this is pretty obscure. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to the aforementioned WWWC-AM, since there are many radio stations here, thus making deleting this one a hypocrisy. --tennis man ^{sign here!} 21:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but title article with call letters, not nickname. JamesMLane t c 09:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FCC-licensed 1 kW station serving an entire county; has been cleaned up and moved to WWWC (AM) in line with naming conventions. Could use more information about its history as a top 40 and/or country music station, see [6] and [7]; local off-line sources likely exist to support a better article about the station. DHowell 19:56, 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 boldly redirected to Pacers-Pistons brawl. This article has nothing worth salvaging and/or nothing that isn't already there, and is better off as a redirect to discourage recreation. Using discretion and agreeing with User:The_undertow in that this might be a thinly veiled attack page; hence CSD G10 may also apply. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Haddad[edit]

Non-notable. Unsourced. Seems to exist to disparage the subject. —Ocatecir ^Talk 01:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN.OR. Possible attack page. the_undertow ^talk 01:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pacers-Pistons brawl. --Dhartung | Talk 07:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dhartung, on the off chance that someone does search for this name. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:07, 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. W.marsh 16:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Research Foundation[edit]

Non-notable organization. I could not find any reliable non-trivial secondary sources to establish notability. Applicable policy: WP:ORG. Previous nomination resulted in a Keep because at the time there was a copyright violation problem. However that was 6 months ago which was enough time to establish notability. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable organisation with no other sources, despite its claim to 'provide the much needed understanding about the truth and excellence of Islamic teachings - based on the glorious Qur'an' Nick mallory 03:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 188 news articles and 19 publications, inc. one now in the Internet Archive. IMO a stub is warranted, and the unsourced material on the article needs to be removed. John Vandenberg 03:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, if the article is notable, editors should be able to reference it with sources. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
John (Jayvdb), the news articles and other publications are not another organization with similar name, Islamic Research Foundation International, Inc. (IRFI). 202.54.176.11 17:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only 28 are specifically for the IRFI. At least 41 are about the Indian foundation and the publications are by this org, not IRFI. John Vandenberg 23:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt there is any notable coverage of this organization and even if there is, why are editors not writing the article using that?--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because Wikipedia is a work in progress ? John Vandenberg 03:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not a guideline and not all editors agree with it. If there's notability it would show up in this article. Since this AfD and the last, no one has been able to find any RS about this organization. Maybe the links you got were all trivial mentions where only the name was mentioned. That doesnt qualify. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Certainly does not deserve such a long article, but probably deserves a small article.BobFromBrockley 14:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I looked to see if this group has notability, but couldn't quickly find anything promising. I support delete until someone can demonstrate its notability. The Behnam 16:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are plenty of news articles etc. Lurker 16:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please demonstrate this? So far all of the references are from their own websites. The Behnam 17:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lurker, the news articles are not about this organization in Mumbai. They are about Islamic Research Foundation International, Inc. (IRFI). 202.54.176.11 17:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Zakir Naik. All citations are from IRF itself. I've seen no indication that IRF is anything other than Naik himself, and even there we have had trouble finding sources.Proabivouac 03:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 16:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definently not notable. Sources listed do not prove notablility.--Sefringle 05:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep; while Zakir Naik is the main component of this organisation, ultimate that article is merely a bio, while this organisation is a trust that holds the assets and involves many people. It is the main body behind a library, Peace TV and "Islamic International School", now mentioned on the article. IMO this ORG is as notable as Hillsong Church. One aspect I havent added to the article is a fair amount of press related to a bombing.[8][9] Please bear in mind that the article is so far only comprised of facts sourced to English media; many more references will be available in Urdu, Arabic, etc. John Vandenberg 02:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I must say that your inclusion of information related to a completely different Islamic Research Foundation does not inspire confidence in your assurances. Another source was merely a yellow pages style directory with contact information accompanied by IRF's own self-description. The Saudi Gazette and Milli Gazette are of dubious value here, while mainstream sources such as Times of India and The Hindu mention IRF only in passing, and fail to establish notability.Proabivouac 03:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry about the "Imam Reza" citation that I had added yesterday; it wasnt until today that I had realised there was also an Iranian group of the same name. However, note that the statements you have removed were in the article before the Afd and were a copyvio of IRF. My citation was merely as outside verification of the existence of a reading room and resources.
    Your removal of the Calcutta Research Group "directory entry" is a bit silly as is a reputable organisation, and its directory was being used to verify only basic facts. I have removed the Saudi Gazette and Milli Gazette sources.
    You've not mentioned why it isnt notable due to Peace TV, the school, or the three sources that are not trivial: [10][11] [12]. John Vandenberg 05:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peace TV is an article you've just now created which is similarly based upon questionable sources and a few passing mentions. What is the actual content besides videotapes of Naik? A real active television network will have a whole lot more written on it than what I see there.

As for your "not trivial" sources, are Express India and Indian Muslims respected news sources? The Hindu is a famous paper, but it doesn't mention the IRF at all, and the reference to the school is trivial (incidentally, how many people attend this school?)Proabivouac 06:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to add Peace TV to this AfD, as the creator of Islamic Research Foundation has just created it using the same sources and is appealing to its existence (above) to establish the notability of this organization..Proabivouac 06:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that Peace TV doesnt meet our standards, feel free to put an Afd header on it and link it to this discussion. I created the article to collate sourced facts about an organisation that is tightly entwined with IRF. I am happy to merge the content on that article, however I have not yet been able to determine the details of the link between IRF and Peace TV. John Vandenberg 14:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this article might as well be merged into Zakir Naik along with Peace TV. If this organization does something notable, then it can have its own article. At the moment, it is just not notable enough, sorry. --Abnn 18:00, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B&I Nathan[edit]

NN Company. Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only outside source has little info on subject, and no results of Google. KJS 77 02:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence from WP:RS of notability per WP:CORP. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP. --tennis man ^{sign here!} 21:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:34, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greyhawk Holidays[edit]

I hesitate to say gamecruft, but I suggest this is certainly trivia and fails WP:NOT. EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I say gamecruft G1ggy ^{Stalk - Talk - Chalk} 04:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost completely in-universe - the only handwave of context is the opening paragraph. This sort of content belongs back in the roleplaying sourcebooks where it came from. Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. This is like one long trivia article. This does fail WP:NOT. Felixboy
Delete, a list of fictional holidays is not encyclopaedic. -- Mithent 23:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:34, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goguryeo-China wars[edit]

First, according to the "Official Records of Liao Dynasty" and the "Official Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty", Sumo Mohe of north Goguryeo founded Balhae, which was the successor of the north Goguryeo. Then Khitan Empire conquered Balhae in 10th century. But in early 12th century Heishui Mohe (i.e., Jurchens) destroyed Khitan Empire and many Sumo Mohe people became part of Jurchens. If one has ever read the "Official Records of Jurchen Jin Dynasty", the founder Wanyan Aguda had a famous statement: "Balhae and Jurchen are treated as the members of the same familiy". Jurchen is one of the major descendents of Goguryeo.

Second, Jurchens and Manchurians had lots of wars with Han Chinese in 12th, 13th, 17th centuries, but they are part of Chinese now. It is clearly controversial to create "Jurchen-China wars" item for this reason. Such behavior is ridiculous because it doesn't make sense ("Jurchen-Song Dynasty wars" is more-or-less the only proper article name to create). "Goguryeo-China wars" is also controversial because of the non-trivial Goguryeo-Jurchen inheritance. It is obvious that the naming is improper, maybe with some malicious intentions.

I am voting for deletion of this "Goguryeo-China wars" article because of the malicious naming. Here "China" is improperly quoted. Goguryeo, Silla, Baekje, Balhae, Jurchen Jin, Khitan Empire are similar terms at the same level. Korea, China are similar terms at another same level. It is improper and likely malicious to create article names like "Goguryeo-China wars" or "Jurchen-Korea wars". It is comparing a slice of pizza with a whole sandwich. What is the article creator trying to do here? --Jiejunkong 01:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This is a sourced article on a notable event in world history; I don't see how in any way it qualifies for deletion. If you've got a problem with the way the article is named, you may want to suggest proposing a move for the article instead of deleting it. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the page history, I think it was a redirection page for "Goguryeo-Sui Wars", the talk page is still not moved. Then somebody did a weird thing: He inserted lots of biased contents in the redirection page, but kept the talk page! Very weird.--Jiejunkong 02:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per I don't see how it meets criteria for deletion. the_undertow ^talk 01:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you want to see articles like "Jurchen-Korea wars" and "Manchurian-Korea wars"? What kind of malicious people will create such inconsistent names to wikipedia articles? Please use proper names like "Goguryeo-Sui Dynasty wars" "Goguryeo-Silla-Tang Dynasty wars".--Jiejunkong 02:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, use Wikipedia:Requested moves if you've got a problem with the name. AfD is not for incorrectly named articles. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not only about the name, and moving. It is an assembly of multiple articles that should be divided into multiple articles. I listed the reason below: Goguryeo itself is a disputed article. An analogy of this ill-named "Goguryeo-China wars" article is an article like "Brandenburg-Germany wars" (Nowadays Germany only holds part of old-time Brandenburg). This is not a wikipedia article you can move into some meaningful names. It should be split into multiple articles. What do you suggest for split? --Jiejunkong 02:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you want to rename this article, you're welcome to propose that, however, deletion in this case doesn't seem warranted. Wars are generally notable enough for articles, and if you're not actually disputing the accuracy of the content as a whole, that's enough for me that some information should exist. I suggest engaging in a discussion on the talk page. FrozenPurpleCube 02:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the discussion page and see where you get to. BTW, Goguryeo itself is a disputed article. An analogy of this ill-named "Goguryeo-China wars" article is an article like "Brandenburg-Germany wars" (Nowadays Germany only holds part of old-time Brandenburg). This is not a wikipedia article you can move into some meaningful names. It should be split into multiple articles.--Jiejunkong 02:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing for renaming the article, rather than deleting the content. You can do that by moving and redirecting. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing much recent discussion there, and if you want to split the article, there's a {{split}} tag for that as well. FrozenPurpleCube 14:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep All 'hot' wars (and most 'cold' wars) are notable. --Charlene 03:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not Wikipedia:Requested moves. Maxa megalon 2000 05:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reasoning given for deletion would be like deleting the American Civil War since the South is now part of the US. Nor is there evidence of malice in the naming. Edward321 04:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 05:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The content of the article deserves keeping, deal with the name elsewhere. Davewild 20:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously; if you want to rename it, get consensus to do so. We have plenty of articles about wars that have different names depending on whose perspective is being taken, editors can fight over the names but the articles don't get deleted. Do we delete World War I because people want to call it The War to End All Wars? And I would doubt that the Carthaginians called their fights with Rome the "Punic Wars" (probably something like the "Roman Wars") I guess those go too by the nominator's theory. Carlossuarez46 21:09, 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 g1, patent nonsense, editor's only contributions have been vandalism. NawlinWiki 01:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dillon Hutchinson[edit]

Ratt is a notable band, but sources are missing for the claim that its bassist has recently deceased and been replaced by this 16-year-old. High on a tree 01:43, 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 to voice acting. As many editors seem to be interested in performing a merge, page history will be left intact, what if anything to merge is an editorial decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur voice acting[edit]

Procedural nomination; I came across this whilst browsing through Category:Proposed deletion looking for articles to rescue. I know nothing about the subject so don't have an opinion on the article's truthfulness/accuracy, but it doesn't seem appropriate for something which obviously has had a lot of work go into it (around 350 edits, by a large number of editors, over a two year period) to be deleted without debate. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - I've never nominated an article before and I wasn't sure how to go about doing it. The deletion process articles are really, really confusing.Rebochan 12:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, I would propose merging it into voice acting, but I'm not sure which article is in better shape. Neither one cites any sources or is written particularly well. As such, I don't think a merger would improve either one. I suppose the topic is notable enough, but it's not asserted in the article. --Cyrus Andiron 22:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the notability of the subject matter and despite all the editors, edits, and history, not one of them has ever pulled this off. I'll pull my vote if the impossible happens and the article shows at least a glimmer of promise of turning into a real article. Namely, something that can be documented impartially. Rebochan 11:59, 10 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, W.marsh 01:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Voice acting. Fairly notable concept, but I don't see it as being notable enough to stand on its own. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as any profession can have an "amateur" counterpart. A good chunk of the article seems to be (non-profit?) spam and unverifiable claims about FLAVA or whatever it is. --Dhartung | Talk 07:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Voice acting but then trim it down a good deal! The article seems to be laden with unsourced information and POV issues. Charlie 08:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having re-read it, I think it does seem to be a separate concept to voice acting; if I'm understanding it right, what it's talking about is overdubbing existing footage with your own dialogue a la Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid (which is a hobby I've never heard of, but for all I know it's a huge cult thing). I dare say it could probably survive as a section of voice acting, although that seems to be an unreferenced rambling mess at the moment (when the sole reference is to "The Making of 'A Charlie Brown Christmas'", the page is probably violating WP:V) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's fairly popular in at least the anime communities - mostly as sort of a cousin to MSTing. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with voice acting. Neither article is that great, but with their powers combined....Useight 23:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My concern with merging this is that while you can say it exists, how much content can go in the voice acting article? It would read something like "Amateur voice acting is a hobby practiced on the internet." Rebochan 13:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with voice acting. There is nothing here that shows how amateur voice acting is different to that carried out on a commercial basis and therefore justifying a seperate article. Nuttah68 15:57, 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 g1, patent nonsense, no sources, and 15th-century composers were not named "Brandon" (as opposed to, say, 15-year-olds). NawlinWiki 02:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Schneider[edit]

Sources are missing. High on a tree 01:56, 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 redirect to Monarchy in Canada. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Royal Family[edit]

Ridiculous article, since the Canadian Royal Family is the same as the British Royal Family, and the information herein can be found in both the Monarchy in Canada and British Royal Family articles. A previous AFD a year ago resulted in the article being redirected to Monarchy in Canada but the article's creator recently recreated the article, hoping enough time had passed that nobody would notice, and is currently making a dogged stand for the retention of this silly article. Hence a renomination. I reckon the article should go back to a redirect, as per the first AFD--Aim Here 02:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Although there are slight differences in who is officially considered a member of the Royal Family in both countries (under the Canadian Constitution, only the sovereign and the current heir are mentioned), this isn't enough to make a complete article about. A redirect would make much more sense. --Charlene 03:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 1) Aim - it's extremely poor form on your part to launch into assumptive accusations. Beyond that, please outline specifically what information in Canadian Royal Family is duplicated at either Monarchy in Canada or British Royal Family. Also, explain why the shift of contents from Monarchy in Canada to Canadian Royal Family should be reversed when it is WP policy to break long articles down into smaller subsidiery ones. 2) Charlene - what do you mean by "only the sovereign and the current heir are mentioned"? It's obvious that the article contains much more information than that. --G2bambino 04:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is also poor form to remove an Afd tag while this discussion is still going on.[13] --Tikiwont 07:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was a mistake - "Speedy close," "no deletion request," etc. appeared to me to mean the discussion was, well, closed. --G2bambino 14:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Above are recomendations only and once an administrator closes the discussion,it will look like the previous AFD. --Tikiwont 14:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there's any information in your article that isn't in Monarchy in Canada or British Royal Family, then it should be merged into the appropriate article. There's nothing in your current article that doesn't belong to one or other of them. --Aim Here 08:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, when the info was moved out of Monarchy in Canada to make a long article shorter, why should it be sent back, against WP guidelines? Further, why would information about the royal family within Canadian jurisdiction be put in an article about the British Royal Family? Though they're made up of the same people, the two are not one and the same thing. --G2bambino 14:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps for the same reason we don't have articles on Rupert Murdoch (Australian Newspaper Magnate) and Rupert Murdoch (British Newspaper Magnate) and Rupert Murdoch (American Newspaper Magnate) and Rupert Murdoch (American Television company executive) and Rupert Murdoch (British Television Company Executive) etc. That's the same person with slightly different facets of the same job too, but with the Rupert Murdoch and Fox News and News International etc, around, it would be a ridiculous overduplication of articles. --14:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your example, but what's being proposed by some - ie. moving information on the Canadian royal family to the British royal family article would be akin to putting all the info pertaining to Rupert Murdoch into one article titled "Rupert Murdoch (American television company executive)" - the title of such an article would be a misleading and inappropriate misnomer. If people are willing to tamper with the title of the article in question here, and/or the title of British Royal Family, then I'm all ears. But, the Royal Family as it exists for Canada is not some subordinate entity to an overreaching British Royal Family. --G2bambino 15:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not true Aim Here, this article is justified, it is not a POV pushing article, it is a encyclopaedic article on Canada's Head of State's family etc. Brian | (Talk) 10:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've not mentioned POV at all - you've brought it up, twice now. Is there a POV issue here I'm unaware of? I notice both you and User:G2bambino are fervent royalists. And is it really about the *family*? Then a redirect to British Royal Family is warranted and anything particular to Canada can be merged into a few paragraphs there. --Aim Here 14:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note on my part: I'm a monarchist, not a royalist; i.e. I study and support the notion of constitutional monarchy, as opposed to having a fervent and emotional passion for all things royal, and thus have a fair amount of knowledge on the topic. Accuracy is all that's paramount for me. --G2bambino 15:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close wrong forum, no deletion request. A second AfD is not necessary to enforce the consensus of the initial AfD. If you're having an edit war, try RFC or other mediation processes. cab 04:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how this meets any criteria for deletion. the_undertow ^talk 05:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Monarchy in Canada per previous AfD and protect the redirect. --Metropolitan90 07:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect again. What's the point of having AfD if we have to keep considering the same article ? Charlie 08:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One might wonder but I've just been debating keeping an article against its FOURTH deletion attempt. If it is acceptable to keep trying to delete information, it should surely be equally acceptable to keep trying to include it! --Interesdom 15:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, those should be equally acceptable, in that once an AfD decision is made, it should be stuck to unless 1) Something was flawed with the original AfD process, 2) Something significant about the article, or the subject, has changed in a way that will affect consensus, or 3)The tide of opinion on Wikipedia has shifted dramatically, such that consensus may be different. If one of those things has happened here, then I think arguing to keep is perfectly sensible. Charlie 03:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close this is the wrong forum for this debate, however fyi I do lean for the strong keep side Brian | (Talk) 10:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and speedy close - I can't access the original article so can't say whether this warrants a G4, but this seems a pointless content fork; the differences can be summed up in a single short paragraph on the main British Royal Family page and/or Commonwealth Realm. Besides, keeping this would set a ludicrous precedent for the rest of the Commonwealth, with Tuvaluan Royal Family, Royal Family of St Vincent & the Grenadines, Papuan Royal Family, New Zealand Royal Family et al — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They would look like Jamaican Royal Family...--Tikiwont 13:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there's pertinent information to fill them, then why not. As someone pointed out at Talk:Canadian Royal Family: "I suppose if we have an article for every Star Trek episode, we can live with this." --G2bambino 14:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agree with that comment. Trivial television shows seem to be acceptable but any non-US constitutional issues are considered irrelevant. --Interesdom 15:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Monarchy in Canada. While the term "Queen of Canada" is used on rare occasions to refer to QEII, the term Canadian Royal Family is never used. This topic is better covered by a general article on monarchy as it pertains to Canada. 23skidoo 15:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Monarchy in Canada or British Royal Family. We had a similar discussion about Queen of Canada and Elizabeth II of Canada some time ago. CJCurrie 16:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article Monarchy in Canada is about the role and laws, this article is about people. And British Royal Family is also not exactly the same as the Canadian Royal Family, although it happens now that one family rules both countries. Maybe that in the future, one of the two nations selects another family as their Royal Family. And even now, understanding of who is a member of the family, which titles he bears etc. differs between the two nations.--Ioannes Pragensis 19:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If and when that happens, a new article can be created at that time. Bearcat 19:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Monarchy in Canada pointless to have two articles about the same people. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 22:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the article states that they are not exactly the same people (the Canadian definition of the Royal Family differs from the British one: "for instance Angus Ogilvy was included in the Department of Canadian Heritage Royal Family list, whereas he was not considered a member of the British Royal Family").--Ioannes Pragensis 11:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And, beyond that, the people are the same but the institutions are separate. --G2bambino 14:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct and that is why we have a Monarchy in Canada page --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 21:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchy in Canada's too long; that's why the current contents of Canadian Royal Family were moved out of it to a separate article. --G2bambino 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is a difference between the concept of Monarchy and the living members of the Royal family. There is a constitutional difference between the Royal family as accepted in Canada to that accepted in the United Kingdom. While some information IS duplicated, this can hopefully be minimalised and the crorect representation of information under the current heading should remain. --Interesdom 15:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- Tikiwont 15:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: Canadian Royal Family? Though, I understand about the Commonwealth of Nations, I've nevered heard the British Royal family called the Canadian Royal family (at least, not in Canada). GoodDay 22:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't read the article... did you? --G2bambino 22:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~::Well then, let's create the following articles - Australian Royal Family, New Zealand Royal Family, etc. My vote stands. GoodDay 22:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Redirect: Begrudingly changing my vote. 'Redirect' is the only way to avoid multiple page creations (like Australian Royal Family etc). GoodDay 23:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Monarchy in Canada. The fact that the institutions are separate doesn't necessitate multiple articles here. Bearcat 19:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd just like to let interested folks here know that I have nominated Jamaican Royal Family for deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 23:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep~~ Close and merge (again); as others have said there is no valid reason for deletion here. Work on a merge or leave it alone. If it helps, Australia has a similar article: Monarchy in Australia John Vandenberg 12:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You're missing the point - we already have a Monarchy in Canada article as well. We don't have a separate Australian Royal Family article — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No point was missed, but I wasnt clear. I agree with User cab; the previous Afd holds: keep/merge. A merge has been done in the past, so the edit history should be kept (per GFDL). John Vandenberg 23:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the contents here are moved back to Monarchy in Canada they're just going to get moved out again- replacing the information back there makes Monarchy in Canada 59 kilobytes long, upon which it's recommended to split the article down, as I had been doing previously. --G2bambino 18:26, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nitche Ward[edit]

non-notable per WP:BIO Closenplay 02:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom G1ggy ^{Stalk - Talk - Chalk} 04:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on creator seems a COI. Sources are wrong, especially about the national airplay. NN. the_undertow ^talk 05:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:39, 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. The subject of basis on this nom has been discussed at the village pump. The result of the discussion was that all federal government information is under the public domain, making the premise of the nom invalid. Put simply by Mangojuice: "it's free content, used properly with attribution, and the topic is certainly encyclopedic." User:Sr13 07:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duquesne Spy Ring[edit]

Duquesne Spy Ring is a non-encyclopedic article. The article plagiarizes in its entirety a U.S. government source document. Sections of the plagiarized article have also been incorporated (without discussion) as sections into existing non-espionage articles (see SS America (1940) as an example). The article violates the first provision of Wikipedia:Five Pillars. See Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources, and also Plagiarism for reference. Compare article sources (#1) here and (#2) here. Source #1 is believed to be the true source of the article. Source #2 is the government source originally cited in the article's {USGovernment} citation. Source #1 is not acceptable for inclusion in Wikisource (see why here}. However, the original document released under FOIA for source #2 seen here might possibly meet the Wikisource criteria for inclusion, since it is a .pdf file copy of the original FBI document released under the FOIA.

This quality article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 9 May, 2007 and K. Kellogg-Smith has been trying to get it deleted ever since. His views have already been adequately discussed on the Village pump (policy), and within other Wikipedia articles (e.g., Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptography). K. Kellogg-Smith has received no support from the WP community for deleting this article, nor has he offered any suggestions on how to improve this article (at one point he even went so far as to delete the links to the source documents from the article), and still he has taken this draconian step. To summarize, the consensus viewpoint of the WP community has been that: U.S. Government sources, including images and text, are a valuable resource for WP, should be used to the fullest extent, and that using the FBI material in its original form is not only appropriate, but even preferable in this case. So that we don't have to start this discussion from scratch yet again, I'm posting to this page the complete, unedited (and certainly not paraphrased) discussion recently held on Village pump (policy) --Ctatkinson 02:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the Village pump (policy)[edit]

Is it okay under IAR to create a Wikipedia article which is a verbatim copy of an identical article appearing on a U.S. government website, i.e., a website in the public domain?

A recently added (May 5, 2007) Wikipedia article is a Wikified, word for word copy — both text and photos — of a 14-page article which appears on the FBI’s website at http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/spyring/spyring.htm, titled Federal Bureau of Investigation, Famous Cases: 33 Members of the Duquesne Spy Ring. The recent Wikipedia article that was copied from that FBI website is Duquesne Spy Ring. The Wikipedia article originally carried the {USGovernment} template, but did not cite the current FBI article as the article’’s source.

The word for word copying of the entire text and photos of a 14-page article in the public domain and inserting that copied article in Wikipedia seems to me (technically and ethically if not in fact) to be plagiarism, even though the work copied is in the public domain. If it is considered to be plagiarism, what can be done about effectively flagging readers that the copied article is a direct copy from another source? I think the text of the {USGovernment} template isn't adequate for this situation. K. Kellogg-Smith 02:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not plagarism, so long as it's indicated that the text came from somewhere, and was not just originally written. It's best not to do verbatim copies for NPOV reasons, but so long as the source is given, it's not terrible. -Amarkov moo! 02:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the standard text of the {USGovernment} template isn't adequate for this situation. Rather than say "This article incorporates text from ...", it would be much more accurate to state something along the lines of "The original version of this article was copied from ..." so that readers are clearly informed of the extent of the copying. To list the FBI website as a "source" clearly understates the copying. In the context of an article or paper, this would be akin to copying passages without showing them in quotes and merely listing the source in the bibliography. Almost everyone would consider that plagiarism. -- DS1953 ^talk 14:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This bothers me... even if it is not plagiarism (ie even if we give credit to the cite where it is copied from) wikipedia should not simply copy another site. We should write original articles based on the information obtained in reliable secondary sources. I could understand basing the bulk of this article's information on the FBI site, but we should at least paraphrase it instead of copying it. I would love to flag it for improvement in some way, but I am not sure if there are any tags that apply. Blueboar 15:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the article always referenced the FBI as the source of substantial content and no claim to the contrary was ever made -- in the original document a URL was provided and the reference was: "Much of this article comes from FBI documents and photos released in 1985 under the freedom of information act and in the public domain."

What does seem to be controversial is the quantity of public information re-used in this Wikipedia article. However, it is not illegal, unethical, and even uncommon for a private entity to re-issue and re-sell public information, sometimes adding value and sometimes not (e.g., National Weather Service reports and forecasts). Adding the FBIs Duquesne Spy Ring content to Wikipedia enhances the visability of an interesting topic (not controversial is that many people find this article interesting) and it is in keeping with the FBI's mission of disemminating non-classified information as a public good. Paraphrasing is the wrong approach for public content that already stands well on its own (e.g., even though a substantial portion of Wikipedia's U.S. Constitution relies on the original source, nobody would suggest that a substantially paraphrased version for Wikipedia would be more appropriate). In my view, it is better to apply an Open Source standard, like Open source governance, to all public content. Ctatkinson 10:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with transcluding public domain content into WP, as long as it is done intelligently. There have been problems with mindless transclusion of out of date sources like the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. But as long as it is done with reasoable editorial judgement, there should not be a problem.

In this case, the FBI is an authoritative source for this type of information, and using the material in it's original form is appropriate. In fact, changing the content would need to be done very carefully, since the original form may have had substantial editorial review from experts in the subject area.

U.S. Government works are not copyrighted for good reason, and are intended to be re-used. Usually the agencies publishing material ask to be credited, and this is good editorial practice, but there is generally no legal requirement to do so. The {{USGovernment}} template gives sufficient credit--further explanation can be given on the talk page (it's probably also a good idea to note the transclusion in the edit summary as well).

I have been transcluding a lot of useful information from U.S. Government sources, including images and text. These are a valuable resource for WP, and should be used to the fullest extent. Sometimes I paraphrase where appropriate, and other times I take large blocks of text nearly verbatim. Usually the text does need some touch up to make it appropriate for an encyclopedia. For example: removing second person statements, and removing or recasting recommendations. You also need to watch for NPOV issues where government policy or interests may be reflected in the content. This is generally not a problem for technical subjects, but may be an issue in other areas.

Using this material is not plagiarism. The material was compiled at public expense, and is intended to benefit the public. The U.S. taxpayers generously share this information with the world. To refuse this gift would be foolish. Dhaluza 14:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this specific case, I am perfectly happy with transcluding information from the FBI site. Editors considering transcluding other text and images from U.S. government sites need to bear in mind, however, that some material may be false or misleading. Sometimes politicians lie. --Eastmain 19:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem with verifiability: other users come in later and edit bits. So the notice at the bottom should more truthfully read, "Parts of this article text are taken from X, but we've no idea which parts". Whether X is the 1911 Britannica, a US government report, or anything else. Far better to either (a) quote part of X, and mark it as a quote, or (b) just include a link to X. IMHO, copying text from another site, even a public domain one, and not explicitly marking it as quoted, should be officially discouraged. Peter Ballard 03:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree with Ballard. It makes no difference whether the text was originally written in the public domain and transcuded to WP, or if it was originally written on WP. This is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" so the problem is the same either way. Your suggestion to quote the material, even if it's the whole article, does not work. Material from the 1911 Britannica needs lots of editing to make it useful, so quoting the original is pointless (and unnecessary since it is available online). This is actually the beauty of the wiki--we can improve the public domain record. Dhaluza 09:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

end of quoted material copied from Village pump

Keep. As I said at the Village pump, "In this specific case, I am perfectly happy with transcluding information from the FBI site. Editors considering transcluding other text and images from U.S. government sites need to bear in mind, however, that some material may be false or misleading. Sometimes politicians lie." This is a useful and encyclopedic article. It should be kept. Nobody owns a Wikipedia article. --Eastmain 02:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's free content, used properly with attribution, and the topic is certainly encyclopedic. Mango juice^talk 04:17, 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 02:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nintendo DS downloadable games[edit]

List lacking any meaning. This is better suited to creating a category (like Category:Nintendo DS games with downloadable demos) or not being mentioned at all. The previous version is also unneeded. Any such multiplyaer mentions should be mentioned in the article itself, not shoved into another article. hbdragon88 02:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Save it for a gamer site. Arbitrary list. the_undertow ^talk 05:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list is sourced, yes, but the source is a Nintendo list. Why does WP need to copy that list information as a distinct article? I say it does not. Charlie 08:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What exactly does "games that allow download play" even mean? If it just means wireless, then how is it different from List of Nintendo DS Wi-Fi Connection games ? Tarc 15:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it is different from a list of games you can play over the Wi-Fi Connection, since that requires you both have a copy of the game and is done via the Internet, whereas Download Play allows one player to share a limited copy of the game with someone else locally. Nevertheless, a list such as this isn't necessary - a category would be better suited if we want the information, or else it should just be mentioned in the articles of the relevant games (which currently aren't even wikilinked..) Furthermore, although it's not a reason for deletion, I dispute the list's accuracy; I'm sure I know of at least two Download Play games which are not on it. -- Mithent 23:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see the difference, then. A "Download play? (Y/N)" column be added to the List of Nintendo DS Wi-Fi Connection games perhaps, but that may be making it a bit too wide. Tarc 18:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and go back to an old revision. It used to have meaning, way back before some user decided that it was full of "Game Guide Content" that doesn't belong in Wikipedia, then somebody else took out all of the content with the exception of game names in response. It was useful back when people could use it to see how well the Nintendo DS Download Play was supported at the moment, and how it compared to other wireless play options. Admittedly, it's probably going to get deleted, but I much prefer this than the cowardly "redirect to Nintendo DS" that was going on. Rahga 16:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cowardly? How about "simple and clean"? Is there some reason why every single action on Wikipedia should be overcomplicated by default? Additionally, what you described would be a game guide - to show people that the Download Play was being supported, and for comparison's sake to other games with wireless multi-player options? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps you're misunderstanding the term game guide? It's not general information about a set of games; it's a detailed description of how to play a particular game. The latter is indeed forbidden, but the former can be covered in the same way we cover other kinds of products. William Pietri 21:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Total and utter game guide content. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a product catalog. Pax:Vobiscum 21:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm staying out of this one, as I'm not a big gamer or game article editor. However, I do note superficially similar lists at List of Nintendo DS Wi-Fi Connection games and List of PlayStation Portable Wi-Fi games, both of which seem to be useful articles that meet core policy. For me the question is whether this particular slicing of the data is useful to our readers. William Pietri 21:53, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acronis True Image[edit]

Software product, seems to ultimately be a self-promo judging by the inclusion of its operation and its creators' other products; no evidence of significant notability provided. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think this is a reasonably well-known software package; a Google search for "Acronis True Image" turns up 1.4 million matches, and it's been reviewed by sites like CNet and PC World so it's big enough to get press attention. -- Mithent 23:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the description is fairly neutral: the only promo-like statement is the list of product line. — Vano 10:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I needed to transfer files from my failing hard drive to a new one, I looked around to find something that would work the best, and not cause me any problems. Based on numerous reviews and information from various reliable sources, I concluded this would be good software to use (and it worked perfectly, with great ease). I'm pretty sure major retailers like Best Buy carry the product. This product is definitely notable, with plenty of reliable sources out there. --Aude (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I agree that the page is biased, I think it should be marked unbalanced, not deleted. I have edited this page to make it more balanced, but some information on this product's criticisms is required, if they exist.Billyoneal 02:57, 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 keep. A fairly confusing situation here. Discussion as to whether this article should be about the business or a redirect to the category seems to be what's happened here and less on the merits of the company. I will take no action except to close this discussion, and further talk regarding where to put what can continue on talk pages. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panorama Software[edit]

This business listing page conflicts with the Panorama Software category and should be deleted John Spikowski 03:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Removal History
Keep This doesn't appear to be a criterion for deletion, a disambiguation note on the top of the article may be needed, or at most a new, clearer title such as Panorama Software (Company) CitiCat 03:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep but article should be properly sourced. Panorama has a presence as a global business software vendor/consultant and developed a key Microsoft component. The article should be named Panorama Software as there is no other "Panorama Software" company on Wikipedia. The category should be titled Panorama software per category naming conventions and any confusion can be handled with a hatnote. Don't disambiguate where unnecessary. --Dhartung | Talk 07:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confused. Well, more so than usual.
The page being nominated for deletion is a blank page that used to be a redirect. Whatever happens to it is fine with me.
Panorama Software (BI), by contrast, is a page that should be deleted unless thoroughly rewritten, on account of its promotional tone, excessive vagueness, and general unintelligibility: Panorama Software is a software company specializing in MDX based Business Intelligence solutions. . . Panorama's NovaView product suite includes Analytics, reporting, scorecarding, dashboarding, visualization and modeling applications. No opinion as to whether this business meets WP:CORP, but even if it does, the style of this article is quite inappropriate. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's blank because John Spikowski (talk · contribs) does not understand the difference between a category and an article, from what I can see. --Dhartung | Talk 08:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The goal for the "Panorama Software" page was to move the software company with the same name to a business listing page.(Done) and delete the page. (TODO) When someone enters "panorama software" in the search box, the category "Panorama software" page would show. I'm not an administrator/sysop so someone else with these powers will have to remove the page. I'm not up to speed on all the procedures yet but I'm learning from the seasoned editors I run into on the pages I'm involved with. John Spikowski 05:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The AFD notice has been removed from Panorama Software (BI) by Wikiolap (talk · contribs), apparently because the intent was actually to delete Panorama Software but not the content of the article on the company. I have asked at Talk:Panorama Software (BI) for people to explain exactly what they are trying to do, so that we can help them. At this point, the AFD is in an invalid state, with no notice on any article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the situation at the current moment is utterly bizarre and only serves to make navigation far more difficult than it needs to be. It does not matter if a category and an article have the same name.

Panorama Software should be an article about the company of that name.
Since a user may be looking for information about software for creating photographic panoramas, Panorama Software should have have a hatnote that there is a also a category with that name. This solution allows for easy navigation to relevant information.
The only potential problem occurs if we are concerned that a user looking for generic panorama software would encounter as his/her first point of navigation the proprietary Panorama Software. That would be a concern if we were a business directory wanting to give exactly equal exposure but, happily, we're an encyclopedia and so we do not care. CIreland 06:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, CIreland. I'll elaborate on a comment on my Talk page. First, let me address the search issue. The reason that the category doesn't come up first is that categories are checked off by default on the Wikipedia search page. This may not be ideal but it's the way it is -- the feature is there to direct people to articles. As such "Search" or "Go" (go to the first result) will bring up the article Panorama Software first. It will not bring up the category at all unless the box is checked and the user searches again. This appears to be the original source of contention, as there are editors working on articles in Category:Panorama software. This is why it isn't showing up in searches.

Second, there is a manual of style preference for generic article or category names to avoid using proper nouns. Thus, the generic category should be named Panorama software, not Panorama Software. The proper noun should be used for something with that name. If there is to be an article on software for making panoramas, it should also be named Panorama software, uncapitalized. (The first letter may be capitalized or not; it's the same article. This is the way MediaWiki works.)

Third, this seems like it was never intended as a deletion proposal. It seems like the editors of the category wanted to move the business out of the way of their (miscapitalized) category. As they are not in the same namespace there was no actual collision even if they were capitalized the same way. There could be confusion. Confusion is what hatnotes are designed for.

Fourth, the editors may have intended to re-use Panorama Software as the head article for the category. Again, the capitalization is incorrect per naming conventions. My second question is why image stitching is insufficient to cover this topic; panorama "software" is just a special type of image stitching, and not remarkably or technically different. This is a problem outside the scope of this AFD, though. The category Category:Panorama software ends up almost identical to its parent Category:Photo stitching software, which makes the need for a separate category very questionable. I suspect that if it were brought up at categories for deletion, the result would be skeptical. Sometimes a little fine-combed differentiation is simply too much to be really useful.

Finally, I wonder why this was approached the way it was. Somebody should have asked some questions before doing the moves and naming the categories, to begin with. --Dhartung | Talk 08:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Stitching assumes creating a panorama. (merging two or more images) Folks looking for panorama solutions will more then likely type in "panorama software" (looking for Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities software) and "panorama hardware" looking for panoramic tripod heads, wide angle lenses and other assessories. I think Category:Photo stitching software limits topic scope. You need to provide a panorama viewer to display the special projection the sitiching software creates. John Spikowski 08:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry if I bore those who are more interested in that company but John Spikowski tends to spread wrong information about a subject he doesn't understand well enough. Several images from a camera rotated around a special point of the lens can be stitched to get a panorama. That is only one panorama technique, though a popular one. Other cameras directly output a panoramic strip that doesn't have to be stitched at all but can be corrected (e.g. wavy image due to a badly levelled camera) with the same type of software. Also mosaics can be stitched with panoramic software (think of several overlapping microscopic images from a big object that couldn't be recorded in one go. Stitching those images of a sample would hardly result in a panorama. IMHO the Category:Photo stitching software and an article about image stitching is enough, such a more general naming is to be preferred. Other panorama related software (viewers, conversion and optimization tools, basic technology like QTVR,...) can be easily mentioned and linked from articles like Panoramic photography. Those articles that John Spikowski didn't manage to delete yet (and he is very busy with reorganising the wikipedia) can also link to one another. So my suggestion would be to let go of that Category:Panorama software and the article Panorama Software can live on. Yes, I'm biased, therefore I don't "vote" here. I just wanted to answer some disinformation with facts. --Einemnet 20:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close as there is no criteria given for any deletion. Nuttah68 16:28, 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.

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Daniel DiCriscio. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amarpreet Singh Johal[edit]

Carrom is a tabletop game. This is a person who apparently plays the game well. Not notable. CitiCat 04:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following pages of the same type:

Bholu Kapoor

German Jeet kaur

Harpreet Singh (Carrom Player)

Heena Habib

Kanwar Sudeep Singh Sandhu

List of Carrom Players of Punjab

Reeta Rani

Shahbaz Habib

Shamim Ahmed

Shubhdeep Singh Sandhu

Sukhpreet Kaur

There is also a COI element to the pages CitiCat 04:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per CSD A7. It's definitely a COI, and although he might play Carrom well, that has not established his notability. --Ali 04:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. G1ggy ^{Stalk - Talk - Chalk} 04:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. May even qualify for speedy deletion as they do not seem to assert notability, but if that is not the case, they still lack any sourcing to establish notability. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, some of these appear much more notable than others, having played at national level. Players that have won at the Punjab State Carrom Association level appear to be worthy of note. John Vandenberg 23:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At most, and I do mean at most that might merit merger into Punjab State Carrom Association. At least if that page itself wasn't a copyvio, as it's just copy/pastes of this page and some other pages from that site. Having individiual articles would be like having articles on the top members of the Greater New York Bridge Association [14] (redlink intentional). CitiCat 12:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The Punjab State Carrom Association article states that it is the largest association in India; sadly there is no India Carrom Federation article to put that in perspective. I am not yet advocating to keep any, but I'm ignorant enough to say that delete isnt clear to me. After all, we do keep articles about players of bridge: Category:American bridge players. John Vandenberg 15:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through the bridge players, almost all of them are either world champions, or notable for non-bridge playing reasons, such as authoring well known books. Obviously we're getting off topic, and what I'm saying now really has nothing to do with this AFD. And I certainly don't mean to argue the point. I understand what you are saying, but I still don't think that carrom in the Punjab region has enough notice outside its own participants to be notable. CitiCat 22:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete all. Not notable enough yet. utcursch | talk 12:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all for not passing WP:BIO. External sources are needed, the one supplied is not enough in my opinion. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 02:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Clearly non-notablexC | ☎ 19:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:42, 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 redirect to month/year articles. W.marsh 16:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Days in years[edit]

We no longer seem to use this style of pages for the current events anymore as we used to, yet these were created after the transistion. I propose we delete them all, or redirect them to the relevant Current Events portal page. Most of these were actually recently created by one user, wo tried to bluelink incorrectly formatted dates. There are also April 1, 2006, April 1, 2007 and December 31, 2006, but we might actually wanna keep those because their content differs significantly in style compared to the current events pages. Whatever we do, someone of course needs to check if some of the information in the pages should be moved to the Current events pages. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 04:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki to Wikinews these are nothing but digests of headlines and opinion on the days in question, we have (rightly so) very few precise dates as articles, and as near as I can tell these mostly redirect to the event that makes the date itself so memorable: September 11, 2001 and December 7, 1941 are two examples. Nothing sooooo notable happened on any of these dates that a redirect from the date to the event would be correct, so transfer whatever sourced content there is to wikinews, if they want it, and delete it here as nonencyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 21:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looking back in our history, I suggest all titles are redirect to the relevant "month year" pages, which seems to be the most common practise. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems a sensible solution; otherwise these types of articles will proliferate; there is already a huge bias to the recent. Carlossuarez46 16:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Herostratus 17:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per TheDJ, but possibly to the individual day pages as opposed to the month/year pages. JCO312 16:05, 23 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. I'm sorry, but all these well-intentioned keep / merge arguments just don't address the issue of whether this is encyclopedic work. If someone wants it in their userspace to work on merging or something else, ask me and I'll userfy for you. Mango juice^talk 16:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relations on a set of four elements, Relations on a set of three elements, Relations on sets of two elements and less[edit]

I would argue that in spite of the obviously big amount of work which has gone into created these pages, they are not encyclopedic. Some of it (not a lot!) may be merged into relevant pages, and the rest should be moved to wikisource or something, I'd think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree This is effectively original research, although certainly verifiable in the mathematical sense, and large parts of it may, at least in principle, be sourceable. If not transwiki'd it should be userfied, no reason to lose all that work. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - seems worthy of keeping but is not really for Wikipedia (would be nice to see it on a university wiki or something though, I've discovered this amazing small uni-based wiki on another field of knowledge that has really helped for tracking down sources for assignments) Orderinchaos 05:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with previous commenters that this material is worth saving someplace, but that Wikipedia is not that place. —David Eppstein 05:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete. --Lambiam ^Talk 07:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge articles together into Binary relations on a finite set, as a main article for the section Binary relation#The number of binary relations. A lot of this material can be sourced using OEIS, which not only lists integer sequences, but gives interpretations like this (and provides some original sources); some of the material is so elementary that that a reference to a textbook on discrete mathematics or combinatorics should suffice; delete the remainder. Geometry guy 12:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep per Geometry guy. If this material can be proven mathematically, and in some sense is mathematically trivial, it isn't original research within our meaning of the phrase; it has nothing to do with introducing new theories or advancing a position. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It looks like a standard piece of set theory /combinatorics. If Wikipedia contains lists of dog or cat breeds, why it could not contain list of properties of small sets?--Ioannes Pragensis 20:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful overviews. Demonstrate which combinations of properties of relations, such as being a partial order, total preorder, reflexive, irreflexive, etc., are possible, and provides examples for each combination of properties.--Patrick 20:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If nothing that is provable in principle can be OR, then we have no OR in mathematics (we still have factual error). This, however, has the disadvantages of OR: Wikipedia is not a scratchpad. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment ok but these small sets properties really belong to the "basic knowledge" of finite mathematics, just as the Multiplication table of small numbers, but on a higher level of abstraction.--Ioannes Pragensis 10:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep this useful info. JJL 23:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information is useful, but as it is, it is just pagefuls of factoids with a poor name. Wikipedia is not a repository for such information I believe. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into relevant articles...though I do not believe there is any case for leaving these as articles per WP:NOT a source of indiscriminate information section 6 "Textbooks and annotated texts".--Jersey Devil 03:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not really encyclopedic, more the kind of homework one would give too-bright pupils early in a course on this area of discrete mathematics. Charles Matthews 15:15, 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 speedy deleted by Kinu (CSD G12: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=1155). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD. Serpent's Choice 09:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Riccio[edit]

The page is simply copied off a website. Permission or not, it doesn't have any meaning. TheHypnotist 05:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't even given me a chance to do anything with it. Everytime I get it up it gets deleted. This man does have relevance, and if you search for him on Wiki you will not find anything on him.

Please do not remove deletion templates. Instead, leave a reply underneath.

Okay,

Point being, this is ridiculous. If you guys won't even give me a chance to fix or learn how to do things then what's the point? I've been on here a total of what, 7 minutes, and you're already trying to delete what I have saved so far?

I'm sorry YOU don't think he is relevant, but do you take it upon yourself to speak for everyone else?

We are NOT saying it is irrelevant, we are simply saying you NEED to fix your format, and you can NOT just copy and paste work directly from another site. Even if it is not plageurism because you say it is public text, it still does NOT fit the Wiki format. thus, I say: Delete - Does not follow wiki format, and none of the text is the authors own work.TheHypnotist 05:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, by your attitude I knew that you were already going to delete it. Who else would jump on someone five minutes after they started. What a shame, how discouraging.

And, since you can't seem to acknowledge what I'm saying, I already have stated that I wasn't finished with anything before I was being sent messages and notices about deletion.

Take a look at the bottom of the page you just copied the text from: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=1155

It strictly says that reproduction is strictly prohibited. Whether or not you were finished with the article, it's illegal.TheHypnotist 06:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as copyvio per TheHypnotist, and salt the article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:19, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle schaffer[edit]

Appears to be a actress whose primary roles are in local theater around Chicago. Mentioned a few times in local papers and on transsexual websites, but nothing meeting the multiple, non-trivial threshold of WP:RS. Contested PROD. Delete due to lack of evidence of meeting WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: multiple versions of this article (by the same author) have been speedied at this title and at Gabrielle Schaffer (now protected, hence the recreation here), but nothing to warrant a CSD G4. This version attempts to assert notability, so I have no objections to letting process take its course here. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although TG actors doing "crossover" roles are still rather unusual, I don't think that alone qualifies as notability. Just a local actress. --Dhartung | Talk 08:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

exactly what is meant by evidence of meeting?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhamcha (talk • contribs)

Comment The statement is meant to continue to the next line, and should be interpreted as " Evidence of meeting the Wikipedia Notability Criterion found at WP:Bio." Charlie 09:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an uninteresting story, but she's still just a local actress. --Finngall ^talk 22:17, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angst-ridden youth[edit]

An essay on a character type which appears to have been invented by the original author with thrilling examples from contemporary film. No verification from external sources. Delete as OR/essay. --Peta 05:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no mention of Catcher in the Rye, D-. --Dhartung | Talk 08:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as this is certainly original research. Charlie 09:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term itself is certainly in use - it pops up throughout Adrian Mole, for example, and is used in assorted non-trivial sources - but this is a weird mix of OR and dicdef, neither of which ought to be kept — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there may well be plenty of angst-ridden youths but this article is original research. -- Mithent 23:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete there might be some way to salvage the content of this article, but I can't think of it. Useight 23:58, 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 keep. Daniel 03:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian university system[edit]

Unverified essay on the development and state of Australia's university system. POV issues raised on the talk page have not been addressed; regardless wikipedia is not a publisher of original, unverified research. Delete --Peta 06:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Deletion is not about current content of article - it is about whether the subject of the article is notable and several verifiable sources exist on the subject. This is a very interesting topic and it needs some work and referencing. :: maelgwn :: talk 07:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- :: maelgwn :: talk 07:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, probably rename to History of Australian university system. Seems like a reasonable retelling, and I'm not familiar enough with the topic to judge POV problems, but they are not a rationale for deletion by themselves. Please follow dispute resolution instead of using AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 08:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is an appropriate topic and new user Cynthia chang (talk · contribs) has made a great start. See British universities and Universities in the United States for similar articles; notice they both have sourcing problems, and probably NPOV as well. John Vandenberg 08:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, page needs to be fixed, but not deleted. Also the bazillion cite markers are probably not that useful either. Just a tag at the top would suffice. Recurring dreams 09:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per John Vandenberg. Note from edit history that I tagged what was an essay for NPOV & original research, re-arranged into sections by decade & tried to re-write, but quickly got out of my depth. Bazillion cite markers were added in honest attempt to flag the trouble spots, since author was only changing what I flagged on the Talk page, but feel free to remove. Clicketyclack 09:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, probably should be renamed, but a topic worthy of having an article. Lankiveil 10:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - maybe rename Think outside the box 10:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Vandenberg - possibly rename to Higher education in Australia? – Riana ⁂ 11:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JVberg Twenty Years 11:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Vandenberg. It certainly needs cleaning up. For example, CSIRO does not duplicate universities and universities were doing research when CSIRO was started. They just were not offering Ph Ds. I think it can develop into a good article. --Bduke 00:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Notable topic. While the article obviously needs a lot of work especially on sources, it is worth keeping for the moment. Capitalistroadster 02:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep All the Keep comments thusfar reasonably sum up the good reasons for keeping it, which I simply cannot fault. Higher Education in Australia would be a more than reasonable name for the article. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. JJL 23:48, 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 16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Dogra[edit]

Seems non-notable. Every agent need not have his own article. Majority of article is about CAA, and while Condon is mentioned, there is no need to have any of it here. I believe this agent may be non-notable, so I nominated for AfD. Regards, xC | ☎ 07:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, there seem to be sources out there describing him as a top agent. There's little biographical information, though. --Dhartung | Talk 20:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ "one of the brightest and most successful football agents in the nation" As the brightest and most successful wikipedia editor in the nation, I would like to point out these kind of weasly claims are patently unverifiable. --Infrangible 19:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the news coverage would seem to satisfy notability --Infrangible 01:36, 18 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, Sr 13 07:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the interests of a fairer evaluation of the article, I did some cleanup including removing the POV language objected to above and some irrelevant information about CAA. --Dhartung | Talk 08:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Still appears to be non-notable. Just being someone's agent does not make one notable. --Kimon^talk 00:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really don't care that much one way or the other, but he isn't said to be notable simply because of his clients. He is said to be notable as a recognized top agent who has been unusually successful, being brought in as a hired gun to manage the client portfolio of the largest talent agency in the US. Are all agents always inherently and permanently unnotable, or are there agents who can achieve notability in the world of sports agency? This looks to be the latter. --Dhartung | Talk 08:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that inherently, agents remain unknown but, I do believe that some can (and have?) achieve notability/notoriety. Also, being a successful businessman is not enough, unless it's qualified and and the person has accomplished something uncommon. For example, my dad is a successful businessman but, he did not found a company that has made an imprint on the country or world like MS or Google. --Kimon^talk 12:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to meet WP:N. I suspect most successful businesspeople probably do meet N, but this guy does appear to be in the upper echelon of sports agents and therefore legitimately notable. This source might be useful for the article.--Kubigula (talk) 03:53, 23 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. Walton ^Assistance! 19:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Thetan[edit]

There is no proof that this film is actually being produced. Tom Cruise's own representative said that there was no project, while the other citations have said "this and that is reported", which is unverifiable speculation and fails WP:CRYSTAL.

"There are published reports that the “Minority Report” star is making “The Thetan” — a flick about Scientology and is casting former Spice Girl Victoria Beckham in a key role. His rep, however, tells The Scoop that there’s no such project in the works." January 8, 2007
"Thankfully, Cruise's people rubbished reports he cast Posh as an alien bride in a Scientology-based film, The Thetan." January 28, 2007
There is no The Thetan article found at IMDb.

The above citations dispute the casting call and the film itself. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is sourced to (so far) (17) citations (including IMDB, and others, all cited in the References section). More will be added to expand the article. The "denial" was reported first in a gossip column, and is most likely copied from there to the other source. Smee 07:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Sourcing unverifiable speculation, which WP:CRYSTAL forbids, does not strengthen the case for this supposed film project. There is no explicit wording -- except from Cruise's representative and people, and we know what they've said -- about this film. The rest have no attributable statements, just tabloid reporting. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - An interesting dilemma. Information from sources (individuals), and yet printed in gossip citations, and then multiple reprints in reputable citations, but information from unattributed sources. I would still like to hear what others think about this one. My inclination would be to leave it and see how the article develops over time. As an aside, thank you Erik, for being so polite throughout this discussion procedure. Smee 07:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - It is the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy that forbids unverifiable speculation. Furthermore: If speculation can be sourced to reliable sources, it isn't unverifiable. (It still has to be shown not to be original research, e.g. that it is something that has been acknowledged by people other than its author and that has become a part of the general corpus of human knowledge, though.) Uncle G 09:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. I don't think unverified gossip column fodder constitutes proof of notability of an unproduced film. Nor do I think a merge to Tom Cruise is warranted, but others may disagree. --Dhartung | Talk 08:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hrm, adding some of this sourced info to Tom Cruise is a good idea... Smee 08:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The Primary Notability Criterion requires multiple non-trivial published works from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. All that the article shows thus far is one report by the Daily Star, and a lot of reports that begin in the form "According to a report in the Daily Star ...". A whole lot of news services republishing the story of one newspaper does not constitute a multiplicity of works. And that's not even addressing the issue of what reputation for fact checking and accuracy the Daily Star has. Uncle G 09:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that there is a good honest and polite discussion going here. I am going to take this AFD discussion off of my watchlist. However, I would appreciate hearing how it goes, and the only thing I would request is that respect be given to process, and that the AFD remain listed the full time. Smee 12:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - I don't think WP:CRYSTAL applies here - the fact of the potential production of a film as controversial as this is notable, and the potential production is being discussed by bona fide sources, even if it's all a hoax/misunderstanding and the film never actually goes into production — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Athough the film sounds like it might be interesting, if nothing is known about it I don't think there should be an article on it in WP. A mention of the rumor could be put in Tom's article however. Steve Dufour 14:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This isn't crystalballery since the article itself effectively notes that the film isn't planned at all. On the page are notations that the film is coming out, and then documentation of Cruise's people saying that no, nobody's even considering such a film at this time. So the article isn't so much an article about a non-existant film, it's about something I'd never thought I'd see: a notably non-existant film. Weird, but OK. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it warrant its own article, though? Where is the claim to notability made? I could argue that Gears of War (film) (redirect) is more notable and has an official announcement, but it's in the Film adaptation section on its source material. Citations for The Thetan were only multiplied to back the reporting of the film and the casting call. If you are going with the argument that this film isn't planned at all, then this minimal information (probably 3 or 4 citations at most) should be merged to somewhere like Scientology filmography. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it is possible to have an article on something that almost certainly will not take place. Although Tom might make a Scientology film, it probably wouldn't end up having that title. Steve Dufour 03:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have plenty of articles on things that are unlikely to take place... — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are much more important topics. :-) Steve Dufour 15:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's not beyond the bounds of possiblity this film would be made - L Ron did write a screenplay on the topic ("Revolt in the Stars") which would presumably be the source — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't work with presumptions... and I don't understand why it's not clear that tabloid reporting on a fictional film doesn't deserve its own article. It's not comparable at all to Alien invasion, Second Coming, or Human extinction. All these are far broader topics than these handful of gossip headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:48, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Burchell[edit]

Does not assert notability; primary author, User:Authorburch notified on User talk:Authorburch, and made several further edits without asserting notability. Based on primary author's username, this article is likely autobiographical. Several links to book order pages on lulu.com added (WP:SPAM#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles). Overall reads more like a resume than an article. bd_ 07:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - apart from the pretty clear breach of WP:COI, I can't see anything that demonstrates notability. Calderwood Books is a small, new, e-book publisher; the fantasy books are self-published; and most of the credits are to non-paying online poetry sites. Tearlach 22:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per those above. Minor, unknown, non-notable author. Article appears to be promotional. --Kimon^talk 00:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Awards, poetry and books being published...Might be notable in a few years, perhaps... but not right now. xC | ☎ 19:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition, there is no solid proof or citation to a reliable source of his notability and importance.

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

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

The result was Keep.Cúchullain ^t/c 01:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metapad[edit]

Blatant advertising article of a software product. Does not try to establish notability, does not contain any references, or reliable sources. Vacuum Cleaner 01 07:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not blatant advertising, in my opinion, but no notability in any event. Someguy1221 09:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with expansion One of the more well known replacements for Notepad (I use it myself based on a TechTV segment with Chris Pirillo), with g-hits around 135k and many recommendations for using it. The article itself doesn't read like it has an ad tone to me but could use some more sourcing and testimonials to its popularity. Nate 11:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per Someguy1221. Agree that it's not advertising. But there's probably enough info in Comparison of text editors to cover the topic adequately. CitiCat 13:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. metapad is one of the more popular text editors used in GameFAQs and IGN, so much it was even included in the site's documentation for writing FAQs [15] [16] [17]. It's also cited quite often in the guides itself [18].

Anyway, thanks for the notify, I'll try expanding it myself in the next few days. --Aeon17x 06:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the most commonly used alternative text editors on Windows, if I recall correctly. Certainly not blatant advertising. --- RockMFR 07:19, 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 But if these articles are to be expanded, which seems sensible, that should be done soon because they don't contain much right now. W.marsh 16:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York City DOE Region 1[edit]

no assertion of individual notability; Wikipedia is not a directory. Ford MF 07:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same concerns:

Delete all per nom. --Metropolitan90 07:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, as there is absolutely no content other than directory information. Charlie 09:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as pure directory information. The template ought to be deleted as well assuming these articles do not survive the AFD. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All The articles play the same role as school district articles in smaller places, & the same justifications apply--they will be a good place for listing some information about the less notable schools. It's clear that nobody from NYC has taken up the schools banner to the same extent as elsewhere, except for the elite high schools. Should be listed on school-related for the project; I haven't yet learned how to do this.DGG 22:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All I might have recommended merging these articles to the New York City Department of Education, but there are a total of 1,200 schools citywide. Keeping the district articles serves the same purpose as school district articles elsewhere, most of which have far fewer than 120 schools per district. Alansohn 02:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 02:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - we now have an agreed use for these articles. TerriersFan 02:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is...? Ford MF 06:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - At the very, very least, the directory info (address and phone number) should be removed from each and every article. The problem with that is that it leaves absolutely zero content afterwards. Ford MF 06:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I believe they call that a "stub" here on Wikipedia. Alansohn 11:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. I get what people are saying, but the organization of schools by the DOE has been extremely fluid over the last few years and I don't think we need an article on every district/zone/region/sub-district/"Empowerment Zone" created in the bureaucratic wranglings. It's also noteworthy to mention that according to the New York City Department of Education article on Wikipedia, the regions are going to be dissolved in a number of weeks anyway. Ford MF 16:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment also, I think an ideal stub contains some information that can't be near-instantly recreated by another editor should someone figure out something encyclopedic to say about the subject. The only content the articles have now is directory info, which is pretty clearly what Wikipedia is NOT. Ford MF 16:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we're not to keep these, what do you suggest as the appropriate article for aggregating the discussion of the less notable NYC schools? The boroughs are much too large for the purpose. If there's a better way than this, that would be a good solution.DGG

Delete all per nom. There is no point keeping meaningless stubs unless someone is prepared to expand the articles. They currently provide nothing more than directory-style information. Dahliarose 23:27, 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 keep. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Heathen Society[edit]

Speedied as nn group, but whether this is a fitting description is highly doubtful. I improved the article with some references. Punkmorten 07:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone should wonder, I think it merits keeping per our guidelines. Punkmorten 13:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks notable as a long-running organisation, and rather interesting. I've added a link. Tearlach 22:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep 3 good sources, so it's notable. It also seems notable intuitively.DGG 23:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Being a former leader of this organization as well as the original creator of the article, I'm not exactly unbiased, but here's my vote anyway. __meco 09:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources indicate a reasonably active and notable organization. Herostratus 17:15, 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. - Mailer Diablo 09:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson Editor[edit]

Blatant advertising of a software product. Does not try to establish notability, does not contain notable references, or reliable sources. All provided reviews comes from users or are copy-paste, they are not peer reviews. Vacuum Cleaner 01 07:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't consider this blatant advertising, but I agree that no assertion of notability is provided. Further, the only possibly reliable source is the product's website, leaving the article with zero independent sources. And as a heads up for anyone attempting the google test, Crimson editor is used in reference to editors of The Harvard Crimson, and will return numerous false hits. Someguy1221 08:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This isn't blatant advertising; "BUY CRIMSON EDITOR TODAY" would be blatant advertising. The article could probably use some work on references, but as it stands it's a reasonable stub on a somewhat popular freeware/open source text editor. Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a popular freeware and I use it once in a while, so Keep. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can anyone provide an actual, reliable and independent source supporting that this article is notable? Being very popular is possibly notable, but verification is required from reliable sources, not forums or ghit counts. Someguy1221 09:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Let's rewind a bit further. Can anyone provide an actual, "reliable and independent" idea of what would constitute notability in the case of a text editor, such as would satisfy Vacuum Cleaner 01 or Someguy1221? What exactly is behind the this urge to go round deleting articles on text editors? (see also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Metapad, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EditPad Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EDXOR and no doubt others to come) As for references, what exactly is in doubt here, and where better to get them than the software's website? Flapdragon 02:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Look at WP:N for an idea of what constitutes notability in general. The article's website does not constitute an independent source. If someone could just provide reviews of this product from reliable and independent sources, that would do. We don't need articles on every piece of freeware floating around the internet. Someguy1221 03:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep. How's this for a review? [19] A quick search on Google will elicit many others.--duncan 13:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Your link seems dead, so I had to look in the Google cache, and the "review" is actually labeled as "ADVERTISEMENT." Someguy1221 20:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not sure what you mean about the link being 'dead'; it works for me. This review dates from 1 May 2007. There are some google ads on the side nav, but the page itself isn't labelled as an advertisement.--duncan 22:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Forgive my browser for going wonky on me. Someguy1221 22:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is hard to consider freeware as a spam entry, however, there are no reliable sources in this article, which makes it entirely original research. The topic may be acceptable, but the article is not. the_undertow ^talk 22:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, would someone point me out where the advertisement is? Please go through the list of text editors - you will find many editors which are really not notable, say Leafpad. --minghong 01:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs cleanup, but should not be deleted. --Crunch 02:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Crimson is one of better editors, now going open source Rafikk 21:02, 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 02:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plans for military attacks against Iran[edit]

Another attempt to turn WP into a sensationalist weasely tabloid/blog/unencyclopedic review of phony news. I hope there is not going to be Plans for military attacks by Iran in the making. I marked it as a fiction, please recategorize as appropriate. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Del as nom. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer nom. Fictional stuff like this is why critics are always razzing wikipedia. Felixboy 13:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, maybe we should add WP is neither Indymedia nor OhmyNews to WP:NOT. The NPOV violations would most likely make this inappropriate for Wikinews and, I think, they certainly make the article inappropriate for WP. Parts of this article read like an essay masquerading as a news article masquerading as an encyclopedic entry, while others are just pure speculation (usually backed up by sources that seem a little suspect to me). In general, I don't even see how this article could be appropriate: it's speculation about the details of an armed conflict that is, at this time, just as purely speculative.

It boils down to 'Country A has done B which could mean C. If that's indeed the case -and your guess is as good as our's- it might mean D. Or it might not.' Take, for instance, the section about the mobilization of troops: that could, theoretically, indicate preparations or it could mean something entirely different (tactical reasons, close air support for missions in Iraq, scheduled (re-)deployment) or nothing at all. The point is we just don't know and since the military isn't exactly in the habit of publicly discussing tactical aspects of operations that may not ever be carried out, it's not very likely that there will be any reliable sources unless this conflict actually escalates and turns into a full-scale war. I think this sentence is quite telling: "According to the Editor-in-Chief of the Arab Times, the Bush administration has decided that it must act against Iran before April 2007" and illustrates the difference between sources and 'reliable sources'. To make a long argument very, very short: delete. -- Seed 2.0 13:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lead is basically an essay decrying dangerous Western imperialism, failing NPOV, and much of the rest of the article fails the Crystal Ball test of WP:NOT, See point 3. "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." (emphasis in original) This is a decent article for a partisan website, but not for an encyclopedia. IronDuke 13:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a political rant with no attempt to be balanced. It's crystal ball nonsense. Nick mallory 15:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An OR essay. If this one is allowed, I'm going to write one entitled: "America's Best Little Inns and Hotels."--Mantanmoreland 15:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Speculative, original research, violating NPOV, no good. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 16:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. It also should be noted that the article United States-Iran relations already covers this subject but in a more balanced and less speculative manner. In fact some of the same sources used here also appear there (and some of the material in the other article may be problematic for the same reasons cited above, but there it can be dealt with in the context of editing the article. This one should simply be deleted.) 6SJ7 17:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:SYN, WP:NOT all violated by this huge mess. Other than that, it's well written. If it's not salted, it will most likely return. Horologium talk - contrib 18:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm usually very hesitant with calls for salting but in this case, I have to admit it's worth thinking about. Perhaps a protected redirect to United States-Iran relations? -- Seed 2.0 18:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The possibility of an attack against Iran by the US, Israel, or both has been repeatedly discussed in reliable sources, which have been cited in the article. 2008 Republican presidential candidates and other prominent figures have advocated such an attack. The deletion arguments here mostly amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. *** Crotalus *** 20:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The possibility of an attack is covered already, by United States-Iran relations. This article, while copiously sourced, has issues with the reliability of several of them, as well as the other problems I noted in my vote. ZMag, Alternet, Huffington Post, Panoptic World, and Raw Story cannot be considered reliable sources, and the two editorials from a college newspaper really don't cut it either. Eliminating the material from those would eviscerate this article, and that is where WP:OR and WP:SYN come into play. Please don't use WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a club to bludgeon the views of others. Horologium talk - contrib 21:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add one point to Horologium's well-reasoned response: the article isn't about the international conflict or about the nuclear weapons issue. We already have articles that deal with that. It's speculation about plans for military attack. I highly doubt that a Presidential Candidate has commented on that since I can't think of any candidate who would even be privy to such information (let alone one who would be willing to discuss national security matters in public). They may have been talking about the conflict in general (I assume you're not just referring to Senator McCain's rendition of the Beach Boys song) but certainly not about specific plans. And even if they had, it wouldn't make much of a difference. Relevant content doesn't magically turn all the irrelevant, POV-pushing, inadequately sourced content in an article into okay content. -- Seed 2.0 23:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the propensity of Wikipedia to attract well-sourced, and will-written, POV-pushing original research always amazes me. --Haemo 22:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a vote to keep could be understood as a violation of WP:point - since this article is a prime example of complete fiction written like an encyclopedia article. keeping it in will cause wikipedia will look bad. all those who voted keep please reconsider...... Zeq 22:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You sure said it, Haemo. Jtrainor 04:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clear violation of WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. IZAK 06:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nearly everybode else above; lots of good and thoughtful arguments. Carlossuarez46 21:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom Isarig 14:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Sefringle 23:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Horologium, perhaps redirecting per Seed 2.0, Tewfik^Talk 03:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly a notable topic simply because it has been the subject of notable speculation and investigation. Lots and lots of it. The article simply reports things that have already been said/published in the past, with sources. That is precisely the opposite of original research or telling the future. I'm very surprised by the number of delete voters. The title might be best changed to "alleged plans" or something like that, but there is no policy problem with this article. Everyking 09:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you said it yourself: speculation. That's what this article is. Just because something can be sourced (and the first part of RS is a bit problematic in more than a few cases), doesn't mean it warrants having an article on WP. I could write a convincing essay about the clear superiority of chocolate ice cream over strawberry-flavored ice cream and source it like there's no tomorrow (might even be able to turn up some RS) but that still wouldn't make it appropriate for WP. -- Seed 2.0 10:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? We're talking about speculation in major publications about a potential war, not your favorite kind of ice cream. Notable, sourced speculation is perfectly good article content. Everyking 11:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not speculation about a potential war (we have articles that deal with that in an appropriate manner). Speculation about plans for military attack. There can by definition not be such a thing as a RS about alleged plans for a military attack unless such contingency plans have leaked (which they have not). This article isn't about the war or Iran's nuclear program -- it's specifically about plans for attack. Most of the sources the article cites offer nothing but unfounded speculation or are used to make such speculation look sourced. Let me use a hyperbole to explain my point: yes, the President has ordered a carrier group to the region (cite 1). Yes, that may have something to do with a potential war against Iran. (Or it may not.) Air craft carriers tend to carry aircraft and bombs (cite 2). From a purely strategical point of view, one would expect the military to use bomb A against a against target B (cite 3, article that says that much). The USAF has lots of Type A bombs (cite 4). Thus, 1+2+3+4 = conclusive proof that America is out to destroy Iran!!!1!! That's what this is, with a sizeable portion of NPOV thrown in for good measure. And, yes, I feel it's about as appropriate as an essay about my favorite ice cream flavor. -- Seed 2.0 12:01, 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. Cúchullain ^t/c 01:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future Disney Cabinet[edit]

No assertion of notability (WP:N), no independent references (WP:V). Was up for prod on 5th October 2006. Prod reason was: Do not see that this meets any of WP:WEB, WP:ORG or WP:V if the greatest recognition achieved was to be "featured in a small column in Newsweek around January 1994". Prod was contested with the following reason: many other such fan organizations and MU* games are covered by Wikipedia, and FDC/TDC are still known in Disney fandom. Firstly, Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Secondly, 'being known in fandom' is not a claim to notability. Marasmusine 09:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 09:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - No sources means the article is unverifiable (not that any notability is asserted} means the article must be deleted per wikipedia policy. Only excuse for keeping appears to be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. DarkSaber2k 09:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like original research and not verifiable. Of the few Google hits, none are reliable sources. Wickethewok 04:53, 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 and redirect to figure drawing as a plausible search term. Cúchullain ^t/c 01:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human figure[edit]

Contested prod. I tried cleaning it up first but was reverted twice (and abused) before prodding. Most of the article is Original Research and is mainly the work of two authors. It consists of quasi-scientific statements about the human physique which are not supported by adequate references - the only support cited is a fitness website, an online magazine article and a blog. Overall the article is not neutral and is predominantly sexist in tone: women are built for sexual stamina; "Males generally thump their chest to show potency while females pat their buttocks"; "Females generally hug around the neck of males so as to support their weaker upper body, while males generally hug around the waist of females" and plenty more like that. Generally unencyclopedic and unworthy of WP. andy 09:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does this article say that isn't already said in Sex differences#Physical differences, Sexual dimorphism#Sexual dimorphism in humans, and Secondary sex characteristic#In humans? Uncle G 10:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And also said a lot better and with proper references. If you take away the stuff that's already covered in those other articles all that's left are some rather sleazy statements about women as sex objects. andy 11:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete I dont see any relevance of keeping this article in wikipedia. It has became an article that says differences between sexes than what is human figure.202.41.72.100 11:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete Article doesnt seem to be notable. Its nothing but collection of parts of other articles. says facts that everyone knows already — vinay 11:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- also this seems to be pseudo aesthetics or pseudo arts — vinay 11:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to figure drawing. The term "human figure" is used in the article on figure drawing ("The human figure is one of the most enduring themes in the visual arts"), and the article is about the human figure or shape. I believe the term "human figure" is used most often in the context of figure drawing. --SueHay 13:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hendry1307 20:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AfD is not a pure vote. Please give a reason for your vote. Thanks! --Charlene 21:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per SueHay. --Charlene 21:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hmm.. Could this maybe be a disambig page that points to the sexual characteristic differences articles, figure drawing, Body image, and the like? — Omegatron 21:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO cross-references from each article is all that's needed, and they mostly exist anyway. Most of these articles are fine as they are, the only problems I can see are with Human figure and Female body shape (also AfD'd). andy 21:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HoooGraaa! Delete. Well-covered in other articles, as Uncle G says, and what isn't is silly and sexist. 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As everyone else already said this info is already in other articles, but I still liked it. However, delete it.
Delete & redirect, everything here is already covered elsewhere, as suggested above. >Radiant< 21:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep added a section to article, please take note. it does not need redirect to figure drawing as Human figure has own identity. It is basic necessary knowledge every common man needs to know, not just artists.122.167.131.81 04:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- note that user Uncle G's statement also implies that the article conforms verifiability.122.167.131.81 04:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the common man really need to know that males thump their chests to show potency? The common gorilla, maybe. andy 07:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you dont see WWE i think :)58.68.87.3 05:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I removed the section just added, more nonsense and no references won't help that article. / Mats Halldin (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but redirect to relevant articles OR Rewrite - I came to wikipedia to look for an article on body shape. The articles mentioned above (Sex differences#Physical differences, Sexual dimorphism#Sexual dimorphism in humans, and Secondary sex characteristic#In humans) do this much better, but when you search on google and in Wikipedia for "body shape" this article and the "female body shape" article come up. They aren't as good as the other articles for many of the reasons mentioned; I agree with the delete and redirect or it needs a substantial rewrite as it probably is a valid topic in it self. (edit: sorry forgot to sign it!) --DomUK 20:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep secondary sex characteristics are read only by medical students and figure drawing is read by artists. but article on body shape is searched(as said by above) by common man and necessary for him to know the basics. dont object single perticular sentences, this is not the stage for that. 58.68.87.3 05:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a needless fork. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep it relates form and function of human figure. 122.167.140.17 16:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to impute bad faith to anyone but 122.167.140.17 (active on May 21) may well be the same as 122.167.131.81 (active on May 19) who also voted Keep in this debate, also originates from Bangalore and has a similar editing pattern.

sorry pal, this is not at all vote. we write keep or delete just to simplify reading. please read only comments after "keep"

Agreed, I just undid edits by 58.68.87.3, very few contributors devoted to the article seem to fail to confirm to this pattern.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I came to the article by accident, and could not believe how poorly it is written. That is curable, but the absence of facts, and the presence of nonsense opinions may not be. The material is gereally covered over several other articles. Bielle 17:06, 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.

Wikipedia[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 keep, april fools. (non-admin closure) --UpEpSilon (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This "wikipedia" thing is an obvious hoax. What fool would believe this nonsense? And what's this "Internet" thing? EvanJM42 (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as disruption by Vinay412 (talk · contribs), given the lack of any rationale based upon our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines in the nomination and the edit summary of this edit. (See also this edit and this edit.) Uncle G 10:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia[edit]

sad if anybody proposes deletion everyone should come and attend. — vinay 10:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and a block on user for WP:POINT. --THF 10:15, 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 of the debate was Speedy Keep Naconkantari e|t||c|m 05:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia[edit]

Non-notable vanity page. Possibly internetcruft. - Sikon 05:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 07:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blood for Blood[edit]

Completely flunks WP:MUSIC, WP:N, and WP:V; editors keep removing tags instead of fixing fatal problems with article; only argument made for keeping is WP:ILIKEIT. THF 10:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They appear to have had some decent success. A few of their albums have been on some reasonably respected labels. They clearly are not mainstream, but notable enough. The article is lacking in sources and that appears to be the sticking point right now. AfD is not intended to be used as a cleanup tool. --Cyrus Andiron 13:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, actually meets WP:MUSIC for several albums released on Victory. Punkmorten 14:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, As noted above, Blood For Blood meets the requirements for notability by the fact that they have released multiple albums on a notable independent record label, Victory Records.AndyMcKay 22:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Only one of the labels is marginally notable, and Victory Records isn't especially notable either; that an independent label had the happenstance of a notable one-hit wonder on it doesn't make every two-bit band also on that label notable retroactively. Notability reflects the fact that a band has been noted by reputable independent verifiable sources, and that isn't the case here. THF 02:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Victory records has been releasing records for nearly 20 years and have released multiple albums that have been certified gold, and one certfied platinum. They have a roster of bands that are in regular rotation on MTV's Headbanger's Ball. In the '90s they released some of the definitive straight edge hardcore records from bands such as Earth Crisis and Strife. Given these reasons, Victory Records qualifies as a notable and important independent record label. And as stated in the requirements for notability for a musician or group, a band who has released two or more records on a major label, or an important independent record label, qualifies for notability.AndyMcKay 04:14, 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 as recreated material. Sr 13 07:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pandiyakula Kshatriya Nadars[edit]

Speedied twice, undeleted once, no sources, no assertion of notability. Does not seem to meet speedy criteria, but does not appear to be an encyclopaedia article either. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nadar (caste) and let them fight over it. This is one of those problematical topics that probably contain truth, but are inextricably mixed with my-caste-is-better-than-yours feuds, and very difficult to reference due to being non-English in origin. Tearlach 22:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as recreation of an article deleted through AfD, with different name: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pandiya Kula Kshatriya Mara Nadar. utcursch | talk 12:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the page. totaly false information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.163.198.65 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Safety haircut[edit]

I have found no verification of the topic anywhere. The text has the sort of pseudo-encyclopedic tone often found in hoax articles. Joyous! | Talk 10:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if sources can be found. Otherwise delete Think outside the box 10:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At AFD you are supposed to be seeing whether sources can be found. That means looking for them yourself. So far, the only editor to have actually looked for sources is Joyous!. You are supposed to be double-checking that, to provide an additional layer of swiss cheese to the process. Uncle G 11:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, I didn't realise that. No then, I can't find any reliable sources, although there are lots of mentions about safe haircuts - usually relating to less extravagant styles. Think outside the box 11:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find any reliable sources, so either a hoax or not notable. Hut 8.5 14:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no google books results, no google images... Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as possible hoax. If you notice, the article offers no description whatsoever of what a safety haircut actually is, but merely anecdotal information about it. Charlie 20:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like something made up in school one day. This article was the author's only contribution, and it was probably on the edge of nonsense to begin with. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Joyous and per WP:NFT. Edited to add: and WP:HOAX. --Charlene 21:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's probably just a local neologism, or slang, but it definitely has no sources, and should be deleted. --Haemo 22:29, 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 as non notable.. CattleGirl talk | sign! 09:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC).

Battle of Time III - The Neverending[edit]

Doesn't look close to satisfying WP:N, and the auteur's earlier work Kuchar Von Dieu is about to be speedy deleted as non-notable YoutTube video. nadav 11:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable sources, no assertion of notability, and the project isn't even completed! Charlie 20:30, 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 09:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Jesic[edit]

The article is comprised of largely made up material. Marko Jesic does not play for the Jets, and there are no sources that can confirm that. He was possibly considered to be, but a serious injury prohibited that. Apart from that having the article would be pointless due to it mostly being pointless. Militiaman 11:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 13:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Angelo 14:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a 'notyetter' - time will tell if he becomes notable enough, then it can be re-created if necessary. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Dave101→talk 08:07, 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. Sr 13 07:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mens Underwear[edit]

It looks like Skinnyjonz wrote this just to provide a link to their retail website. We already have Undergarment, whereas this article is poorly written and reads like OR. nadav 11:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Undergarment. That article seems to cover the history pretty well. Anything relevant could be merged. I agree with the spam assertion as well. --Cyrus Andiron 12:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for apostrophe failure. If anything redirects to undergarment it should be men's underwear.--Shantavira 13:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So your idea is to delete if someone makes a grammatical error, rather than correcting it? I hardly think Wikipedia would be what it is if that was policy in the early days. --Interesdom 15:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Nadav. Hut 8.5 14:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question per Nadav. Why is this being removed when there are other articles which are much more blatant adverts for their company e.g. KJ Beckett? This is an article about underwear for men specifically. If the quality is not up to scratch then recommend the article for improvement rather than deletion. Underwear for men is a very different topic to undergarments, surely this topic doesn't have to read like a 1970's school book.

Comment WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping this article. Underwear for men is clearly a sub-topic of underwear, and the undergarment article covers the topic far better. This page is not only shorter and less comprehensive but has a strong element of advertising (which is not allowed on Wikipedia). And it does look like there is an element of original research here as well. Hut 8.5 15:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's hard to make text NOT like a 1970s school book when everything must have been written by some professional and be free of copyright. You shouldn't expect anything up-to-date under the current policies! --Interesdom 15:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice. I suspect that an overview article on men's underwear could be written; we already have articles on jockstraps, boxer shorts, briefs, and probably a whole raft of articles on brassieres, corsets, and other lingerie. There does seem to be a hint of conflict of interest here, though. If this is kept, move to a title that is both grammatical and conforms to standard capitalization under WP:MOS. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as mostly duplication, but I see no spam in the present article.DGG 23:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article sounds like an essay explaining men's underwear without any reliable sources. POtential violation of WP:OR.--Kylohk 10:39, 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 delete: A7, no claim of notability ("the Def Leppard of the indoor soccer world" notwithstanding, your local amateur team is a bad article idea). --Kinu ^t/_c 16:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thy Battlers[edit]

A non-notable social indoor football team. A contested PROD, with reason for contesting left on the talk page Mattinbgn/^talk 11:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 11:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - page created on some blokes local indoor team. Twenty Years 11:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Recurring dreams 12:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 12:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Super strong delete Yet another bunch of mates (in this case schoolboys) who play social soccer on a week-night at the local sports centre. Absolutely zero Google hits for the name of the team ChrisTheDude 12:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nominator (and the team's name). - Dudesleeper · Talk 12:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's generally a good idea to list the criterion you are referencing when nominating for speedy deletion. The nominator did not request speedy deletion, so writing "Speedy delete per nom" really doesn't make any sense. --Cyrus Andiron 12:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator, as you have below, mentioned its non-notability, hence my speedy-delete response (which is the same response you've given). - Dudesleeper · Talk 13:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll notice I listed the criteria: CSD A7. That would be the difference. --Cyrus Andiron 14:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, sneaky, that. - Dudesleeper · Talk 15:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as not notable and encyclopedic. John Vandenberg 12:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Orderinchaos 12:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - non notable. WATP ^(talk) • _(contribs) 12:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD A7, non notable group. --Cyrus Andiron 12:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, CSD A7 --Angelo 14:03, 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 merge/redirect to King of the Hill. W.marsh 18:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crew of King of the Hill[edit]

As far as I can make out from the history, a page List of King of the Hill writers was deleted and moved here, though the reason seems obscured. The original page was created (by bot?) when Category:King of the Hill writers was deleted. In any case, the page is nothing more than a List of King of the Hill writers anyway, with just five names. Surely, this information needs to be a section in the King of the Hill article itself and is not worthy of a separate page, plus redirect. Emeraude 12:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Emeraude 12:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into King of the Hill. I don't think a redirect is necessary. Horologium talk - contrib 18:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this article and many similar articles were created following the results of a number of CFDs for categories for the cast and crew of various TV series. It was decided that categorizing people based on the entertainment projects on which they work is overcategorization. I have no opinion regarding the retention of this particular article but it's important to consider why the article was created. Otto4711 02:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying this page was created AFTER the CFD purge? Was it some sort of perverse wiki-reaction to mass deletion by creating more of the same? (I can easily imagine that sort of thing happening) Or I am missing what you meant? Horologium talk - contrib 03:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked to see when this article was created in relation to when the overall consensus againt the categories formed. This CFD determined that categorizing actors by the series in which they appeared was overcategorization. In the subsequent months similar categories for writers and directors were also determined to be overcategorization. To preserve the information, the various categories were listified before being deleted. Otto4711 06:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification (I hope). The category was deleted and 'listified' as List of King of the Hill writers. This was then turned into a redirect to the newer Crew of King of the Hill page (I guess on the grounds that the former would have got deleted). Emeraude 10:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not necessary for own page. Biggspowd 21:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into King of the Hill. Nuttah68 16:54, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gretchen (band)[edit]

WP:BAND Afid4 12:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the only "reason" listed in the nomination is WP:BAND. Well, a quick perusal of WP:BAND reveals two separate criteria that Gretchen is asserted to meet: 2) Having charted on a national chart, and 9) Having won or placed in a major music contest. Charlie 20:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Charlie. The awards, taken together, establish notability. References are still needed, though. Yechiel Man 00:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Simply because this nomination was not carried out in the manner that it should be. There is no reason given for deletion other than listing a policy. Perhaps some input from the nominator on how this article fails WP:BAND would have persuaded me otherwise. I'm not going to delete simply because an editor mentioned a policy. If you're going to nominate an article, provide a valid reason for doing so. --Cyrus Andiron 12:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted by YechielMan above, the awards establish notability. If the appearance on the cover is indeed true, then definite keep, although references are still needed.xC | ☎ 19:20, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomson-Reuters[edit]

WP:Crystal Afid4 12:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Official Thomson press release: "... the boards of Thomson and Reuters announce that they have today agreed to combine the two groups. ... Thomson will be renamed Thomson-Reuters Corporation." MartinHagberg 12:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:CRYSTAL states that: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. It is certainly a notable merger and judging by this [20], it's definitely going to happen. The article is sourced properly and should be kept. --Cyrus Andiron 13:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article, as it stands now, is well-sourced and clearly passes WP:CRYSTAL. -- Seed 2.0 14:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced article on a company that definitely will form, clearly passes WP:CRYSTAL Hut 8.5 16:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its well-known that the companies will merge into one Black Harry (T|C) 17:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no justification for deleting this article. The two companies have merged to create Thomson-Reuters. They are now one. I vote to keep. TerritorialWaters 20:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per above. It should be noted that the nominator has contributions to wikipedia spanning all of a 6 minute period, during which he/she nominated this article and Gretchen (band) for deletion, with no argument other than linking to a guideline or policy. Charlie 20:51, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brunswick South Primary School[edit]

Non-notable primary school. Numerous trivial mentions from sources, but nothing on the school itself. - Tiswas^(t) 12:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have covered the links more fully in the article's talk page. - Tiswas^(t) 12:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 20:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, with 27 Google News Archive hits, and a dedicated recent contributor Eyedubya (talk · contribs), there may be sufficient notability for this article. John Vandenberg 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep About 6 of them talk about it in a substantial way, but teat is certainly more than the usual zero. But I am concerned because they are all from a local newspaper, & I though it wsa necessary to show notability beyond the local community , for local events. DGG 23:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What sways me towards a keep is that it is old enough, in Australian terms, to have heritage listed buildings. It is in inner Melbourne, so the local rag is not so local (hence it's owned by a media mogul rather than a chap with a chip). John Vandenberg 23:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article was prod'ed a mere 27 minutes after being created and thrown to the dogs here at AfD in under 24 hours. Reliable sources are provided but need to be integrated into the article. An excellent day's work. Alansohn 02:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 02:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am with Alansohn here. This is an entirely decent start to an article and inexperienced editors should be helped and encouraged not have their work immediately prodded. Oh, and there is sufficient notability in the sources to meet WP policies. TerriersFan 02:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While there are a number of sources, are they sufficiently strong to warrant an article. It also needs to be edited to remove reference to staff unless they are particularly notable in the school's history. Capitalistroadster 03:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I take an essentially pragmatic view on this. The sources need weaving into the article and until that is done it is hard to assess their notability. However, as DGG mentions, it is a delightful surprise to have any sources and there is sufficient here to keep the article for the time being. On the staff, it is normal to include the name of the Principal (as it would be the name of the CEO of any organisation) but I have taken out the VP. TerriersFan 03:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I proposed the article for deletion to garner more consensus - There are a number of sources (reliable or not), but the content of the sources contains only trivial mentions of the school. My concern is that there are not enough non-trivial mentions, where the school itself is the topic, or at least not merely mentioned in passing. A quick perusal of the news archive link gives the impression that we are reading the schools monthly bulletin. That being said, if appropriately sourced and worthwhile articles can be embodied in the article, I have no problem at all with the article staying. But they do need to be added, and not merely intimated. - Tiswas^(t) 08:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I am generally of the opinion that primary schools are not notable unless they have another claim to notability, this one appears to have done so, although the prose of the article needs to be brought in line with Wikipedia standards. Orderinchaos 04:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Assuming this school was embroiled in Kennett's proposed sell-offs then it will easily meet the primary inclusion criteria of mulitple independent sources.Ga rr ie 04:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, with due respect to the good faith contribution involved here, I don't see how this particular school is any more notable than your other garden variety primary school. Lankiveil 10:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per above. The quality or number of sources is not relevant to topics that are inherently not notable, such as most primary schools. Eusebeus 11:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm personally of the opinion that if the source and profile of the source and its commentary is high enough, it can result in the subject meeting notability. However there is some argument that it should be in a different article about Kennett's school closures (which does not yet exist), rather than about the school itself, which would not be notable without the commentary. Orderinchaos 07:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are plenty of categories of articles where there is established consensus of inherent notability: Federal and state elected officials, municipalities and places, major highways, etc. There is absolutely nothing that is "inherently not notable"; this claim is false in and of itself. The overwhelming majority of elementary schools will have a great deal of difficulty demonstrating notability with non-trivial reliable and verifiable sources, and this one is one of the small number of exceptions that has distinguished itself from other such schools and other such articles. A vote that argues for deletion by stating that the article should be deleted irrespective of the "quality or number of sources" is not relevant and should be ignored by the closing administrator. Alansohn 04:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:N is only a guideline. But the requirement is has it received significant coerage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. THAT defines notability on Wikipedia, not the "dictionary" definition of notability. If you object to that definition then do so at WP:N and come back here with the new definition.Garrie 02:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I haven't mentioned dictionary definitions of notability, so I'm not sure what it is that you're objecting too. I agree with you that notability needs to be established for articles, though I pointed out that there are many categories where there is broad acceptance of inherent notability. While you seem to be acknowledging that there are standards that can be met to demonstrate notability, we have a statement above that primary schools are inherently not notable and that articles for such schools -- such as this one -- should be deleted regardless of the "quality or number of sources". There simply is no support in any Wikipedia guideline or policy to support that statement. Alansohn 03:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Why is this one not inherently notable; what is your reasoning? Wikipedia:Schools has a stricter sourcing requirement than merely WP:N, but this subject has a significant book by a decent author[21], and according to the NLA the book is held in 7 libraries. What's more, the main contributor to the article is rapidly expanding the article. John Vandenberg 07:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        By inherently notable, I mean a category of article that doesn't have to prove notability. A tiny municipality in the outback doesn't have to provide sources to demonstrate why it's more notable than other similar podunks; it -- and every single municipality, no matter how small or trivial -- is notable by definition. Other types of articles have the opportunity to demonstrate notability by providing reliable and verifiable sources, a standard that this article has satisfied. What I am objecting to is the unfounded and unsupported claim that schools can never be notable, regardless of the "quality or number of sources". Alansohn 13:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything in the article that asserts the notability of the topic other than the unreferenced claim that the State Government was unsuccessful in shutting the school down. The rest of the article, while providing context and background and well written and presented does not assert notability. Most of the sources shown, such as the list of polling places in Wills, mention the school in only a trivial sense. In common with the vast majority of primary schools in Australia, it is unlikely to be able to assert notability any time soon. With regard to the decision to keep or delete, I am not sure that encouragement of editors is relevant. While new editors should be encouraged, I don't see that as a reason to dilute standards. It would be better to point out to the editor why the article was tagged for deletion, point them towards the relevant guidelines and policies and offer assistance if needed. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 00:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's encourage them then to improve the article.DGG 02:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. There was a high-profile battle over its survival; it was rare for the time in that they were actually successful. It easily meets the criteria for proper sourcing, and should thus stay. Rebecca 04:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you know when this battle occurred, or a reliable source that mentions the battle? See Talk:Brunswick South Primary School#School closure by Kennett. I looked and found nothing. John Vandenberg 04:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per John Vandenburg, DGG and Garrie. The article is sourced (rare for a school article), and there seems to be enough to have a good article after a cleanup. Cleanups are not a reason for deletion. JRG 05:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per JRG :-) ISBN 0731603257 is a book about the school and is in the NLA: OCLC 27549319, and user Eyedubya has just made a large expansion of the article - very nice work! John Vandenberg 12:20, 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. Calls for the recreation or undeletion of another article are off-base here: take that to WP:DRV. Until that is allowed, I don't think it's appropriate to even consider a merge... but on top of that, if you look at these articles, they aren't appropriate merge material anyway, and there are no reliable sources. So, having discarded the impossible suggestion, the result of the debate is delete. Mango juice^talk 15:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual science by Martinus[edit]

Walled garden of irredeemably POV and unsourced/OR articles advertising the work of a non-notable Christian mystic. See previous AfD covering parts of the same walled garden at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Third Testament (these articles were also recreated recently and have been speedied; the main Martinus article has apparently been created several times since 2002). Multiple nomination, covering also:

Livets Bog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The cosmic analyses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Eternal World Picture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The cosmic symbols by Martinus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Associated redirects at this time
1. Spiritual science - 1
2. Livets Bog - 1, 2, 3, 4
3. cosmic analyses - 1, 2
4. world picture - none
5. cosmic symbols - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 GRBerry 14:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete all No evidence of any independent notice of any of the books or of the term in the articles. No critical reviews, etc... No evidence of any secondary sources discussing the term, as required by WP:NEO in order to have an article on the term. GRBerry 14:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per GRBerry. Anville 15:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. For instance this is mentioned under the article ”Martinus Thomsen”: “A Danish author and natural scientist “Kurt Christiansen” made a deep investigation which is published in two massive vol. entitled: “Martinus og hans livsværk Det Tredie Testamente” (only printed in Danish) in order to investigate Martinus private life and actions.” Martinus work contains 43 books, 8000 pages of spiritual literature being translated to 19 languages until this day and in progess, (but till not mentioned here on Wikipedia. I don’t know why, but perhaps because it is not according to some traditional Christian views, because Martinus explains the principle of reincarnation)

I find it quite difficult to understand why to delete. I have folloved the POV line after line, and I therefore asked future perfect which wants to delete it all, but I had no answer and no explanation yet. In order to prepare this articles again – which I already spend days preparing – I have to know exactly which parts are not seen as “reliable”. I want to make a presentation of this work which is totally unknown to the English speaking people.

How to do it without mentioning the intention of the content of his collected work, giving some minor examples and mentioning the most remarkable postulates made here, marking them as exactly this “the author claim..”? All postulates might be right or wrong, but how to know if they’re removed before any chance of testing?

Ps. Some might believe this is some Christian minority etc. But no. There is no membership, sect, organisation etc living out principles from the teachings of Martinus. The teaching here shows that everything is very good (all details of life) but that only acts of love gives positive result. There does exist a Martinus Institute in Denmark with the task of preserving and translating his work, but that is their task. I have nothing to do with them (!), I’m a private person who discovered Martinus literature and cosmic analyses and therefore wanting to share the existence of this work. I do understand that the work here is quite unusual, and therefore I understand that I need to explain a little in order not to be misunderstood. No, this is not some craziness, and you’ll all find out if you took the time to investigate instead of prejudging. Martinus might be wright and he might be wrong, but it certainly can’t be know without a test, and the postulates are certainly not un-important…

Friendly wishes, Søren Jensen --S.jensen 16:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recreate Martinus Thomsen (seems to be marginally notable, e.g. has articles in more than five Wikipedias, including Danish since 2004) and merge all in this article.--Ioannes Pragensis 20:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'd not be averse to that if such an article could be reliably sourced. I note that both the Danish and the German versions have no sources cited other than what are obviously websites run by his followers. Any independent sources out there? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I have found a paragraph about him in the book Suicide: What Really Happens in the Afterlife? by Jon Klimo and Pamela Heath, page 104f.--Ioannes Pragensis 10:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate and merge seems the obvious course , if there are external references to any of this.DGG 23:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many quotations by Martinus shows that absolutely doesn’t want to have any followers, any organisation in his name etc. Modern man is a free thinker, that is the only way forward now, a critical approach is the only way to create one own opinion, create real individual consciosness. A person being partly or more inspired by these thoughts should not be classified as a “follower”, as if anything connected to spiritual matters must be a matter of belief. In this case it is not.

People can belief in modern physics without being classified as a follower of Newton too. If there is something true in this matter, that would not make anyone discovering the same truth equal to “followers”, especially in this case because the author doesn’t want to be followed, and actually dammed any kind of religion, tradition, mystics, sects, “students or teachers” etc in his name as a obvious obstacle that would hinder any real free consciousness – which he said to be the aim of his work: real human consciousness (meaning intelligence and empathy working together in harmony). He adds that any individual (including himself) can be nothing but a tiny detail in the wholeness of life.

As far as I know the Martinus Institute in Denmark could be said to be bound in opinion because of its task to preserve and translate his books but all the other websites I have found are created by independent individuals. For instance: http://www.deathisanillusion.com Or http://www.vivotopia.org/eng/aboutus/ Here is a link displaying different public Danish newspapers telling about a new private exhibition about Martinus’ work. http://www.martinus-on-tour.info/1.php?id=6&page1=Omtale&sprog=da you don’t speak Danish but tell me if you want me to translate some text from the article. I’m Danish (but living in Sweden). --S.jensen 07:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Søren Jensen[reply]

ENGLISH REFERENCE - EXAMPLE I took a look at the neutral preferences and found this quite strong reference considering the English speaking readers: Paul Brunton. He was (as you can read in wikipedia) one of the world most famous authors concerning mystics, religion etc. working as a journalist and mystic himself he visited the real mystics of these days. Paul Brunton visited Martinus first time in 1948 which is documented by Paul Bruntons own words in the Danish 1952 edition of his book: "The Secret Path"). He visited Martinus again in 1950 and during the months may to aug. 1950 (4 month) he stayed with his wife at Martinus Institut Denmark where he was tought by Martinus (!).

A Danish documentary: “Martinus som vi husker ham” contents a very positive description on Martinus written by Paul Brunton. He visited Martinus again in 1956 and made a prescript for one of Martinus book: Mankind and the world picture. This prescribt (along with the book) can be read in the Magazine “Cosmos Special Issue", 1990-4. BUT in the printed final edition of the book it is brought without the preface by Brunton because of a decision not to introduce the work of Martinus through other known people. Martinus

Is this enough reference? I cant add it and prepare the Third Testament website, because it is deleted. What do you want me to do?

Friendly wishes, Søren Jensen--S.jensen 19:56, 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 merge/redirect. W.marsh 18:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sirica (Kirby)[edit]

The result of the first afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirica (Kirby)) was to redirect it to Kirby series characters. Since the latter article has now been deleted, the article could possibly be a WP:CSD#R1. However, given that someone has already recreated its content and that the first afd was a bit ago, I have decided to bring it here again. Tizio 13:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a wise choice, if I may say so. If you ask me, it's neither R1 nor G4 and the article should be judged on its own merits. I know positively nothing about this series (I've heard of the games but that's pretty much it) and therefore I'm somewhat on the fence about this one. As I understand it, this is a nothing more than a minor character in an Anime series that may be featured in upcoming episodes. It's apparently popular among the show's fans but there are no sources to back that up. So... is that its claim to fame? Because the article talks about the show's "second to last episode", which indicates that it has already been canceled. The character is also already mentioned here. And while I realize that some of the point brought up in the original AfD have been addressed in this rewritten version but, as far as I can see (and I may very well be wrong about that), it's still a minor character who is hardly notable and some parts of the article still look like OR to me. That's why I'm thinking delete but I'd be happy to change my vote if someone familiar with this show can show that the character is indeed notable. -- Seed 2.0 15:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would like to point out that an anime show having a "second to last episode," does not mean the same thing it might for an American network sitcom, for example. Most anime series, as I understand it, have a specific story arc and length in episodes that is decided during production, having nothing to do with the popularity of the series once it is aired. Therefore, the existence of a "second to last episode" ought not be considered direct evidence of a series's non-notability. Charlie 21:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 05:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kirby: Right Back at Ya! Minor Characters. If you cut all the random fan shipping and commentary, it will fit into that page well enough. --tjstrf talk 03:30, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glee (programming language)[edit]

This article descibes a programming language that is unfinished yet. The only reference is the project's web site, which has not been updated since 2004. Fails WP:CORP and violates WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL. Tagged for notability since October 06. Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. B. Wolterding 13:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the most current information on a work in progress is "unfinished as of 2004," then it is pretty likely a dead project. Charlie 21:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Yechiel Man 00:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any information on the internet about this Glee. Since it is unfinished, and there are no reliable sources related to its development, it should be removed per WP:CRYSTAL.--Kylohk 19:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks abandoned. Pavel Vozenilek 02:37, 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 Article history will be preserved if anyone wants to mrege additional content. W.marsh 16:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel Hall[edit]

Gospel Hall section on Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.

All edits to this article in the past year have been by COI SPAs adding content and the occasional NPOV editor attempting to neutralise it. It has no references and no assertion of notability. I prodded it. 142.177.73.65 (talk · contribs) removed the tag. — Athaenara ✉ 13:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic, and a non-notable neologism. The COI doesn't help either. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 13:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to re-creation if sourced. I think it's pretty accurate in its description of the flavour of Christianity practised in places called gospel halls (i.e. Protestant evangelical nonconformist, enough budget to afford a building but not enough for major church). But unless this categorisation is backed up by third-party sources, it's OR. Tearlach 22:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This could become a real article if it were re-created with appropriate content and reliable sources. I have no objection if someone wants to fix it up before the close of the AfD. The issue of neologism would have to be addressed, though. EdJohnston 04:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Keep: I don't think much of this article as written either, but disagree about the neologism aspect. I've known the term (and the brand of Christianity they contain) for years. And there is confirmation of the term out there [22], [23] as well as many others, including references in scholarly journals going back to the 1920s. [24].
Yes, it needs to be sourced, but judging from a quick search I don't think it would be very difficult to do, though will anybody do it in time?!!--Slp1 19:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term is not a neologism, I've found independent websites on Google that explains it. One of them is here.[25]--Kylohk 09:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My impression was that most Gospel Halls were Christian assemblies of one or other variety of Plymouth Brethren. These are properly described as denominations, but there is little central organisation. It is certainly not a neologism. The article is not well written, but that is a common defect, which should be cured by a 'clean up' or similar tag. I see little case for deletion. If the decision taken is to delete, then it should be replaced with a redirect to Plymouth Brethren, perhaps that is the best solution anyway. Peterkingiron 22:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think that would be an excellent solution. — Athaenara ✉ 00:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have undertaken an edit on the adticle and placed the following commetn on its Talk page:

In view of the current WP:AFD discussion, I have tried to tidy up the article, seeking to provide an objective description. My source is essentialy personal experience and what I ahve been told anecdotally from having been a member of a church which was formerly a Brethren Assembly (though not called a Gospel Hall), and from what I have been told by others in the movement. I appreciate that this is strictly WP:OR and thus not a wholly acceptable source for WP, but I cannot do better. I hope that this contribution has dealt with the WP:POV issues. However I am not sure that this article would not be better being merged into Plymouth Brethren. Whether it should be will depend on whether any one can provide a source to prove that there are Gospel Halls that do not form part of any of the Brethren movements.

However, I am not convinced that there is much in this that is differnet and better than what is in the Plymouth Brethren article. My considered opinion is that the best solution is probably merge and redirect to Plymouth Brethren, possibly adding the further sources identified by other contributors to this discussion. Peterkingiron 11:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the merge and redirect suggestion. Especially with the re-write it seems the overlap is substantial. It does not seem appropriate to delete as this appears to be a small but significant piece of Christianity. I tried to source but had difficulty identifying appropriate sources because of the specialist nature of the subject and most mentions of the term. We really need an expert's help to distinguish what sources are reliable and what POVs are present in them. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt to cover the subject (in some ways it makes our coverage even more important). -- Siobhan Hansa 13:28, 23 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. Walton ^Assistance! 19:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey[edit]

This is a procedural nomination, after closing the previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey: during that debate, an extensive amount of revision took place, making most of the independent opinions moot. It has become apparent that the article creator, User:Flyer22, is quite dedicated to the article and wants to bring the article in line with Wikipedia policies as much as possible. However, the previous debate did not settle whether or not the topic is appropriate, and I would like that to be the focus of this debate. Summarizing, J.R. and Babe are a popular couple on the major soap opera All My Children, a couple that has been fairly significant in the plot for some time. However, there are already articles on J.R. Chandler and Babe Carey separately, as well as some separate general storyline articles. It is not unprecedented to have articles on soap opera couples (there are many examples at Supercouple), but precedentdoesn't mean much. Closer: consider me neutral. Mango juice^talk 17:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, now I know why it was nominated again. I got worrried there for a second. Yes, I now feel that this topic is appropriate. The revisions were quite significant, and this article focuses more so on J.R. and Babe's life together, their creation, and their impact as a couple, separate from their individual articles. Flyer22 17:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything that isn't repetition to J.R. Chandler, Babe Carey and/or All My Children as appropriate and then DELETE. Agreed that the article is now much better and in line with Wikipedia policies but I still consider the article to be fancruft on the basis that seperate articles already exist for both this articles subjects, and more than enough information on the storyline already exists on the programme's article. Therefore we risk a great deal of confusion and repitition by allowing it to remain. A1octopus 17:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in mind that it's not acceptable to merge and then delete, per GFDL concerns. Mango juice^talk 18:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A1octopus, I don't necessarily feel that the article is on the same basis as the J.R. Chandler article or the Babe Carey article. By Wikipedia's standards, the J.R. Chandler article and the Babe Carey article will have to be edited down as well, thus even then it will differ from this artice. Right now, this article differs from those in that as stated before, it is on the basis of the origin of the couple, how they were created, the inspiration. This article also mentions detail such as J.R and Babe's time in France together while the other articles do not. It intricately incorporates creation, history and impact. The others don't, and once the others are edited down, the chance of them doing so will be even less likely. I don't see how there will be any confusion here, just as there isn't any confusion with other soap couples having articles on Wikipedia, but also individual articles on Wikipedia. The J.R. and Babe article doesn't focus heavily on what is already mentioned in their separate pages, but rather focues on their significance as a couple. Flyer22 18:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not a fan of AMC, but we've been working on guidelines for "soap couple" articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas. Though I don't know if I'd go quite as far as to say that J.R. and Babe are a supercouple, they do seem to meet our guidelines as a "notable" couple, since they appear on "top 10" lists and are referred to in multiple third-party sources. As such, I believe that this topic meets the bar for inclusion. I'd also like to commend Flyer22 (talk · contribs) for really doing an amazing job here. Despite being a new editor, and on the receiving end of an extraordinary amount of criticism, she has maintained an unfailingly upbeat attitude, has listened carefully to concerns, and done a major overhaul of the article, which is now extensively referenced. In fact, I think she's turned it into something which, with a bit more polish, might go as far as making it to Good article status. Per WP:BITE alone, I think we should keep this article, and encourage this excellent editor to stick around on Wikipedia. We could definitely use more people with her energy and positive attitude. :) --El on ka 19:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep This is hugely improved from the original article -- frakly i wouldn't have belived it could ever attain the current level of quality. While there is still more plot summery than I like, it is now celarly a summary and not a retelling. Ther is lots of information on the real-world impact, adn much of it is well sourced. I am not a fan of such articles, but this is probably about as good as one can get. DES ^(talk) 20:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:29, 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. Walton ^Assistance! 19:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of pronouncements of a critical period for the U.S. occupation of Iraq[edit]

This is original research, and a pointless list for an encyclopedia entry to have. In my opinion, its only purpose is to serve as a set of not-very-convincing "gotcha"s, trying to prove... something or other. Korny O'Near 16:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My question is: What is the point? The article is certainly well sourced. It shows that different people have stated that the war should be over quickly. Okay, that obviously isn't the case, but why the article? What is the need for an article that illustrates how politicians critically misjudged the time it would take to achieve the military objetives? They were wrong, big deal. People thought World War I would be over quickly also. No one created an article to point how wrong they were when it lasted four years. It seems like the whole point of this article is a gigantic "told you so". How completely elementary. --Cyrus Andiron 15:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research pushing a particular political point of view which has no place here. Nick mallory 15:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it is OR Lurker 15:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, the idea that this original research is attempting to justify is the Friedman (unit) (AfD discussion). Uncle G 15:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not original research. The question of timelines and benchmarks is a critical one to U.S. policy. An article about how people thought World War I would be over quickly would be informative and useful. And this isn't primarily about people saying the war would be over quickly; it's about significant policy makers and pundits setting benchmarks for judging the war's success. A number of those people have changed their support for the occupation as those benchmarks have passed; some have not. Without a record of such pronouncements, it's impossible to ascertain how people's positions have developed. This is useful (and encyclopedic, in the sense that it is of historical interest) no matter your opinion of the war. --User At Work 15:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is original research. It takes roughly thirty completely unrelated quotations from different people talking about periods of six months (although even that supposed commonality actually varies, and has been subject to interpolation in several cases) and synthesises the conclusion from them that they are using Freidman units, or are indeed related to one another in any way. It doesn't do any of the things that you claim it does. It says nothing at all about how people set benchmarks. It says nothing at all about how people's positions have changed. All that it is is, in your own words, a "record of pronouncements", which are not related to one another, and which have no sources supporting their synthesis into any kind of whole. Uncle G 16:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but edit heavily I think this article has potential . It is well sourced and could be renamed as something like Forecasts to the end of the Iraq War and reworked to the point where it documents notable people and their sourced statements as to when they think things in Iraq will return to "normal" I think it should be marked by time alone rather than interspuersed with things like the surge and the mosque bombing. Those things are just gratuitous nyah nyahs. MPS 16:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep but edit, somewhat along the lines suggested by MPS, although IMO an accompaning timeline of significant events would help to give the various statements meanigful context. DES ^(talk) 20:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not exactly OR, but pointless. All it tells us is that, accorting to pundits, the next few months in the Iraq war are always the critical ones. So what. We can put that assertion, along with the sources into some appropriate article, but it certainly does not need a list. Sandstein 22:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - well referenced POV pushing, and borderline original research. --Haemo 22:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is original research of the synthesis variety - albeit a very extended form, listing a number of different quotes to come up with an implied conclusion. If it's not that, then it's an arbitrary list (let's have a list of times people have predicted a recession?). -- Mithent 23:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Preserve in formaldehyde. I remember there was an article about an Arctic sea monster that turned out to be a hoax and was enshrined in a BJAODN-type Wikipedia-space page. This article deserves a similar outcome. It's too hilarious (or tragic) to vanish from sight forever, but WP:OR is a concern. Yechiel Man 00:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we ought to have an article/essay called Wikipedia:formaldehyde that discusses the need for some articles and BJAODN to be preserved, just not in an encyclopedia. It would be like the Library of Congress for wikipedians. MPS 18:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Friedman (unit) and the first three sources amply demonstrate, the main point made by this article is not OR. Kla'quot 07:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the main point of the article? And are articles supposed to make points? Korny O'Near 12:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that U.S. officials have made multiple pronouncements that a critical period in Iraq has arrived or is imminent, often saying that critical period is six months long. This isn't a new observation, nor is it an opinion. The article does sets off my NPOV radar and I suspect a new title would help, but I can't put my finger on what would be needed to fix it. Kla'quot 15:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I will accept it's not OR, but it does seem like SYN (a form of POV), if these sorts of articles were to be keepers, there'd be no end to "pronouncements of X in relation to Y", everything from band reunions and tours, ends of wars, romances, marriages, life as we know it, just look at the horoscope page (hey, they're in the NY Times a WP reliable source, right?) for pronouncements....Carlossuarez46 21:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G and Kla'quot Freepsbane 23:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a great article and obviously a lot of work went into it, but I worry that it is an OR collection according to Wikipedia guidelines. Maybe someone could republish it somewhere more appropriate? --Abnn 17:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "moving six months" is a much remarked-upon phenomena; when I saw the title I instantly knew what it was about. It is not original research to string together a bunch of facts in what amounts to a list. Very well sourced. Herostratus 17:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless rewritten (with appropriately specific sources) to reflect the actual, unstated subject — problems with the timeline — rather than simply citing data points and implying the intent. While I find this information fascinating and useful, I have to agree that's it's original research (i.e., synthesis). In theory, this article could be constructed from news articles and even books that have discussed the repeated, unsuccessful attempts to predict the timeline of the war, but that's not what the sources are actually providing. They are merely statements of timeframes, and the OR is in collecting them and making an implicit argument of their inaccuracies. I'd be surprised, however, if there aren't at least several reliable sources for the actual argument, so there may be some hope for this article (in some form) yet. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that most of the citations come from three references (the FAIR list, the Washington Post list, and the recent Washington Post article) it's not predominantly original synthesis; rather it's taking established works on a particular subject and fleshing them out simply by following the original authors' intent, consistent with Wikipedia practice. --User At Work 21:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete certainly under this name. This topic needs to be dealt with in a totally different manner IMO. The current page seems useless. Elrith 00:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously just exists to further a POV. Factually accurate, not original research exactly, but you could generate any number of superficially neutral and factually accurate lists that further some point or another, and have little other purpose. This just isn't what Wikipedia should be about... generating something that pulls out all the stops to look like an actual article but is really just a POV piece. --W.marsh 02:03, 23 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thageef[edit]

The subect is non-notable, as there are no references and a gsearch turns up only 42 results. --Hojimachong^talk 23:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability might be there, but unless sources are found, we can't publish such information as being authoritative. Yechiel Man 00:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are not 42 Google results, there are zero results once you discard results that refer to something else. I wouldn't expect to find much on the web about this, but with (1) zero sources given in the article and (2) zero sources found on the web, how do we know the person didn't just make this up? He probably didn't but is that good enough? Herostratus 21:43, 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 Delete. This is clearly beyond the scope of a global encyclopedia and better served by a link to the school's athletic department from Westlake High School (Texas). — Scientizzle 17:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westlake Chaparrals[edit]

Nominated Westlake Chaparrals for deletion. It seems like a pointless article of 30 years of stats for a high school football team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnota (talk • contribs) 2007/05/17 05:32:13

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and retroactively forfeit all games that happened during the time of the author's attendance at the school. Pure non-notable listcruft. --Finngall ^talk 03:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too much detail for a high school, and beyond the scope of the project.--Wafulz 14:26, 23 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 nom withdrawn. Sr 13 07:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zebibyte[edit]

Unlike the other binary prefixes, the Zebibyte and Yobibyte appear not to exist; for instance, the description in http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html only goes as far as the exbibyte, as does the description of the standard in http://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si_brochure_8_en.pdf (the standard itself isn't available online). I can't find any reliable sources; Google reports 705 results for Zebibyte (for some reason increasing to 1450 when I exclude Wikipedia from the results), which is very low for a genuine unit (compare google:Exbibyte), so I conclude that these units are in fact non-notable neologisms (compared to the other units in the series, which are notable). There was an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zebibyte previously, where consensus was to delete, but the page seems to have been recreated since and it's quite an old AfD. --ais523 13:51, 17 May 2007 (U T C)

Strong Keep: The SI prefixes are not asigned per-unit, they are SI-wide. Do we really search for a reference for something that is taught in high school? The reason why Exbibyte gives much-much more results is simple: Exbibyte is 2⁶⁰, which can be addressed by today's 64-bit process. Zebibyte and Yobibyte are artificial units, which are not required yet. They will be if and when 128-bit processors arrive. It is the same as Exbibyte was an artificial unit in times of 16 or 32-bit processors. Anyway, SI prefixes are not asigned per SI units, they are SI-wide: [26]. -- jsimlo^(talk|cont) 19:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Is there a reliable source that would say that Zebibyte and Yobibyte are exceptions to the [27]? -- jsimlo^(talk|cont) 19:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I have found a reliable source directly on the IEC site [28]. -- jsimlo^(talk|cont) 19:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem is the timing. The IEC's web page was published in 2007. At that point, Wikipedia and its mirrors had been spreading the idea of "zebibytes" for 3 years. In contrast, the articles published by the BIPM and NIST, hyperlinked to above, were published several years ago, and make no mention of "zebi-" or "yobi-" prefixes. Similarly, this document, published in 2002, states that Zi and Yi are not parts of ISO/IEC 60027-2. Also similarly, this letter, written in 1999 by A.J. Thor, the chairman of the standards committee that developed the standard, makes no mention of "zebi-" or "yobi-" either. This raises a significant possibility that the author of the IEC web page obtained the information not from the standard itself but from a GNU document or from Wikipedia. The fact that the BIPM, NIST, and the chairman of the standards committee itself all said one thing some years ago, before some Wikipedia editors had the bright idea that there was such a thing as a zebibyte, but an IEC web page says something else this year, needs to be looked into. Uncle G 02:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've looked into it. The explanation appears to be simple: The implication of this press release is that the IEC revised the standard in 2005, adding "zebi-" and "yobi-". Uncle G 08:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep the article in SI zone would appear to be sufficient. DGG 00:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The existence of this article constitutes original research by synthesis. To wit: Wikipedia editors took the idea that "zebi-" and "yobi-" are IEC prefixes, and the notion that prefixes apply equally to all SI units, and synthesized these two sourced facts into the novel idea that there are such units as "zebibytes" and "yobibytes," even though no reliable sources have ever used such units. That is clearly original research according to our policies. *** Crotalus *** 04:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Maybe so, but ever since (as Uncle G provided recently), there are now reliable sources, comming from the IEC. Though we might delete the article, because it was written as original research, we will have to create it again, because it is now well-sourced entry. The point is, the article seems to be okay, if we provide the reference ([29]) to it. The only problem that remains is, that there is no practical use for ZiB and YiB, because they are not addressable by today's 64-bit processes and they are not yet used by any external memory technology (afaik). -- jsimlo^(talk|cont) 12:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nom withdrawn, although the articles should be changed to make clear that the prefixes were added later and weren't invented at the same time as kibi (see Uncle G's source above). This is left open as at least one user wants deletion. (The current article shows the danger of original research, as it appears to be the result of a guess rather than actually checking sources, but a new version explaining the history would be preferable. I'm not sure why these are two separate articles, but that's not a matter for AfD to decide.) --ais523 14:12, 18 May 2007 (U T C)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as vandalism and various other reasons. (N.B I am just closing the AfD page, another admin did the delete) DES ^(talk) 20:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008 (USA)[edit]

I'm just taking a wild guess, but I think these are fake. - eo 13:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there are going to be an awful lot of re-issues of songs from 2004 next year...... ChrisTheDude 14:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just looking forward to that hot duet by Michael Jackson and John Travolta. - eo 16:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete To quote the article "This is a list of what the U.S. Billboard magazine Hot 100 number-ones will be in 2008." Crystal-balling anyone? Wildthing61476 14:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please speedy delete; obvious hoax. --Russ (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The RIAA says you WILL make these number one Um... no. Speedy Delete as hoax. DarkAudit 15:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as obvious hoax. Hut 8.5 16:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy snowball delete. Hoax. And, shhh. Don't give the RIAA any ideas. ;) -- Seed 2.0 17:10, 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 10:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Butchart[edit]

Not a notible politician. 99DBSIMLR 14:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, and a losing candidate for mayor of a town this size is inherently non-notable per WP:BIO without major news coverage. There is a musician named Paul Butchart in Athens, who appears in many references to R.E.M. Perhaps he is the same person? DarkAudit 15:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Losing candidate for mayor of a small town. --Crunch 02:10, 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 delete. Sr 13 07:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

35mm cinema (motion-picture, movie, film, sound) projector head: An anatomy[edit]

Basic concepts are all already covered in Movie projector. Probable copyvio; graphics are almost certainly derivative of manual photos which would be copyvio; high degree of manufacturer bias may be considered spam or advertising. I'd guess that this is all in good faith, but unfortunately it's rife with problems. Girolamo Savonarola 15:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if this isn't a copyvio (I can't find evidence) it isn't written like an encyclopedia article, but like a repair manual. It may be more suited for Wikibooks but I'm not familiar with their content policies. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First image seems to be derived from the same source as this one; first external link is also to the primary author's webpage (based on user name and domain name); agree with other concerns per nom. -- JHunterJ 15:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The images have credits in the image itself and can't therefore be kept (see Wikipedia:Image use policy). By itself, this could have been a useful addition to Movie projector. --Lambiam ^Talk 22:35, 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. Sr 13 07:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Kelly (pizza thrower)[edit]

Incomplete AfD listing. AfD template was added to the article and the reason "This article is a recent event and non-notable, non-dictionary material. Delete" was given on the talkpage on May 14th. Relisting for procedural reasons. I abstain. Seed 2.0 15:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the 15 minutes are almost up. This incident will not go down in Red Sox lore like Steve Bartman did with the Cubs. This is just a random loutish incident that happened to be caught on tape. DarkAudit 17:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:RS indicating the individual himself meets WP:BIO. While there are a few mentions from when it happened, WP:NOT Wikinews, and the incident itself (which would otherwise be a redirect target) doesn't appear to deserve an article either. Not every incident of sports fan hooliganism/stupidity is encyclopedic. Forget the 100-year test; this barely passes the 100-day test. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... what? Delete - this doesn't even scratch the surface of WP:BIO. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dis is an insult to my cousin Tony, da best pizza t'rower on da Lowa East Side. An' a Yankees fan. Seriously -- hardly notable. Being on YouTube is not itself notability. --Dhartung | Talk 21:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When in the course of events... oh, never mind. He started a food fight, got into a fight. It got shown on national television. That's it. Delete. Your fifteen minutes are up, dude. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:18, 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 10:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unique qualities of Another World[edit]

The whole article screams like an OR-fest Will ^{(We're flying the flag all over the world)} 15:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not for plot summaries and it's not like any of this stuff is unique to this soap anyway (not to mention the many glaring inaccuracies spottable from even a cursory reading). Otto4711 19:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's an unsourced essay and thus OR. Unless someone has written that Another World is unique for these reasons, we can't put it here. -- Mithent 00:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. OR-fest, how so? It's just a description of some plot lines. It should be renamed, though... to something like "Congtroverial subjects addressed by Another World" or something like that. This article is basically a breakout from Another World (TV series)#What made AW unique. You could merge this article back into that one, but that article is already pretty long; it's common practice in such cases to have short sections in the main article with a link to the more detailed breakout article. Herostratus 17:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. Elrith 00:38, 23 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 16:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phineas and Ferb[edit]

Incomplete AfD listing. Template was added by unregistered user who removed it after ten days. Afterwards, it was readded but the AfD wasn't listed. No reason given. This is a procedural listing. I abstain. Seed 2.0 16:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is possible to apply WP:CRYSTAL, but I checked the source provided, and I was satisfied that the TV show will be shown on a major network. A "future" template would be appropriate. Yechiel Man 00:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as above. Julz the wizkid
Delete. The source listed says the show will debut in winter 2008. That is quite a ways in the future. During that time major changes could occur (one would think); maybe they'll decide not to run it at all. Why not wait until the show has aired or is about to. There's no hurry. Herostratus 21:51, 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 delete. W.marsh 19:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

92.7 Eazy FM[edit]

Hoax article, station does not exist in Metro Manila. Also, the station's callsign (DWEZ) is not on the official NTC list of FM stations in the Philippines for June 2000. According to the article, the station was "supposed" to be established in 1980. --Danngarcia 16:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The creator has a questionable record. I assume good faith, but unless there's something better than a random website that I can't reach, I cannot approve the article. Yechiel Man 00:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cannot verify this (I live in the Philippines) --- Tito Pao 03:35, 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 merge. We can't delete and merge, but we can redirect, which is what I'm going to do here. This can be reversed as an editorial decision, but I think it's the best course of action for now. The article history is still there if people want to merge additional information. W.marsh 16:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marthijn Uittenbogaard[edit]

If you came here because of a request on a forum[30], please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

No notability. Any worthy material should be merged into Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit. Being an extremist paedophile doesnt warrant notability SqueakBox 16:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even in the UK & US, he has relevance as one of the world's very few 'out' pedophiles, and as a writer and activist who has been translated in to English. In the NL, he has achieved minor fame as a member of the PNVD, and has featured on a number of television shows / panels including a documentary. Readers should note that the nominator has claimed that the mere sourcing of Uittenbogaard's writing is POV, since it comes from a 'sick mind'. Sick or not, the man is a notable subject. Jim♥Burton 16:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there are thousands of outed pedophiles, eg on the UK sex offendors list itself there are at least hundreds, so to claim he is one of very few is not true, SqueakBox 16:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Utter nonsense. CSOs are not particularly pedophiles. Only about 10% are, and we have no method of determining which ones are. Uittenbogaard is self - outed and and activist for his cause. Jim♥Burton 16:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment That is your opinion, its not mainstream opinion. Obviously not all registered sex offenders are pedophiles but those who have abused children or owned child pornography are, SqueakBox 16:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again, where exactly are you talking from? Just because you have sex with a child, it doesn't automatically mean that you are primarily attracted to them. As I said, 10% at the most. Those who have viewed CP are more likely to be pedos, but even then most of them are in no way 'out', simply for being on a list, nor do we know what ones are and what ones are not pedos. Jim♥Burton 16:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Well that is your opinion but it isnt mainstream opinion. Paedophile and child sex abuser are pretty synonymous terms in the UK, SqueakBox 16:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, too right. I didn't know the rules of this debate were ad populum Jim♥Burton 17:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        We are an encyclopedia of all notable knowledge so ad populum is, of course, very important, SqueakBox 17:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Warped logic. I was applying it to a debate, and you state the rule of consensus that I was never contesting. Jim♥Burton 17:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definately notable enough for wikipedia, he is a key figure and definately can be on a article of his own. The will to delete seem to stem from dislike of the topic rather than an valid reason to delete. V.☢.B 17:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nomination is for the reasons stated, ie lack of notability, SqueakBox 17:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also note that the article is young - barely a day old, with little opportunity of developing. As I have said before, if an editor wants to do a hatchet job, best get em' young. Fortunately, this crashed with Anti Pedophile Activism. Jim♥Burton 17:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I do not agree with his form of sexual arousal, he's had a documentary made about him, numerous pieces written about him in reliable sources, which clearly to me shows he meets WP:BIO. Wildthing61476 17:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment + Evidence of TV Apps 1 2 3 4 Jim♥Burton 17:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment YouTube isnt notable and this stuff should go into Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit, SqueakBox 18:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm using YouTube to show that mainstream news pieces have featured him. Jim♥Burton 18:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Which demonstrates the party is notable (just) but the individuals arent, SqueakBox 19:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        YouTube isn't the only source. Netwerk and various panel shows have also featured him. Google support of activism to see the screenshots. Jim♥Burton 19:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't like it and think he is disgusting, but he seems to be notable enough. Unfortunately. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
very strong keep seems clearly notable, few are willing to puiblicly speak as advocates for peophillia. We may strongly disapprove, but wikipeida is to report facts, not our editors PoV. DES ^(talk) 20:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely enough, we seem to have some kind of consensus here, but this is in no way the case, over at Norbert de Jonge and Ad van den Berg - the other members of the party. I see de Jonge as the best article of the lot. Jim♥Burton 20:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strange indeed, this is the worst of the 3 because of the views section IMO and his chilling website but lets give it a few more days, SqueakBox 20:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "His chilling website". You really do know what you're doing don't you. The reason why people are voting to delete is really no surprise, is it? Jim♥Burton 20:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources do nto appear to be indpeendent, and notability does not appear to be independent of his very small party. Looks as if there is a POV push going on here. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources are independent, so there's nothing to estapblish the notability of the individual. Without independent sourece we can't write a properly NPOV article. This is one of a set of new articles about pedophile activists that have been created recently. - ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that isn't too hard. I've sourced the article with a piece from a dutch site. Jim♥Burton 20:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you mean this link, [31], it's about the party. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 21:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take note, 1. Who is a more notable, more unique case Julien Valero or Marthijn Uittenbogaard? 2. Who is less controversial? 3. Who is most likely to get deleted? Jim♥Burton 21:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's irrelevant. Wikipedia is not consistent. Citing other articles that you think are less notable is not a helpful AfD argument. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 21:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, WP has thousands of Julien Valeros, and is therefore consistent, in listing people of far less significance and originality than Uittenbogaard. Jim♥Burton 21:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are not independent. Not notable for English Wikipedia. -Jmh123 21:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep The sources are good enough to show that he exists, and to show that he says what he says. DGG 00:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are party leaders of other very minor contemporary NL political parties? If so, keep on that basis alone. If not, has is his notability outside of NL sufficient to meet the Wiki-notability threshold? On another note, the party is in the NL wikipedia but I don't see the man. Maybe I'm looking under the wrong name. I would strongly encourage the Dutch-speaking Wikipedians to write an article for the NL Wikipedia. Dfpc 02:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are unreliable, or fail WP:SELF. Fails WP:A on the whole. Ohconfucius 10:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the party page Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit. Amazingly enough for a "political party" that has never participated in an election, much less won a seat, the party appears notable. But notability is not contagious, and I fail to see anything which warrants a separate article for any of its participants at this time. Serpent's Choice 10:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge Subject is not notable. Maybe the Dutch parties that were mentioned can establish enough notability as an oddity, then merge. In my opinion the subject of the article in question or fellow party members are not notable enough for an international encyclopedia, so delete the information that is not merged. doxTxob \ ^talk 00:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fail WP:SELF/Fails WP:A. --Fredrick day 10:36, 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 Bodnath. Sr 13 07:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boudhanath[edit]

Incomplete AfD. Nominator replaced the article with the AfD template and did not complete the process. This is a procedural listing. I abstain. Seed 2.0 16:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note however that this article was tagged as a copyvio in the past and that it the allegedly infringing sentence is still in the article (this is a two sentence stub). -- Seed 2.0 16:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bodnath (and keep as one article under whichever name is more canonical). Tearlach 21:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bodnath as that article has more content and it includes this title variation. --Oakshade 04:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. SilkTork 18:55, 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. W.marsh 16:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Cohen[edit]

Incomplete AfD. Template was added by unregistered user who expressed concern about the lack of sources (edit history) and the subject's notability (tag). This is a procedural listing. I abstain. Seed 2.0 16:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing notability. I think there's a specific page that deals with candidates for elected office. Unless you win, or competed in a national-profile contest, you're usually not notable, if I recall correctly. The other achievements, relating to healthcare management, are irrelevant. Yechiel Man 00:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Had Kerry won and Cohen become Surgeon General, then perhaps. But, as of yet, Cohen is not notable enough to have an article. --Kimon^talk 00:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' There are adequate references found easily through Google, though the article did not list them, and I've put in three, from the New York Times, & other NY newspapers. (There are more, but they mostly copied it from the NYT. Also a official NYState site for his campaign manager. The criterion, as I recall, is two independent significant references. (Regardless of whether he actually runs or not.) Personally, I am inclining to the position that 2 RSs are not necessarily sufficient to warrant a WP article. Last time I checked the ongoing discussions ay WP:N, that was not the policy. So we do not have to speculate on who else might or might not have run. Curiously, the article on Lieutenant Governor of New York was also essentially unsourced, but I'm not sending it to AfD. DGG 01:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply not notable. --Abnn 17:58, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Sherrod[edit]

Prod contested without improvement. Non notable wrestling "personality", no evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOLE, not notable. Yechiel Man 00:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor personality for two minor (and now non-existant) companies on minor TV networks. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, we don't need to defer to WP:HOLE. Burntsauce 22:05, 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 merge. Petros471 10:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ad van den Berg[edit]

Non notable child sexual abuser SqueakBox 18:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and Red mist listing. I criticised the fact that you described Berg's activity as "supposedly political" and you listed it for deletion. Whoops. Anyway, Berg has achieved international notability as an 'out' pedophile and activist. As well as being the subject of many parodies, Berg has achieved minor fame as a member of the PNVD, a notorious but unpopular dutch political party. He has appeared in videos - 1 2 3, articles, etc, etc. Notable political figure. Jim♥Burton 18:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Red mist listing? what is that? I listed him for his obvious lack of notability and not because you reverted an edeit of mine. He doesnt have any choice about being out because of his criminal record, SqueakBox 18:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You keep on listing articles that you have happily contributed to... minutes after I revert edits of yours Jim♥Burton 18:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments by Jim Burton. I know I need to assume good faith, however these AfDs are starting to seem like POV deletions rather than being based on Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Wildthing61476 18:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Absolutely not. These are marginally notable characters who, IMO, dont reach wikipedia's notability standards, esp for BLP (where the weight is on those who support the article inclusion to prove notability), and there is nothing pOV in this. Please assume good faith, SqueakBox 18:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While the party that this subject was involved in forming, Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit, is slightly notable (despite having too few members to participate in elections), I don't see any assertion of the subject's independent notability. There are no profiles of him or other qualifications for WP:BIO. Unless there's something else notable about him I'd tend towards delete. - ·:·Will Beback ·:· 18:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've enhanced notability, by sourcing his views with an expatica article. Berg has media notability. Jim♥Burton 18:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just doing a Google search on his name, I also came across this news article as well Wildthing61476 18:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That should go into Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit, SqueakBox 18:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, that's about the party, not the subsject. "Dutch paedophile party sparks outrage". The subject is quoted briefly, but otherwise it doesn't tell us anything about him. - ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As mentioned above, he meets the criteries for inclusion easily, this delete campain is bad style. V.☢.B 19:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Somebody is pushing a heavy barrow uphill. At best this is a merge candidate to the barely-notable party of which he is part. Lack of non-trivial indpendent sources. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the party and redirect. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take note, 1. Who is a more notable, more unique case Julien Valero or Ad van den Berg? 2. Who is less controversial? 3. Who is most likely to get deleted? Jim♥Burton 21:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unquestionably Valero. It takes a lot of dedication and hard work to be a professional football player, SqueakBox 21:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Relevant only due to party position. Party article suffices. -Jmh123 22:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are party founders and leaders of other very minor contemporary NL political parties? If so, keep on that basis alone. If not, has is his notability outside of NL sufficient to meet the Wiki-notability threshold? Dfpc 02:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As with the above nomination, merge to the party page Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit. Amazingly enough for a "political party" that has never participated in an election, much less won a seat, the party appears notable. But notability is not contagious, and I fail to see anything which warrants a separate article for any of its participants at this time. Serpent's Choice 10:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit per Serpent's Choice. The only paragraph worth saving is the first one from activity []...Chairman of Vereniging MARTIJN[2]...misinformation about AIDS and homosexuality. The rest is unreferenced. xC | ☎ 19:37, 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 speedy close. No one is arguing for deletion and this is clearly a matter that is best solved with merging. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wing Commander game series[edit]

It's the same thing as the Wing Commander (computer game) index. They're both indexes of WC games and material; it is useless. -ZFGokuSSJ1 18:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the two indexes are just confusing. LOAF 18:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Wing Commander. The game is quite notable, but this is just a set of plot summeries, ther is more useful content in Wing Commander. Keep as a redirect only, to help avoid future forks or duplications. DES ^(talk) 19:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above - no need for the duplication. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Wing Commander (franchise) to avoid duplication. Do NOT redirect to Wing Commander as that is simply a dab page or to Wing Commander (computer game) as that is simply a redirect to the franchise article. 23skidoo 21:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above consensus. I suggest speedy closing this discussion because deletion is clearly not necessary. Yechiel Man 00:58, 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. Krimpet (talk) 03:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural references to Alien[edit]

List is entirely unsourced and is almost pure cruft. Obviously Alien is influencial but this is pretty well covered in the main article and could be covered further in an actual article titel Cultural influence of Alien rather than a list like this. Daniel J. Leivick 18:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated topics and original research has no place here. Article is stuffed full of any sighting of anything that references the film or that in the opinion of an editor resembles the film (generally speaking if you have to say that something is an "obvious reference" to something else it means that's unsourced opinion). Strongly oppose merging this information to any article related to the films and I question the use of this information as a basis for the suggested "cultural influence" article. It certainly should not be renamed to "influence" and kept. Otto4711 19:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete all unsourced material by the end of this AfD, per the list guidelines. Specifically:
- Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page.
This article is a totally unsourced collection of loosely associated trivia, rife with original research, and opinion. The solution to unsourced trivia being added to an article is to delete it, not sequester in these quarantine articles. --Haemo 22:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could probably come up with yet another snarky metaphor but for now I'll abstain and just put it in plain English - the appropriate action to take when an article becomes overburdened with trivial content is to delete it and not fork it off into its own article. This is yet another "Guess where I saw some obscure reference to (insert subject)?" type article that is unencyclopedic, unsourced, and should never have been created in the first place. Do not merge back into the parent article. Arkyan  ^(talk) 22:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another 'spot the one line passoff to something famous' article. Delete. -- saberwyn 00:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article on the cultural impact of Alien might be possible to write, but this is just a list of very minor things that are not even close to being of encyclopedic interest. Merging is not a good idea. Pax:Vobiscum 21:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another glorified cruft/trivia section that thought it could be a page. Biggspowd 21:13, 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. I will replace with a redirect. Mango juice^talk 15:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norbert de Jonge[edit]

Not notable enough for inclusion. Anything relevant can be merged into Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit, SqueakBox 18:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Again, he has appeared in numerous media articles, the same videos and TV docs as Berg, plus student TV (unsurprisingly) and also has notability as a political figure who has campaigned on all the individual, non PNVD projects listed on his article. People, including yourself have put good work into an article concerning a wholly notable fringe political figure, and this is the third time you have listed a PNVD member in what feels like an equal matter of minutes. --Jim♥Burton 18:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Because I feel none of them are notable. if an article exists I will try to improve it while it exists but that doesnt mean I think it should exist, SqueakBox 18:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why not send them straight to AfD? Jim♥Burton 18:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was deliberating my decision. And afd'd or not I will try to improve them while they exist, SqueakBox 18:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The creation of three articles about the three founders of an extremely small political party is the problem, not their nomination for deletion. There's very little about this guy apart from his involvement in the party. Much of his info is alreay in the party article. I agree that we could easily merge the rest. This is basically "pedo-cruft". We're not here to give minor fringe polticians a soapbox. Delete due to non-notability. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 18:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How do any of them not meet the criteria for biography? All of them have public, personal dealings beyond their involvement in the PNVD. All are far more notable than half of the sportsmen listed on WP. Jim♥Burton 19:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If they are notable beyond their party involvement then the articles shold reflect that. However they don't include anything to indicate that notability. You keep saying they are notable, but we need to see evidence. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 19:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:BIO with flying colours. -Jillium 19:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sqeuekbox's campain is getting out of hand. V.☢.B 19:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is out of hand is the fraudster doing this pretending to be me, SqueakBox 19:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it's a *joke*. You're making a name for yourself, over there. Jim♥Burton 19:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of independent sources. It is just possible that the party might be notable, and a merge and/or redirect might be appropriate, but this article is inadequately supported and gives all the appearance of astroturfing. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JzG's reasoning. If substantive independent sources can be found, then that may be a different matter. Mackensen (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: The party itself is barely notable. I fail to see how an independent article on the person is of any use. --Durin 19:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Call to revise votes. I have sourced both de Jonge's expulsion from university, and his own commentary on his party's recent failure, with mainstream sources. I must repeat, he is a much more prominent figure within the netherlands, making multiple appearences on TV. Jim♥Burton 19:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the material hosted at pnvd.nl/RUN_NDJ/, which we cite, is independent. It's a collection of transcribed documents. Likewise with the martijn.org source. -Jillium 19:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with Guy. To Jim Burton's point, all that needs to be sourced in the article to prove notability. Tempshill 20:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I just noticed that the political party in question failed to get 570 signatures to get themselves on a ballot. My pet dog could gain more signatures, hence I think this forces an assumption of non-notability on the political party's article as well as the articles on all participants. We should indeed assume this is just astroturfing. Tempshill 20:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PNVD has received significant press coverage, including internationally, which makes them notable. --Askild 20:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes the party notable, but it deosn't automatically make the party treasurer notable. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 21:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They failed to recieve the signatures largely due to the threat of violence. This itself made the news, with individual figureheads commenting. Jim♥Burton 20:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the party; as per Guy and Tempshill, it might be getting press (obviously, considering its viewpoints), but it's still very fringe, and this would probably be better combined with the party article. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- De Jonge is a phenomenon alone - he has taken part in many activist projects (MARTIJN, HFP, Clogo), and revealed himself to the world as a pedophile and activist, way before the PNVD Jim♥Burton 20:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Being a pedophile and an activist doesn't make you notable. --Durin 20:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This guy sure is famous enough, he was even mentioned far north here in Europe so there can be no doubt. V.☢.B 20:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit. The media mentions of him seem to cover only his activities with that party, so it seems better to place the info within that context. There isn't enough coverage of him as a person to make him notable by himself. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't true. The interview linked at the end, for example, was published before the party was founded. -Jillium 21:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if this were the case, don't we list sportsmen who are never mentioned outside the team? Of course! Loads of them! Jonge has also written independantly for activist websites. His case is far more unique and interesting than all those bloody sportsmen! Jim♥Burton 21:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and we have lots of Pokemon articles too. Wikipedia is not consistent. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 21:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP consistently allows articles pertaining to individuals far less notable and original than N. de Jonge. But why does Jonge get deleted? Please dont tell me that it is anything but controversy. Jim♥Burton 21:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The issue is not whether some random sportsman is notable, it's whether this person is notable. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 21:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Relevant only due to party position. Party article suffices. Even the delete debates are identical. A separate page is not required for each party officer. -Jmh123 22:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously NN, though a redirect to his party wouldn't be unobjectionable. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there seem to be independent sources, as I look at the discussion, so there's no reason to speculate who of the various people in the party is the more important. DGG 01:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are party leaders of other very minor contemporary NL political parties? If so, keep on that basis alone. If not, has is his notability outside of NL sufficient to meet the Wiki-notability threshold? On another note, the party is in the NL wikipedia but I don't see this man. Maybe I'm looking under the wrong name. I would strongly encourage the Dutch-speaking Wikipedians to write an article for the NL Wikipedia. Dfpc 02:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just like the other guy. Sources are unreliable, or fail WP:SELF. Possible walled garden. Fails WP:A on the whole. Ohconfucius 10:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As with the above nomination, merge to the party page Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit. Amazingly enough for a "political party" that has never participated in an election, much less won a seat, the party appears notable. But notability is not contagious, and I fail to see anything which warrants a separate article for any of its participants at this time. Serpent's Choice 10:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Worldwide, there are about 10 publicly-out pedophiles. Ten. I'm not talking about child rapists, but about people who choose to out themselves because of pro-pedophilia related activism. (In comparison, there are 193 states in the world.) If there's any reason to keep this page, it should be because De Jonge is one the most active pedophile activists of the world (together with Lindsay Ashford, Frans Gieles and Marthijn Uittenbogaard), not because of his participation in the party, because then this page should be merged with the PNVD article.
- Comment If there are only 10 it shows what an extreme minority POV it is, hence fails notability, SqueakBox 17:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment There is only one president.
    - (ec)Comment One at a time you mean. There have been lots of US Presidents but think of all the people dedicated to keeping him as such, eg Air Force One, SqueakBox 18:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Actually, the opposite may be true, particularly since being a voluntarily "out" pedophile very risky and akin to being "out" as a Communist American during the McCarthy era. It is true that Communism was an extreme minority position in 1950s America, but any politician bold enough to step forward and say "I am a Communist" would become notable at the time on that basis alone. Like American Communist politicians of the 1950s, I expect Norbert de Jonge to become a footnote in history and lose his notability within 10-20 years. In the meantime, he is notable. The question is not "is he notable" but rather, does his notability as either an out pedophile or as a leader in a minor political party reach the notability threshold for Wikipedia? I think he does for the pedophile criteria and he might or might not on the political front, depending on how other NL-minority-party leaders are treated in the English Wikipedia. Dfpc 18:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Comment Communists such as Stalin were highly notable in the world during the 50's so the comparison with paedophilia is inaccurate, SqueakBox 18:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment I should have been clearer: I meant American Communists. The chief officers of the American Communist Party in 1950-1959 would've deserved a place in Wikipedia in the 1950s, even if those same individuals are non-notable today. This is particularly true if they were harassed or suppressed, as American Communists were in the 1950s or leaders of this party were in recent years. Dfpc 00:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my response to SqueakBox 17:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC). Dfpc 18:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Relevant only due to party position. --Fredrick day 10:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: There were two parallel AfD's, both recently closed as Merge to Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marthijn Uittenbogaard and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ad van den Berg. This would tend to militate for a similar Merge close here, although of course it doesn't require it. Herostratus 15:15, 24 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 16:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crucifer (disambiguation)[edit]

This is an orphaned disambiguation page. It serves no purpose; no user is going to enter Crucifer (disambiguation) directly, and neither Crucifer nor Cruciferae links to this page (nor should they). Readers seeking Crucifer will go to that page directly; Readers seeking Cruciferae will go to Crucifer and follow a direct link from there. Hence this page is superfluous. This is a contested prod. Vectro 18:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC) Vectro 18:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure what the reason is, looks like a standard disambig page to me. Wildthing61476 18:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an orphaned page with a (disambiguation) title, which means nobody is going to find it. Vectro 18:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure it helps to have formal disam pages when there are two items & no real potential for more. A disam link at thetop of each page might do. -- Not that this one p. is important, but there are many similar. DGG 18:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that today Crucifer already links to Cruciferae, though in the past it used to link to Crucifer (disambiguation). Cruciferae is actually a redirect to Brassicaceae, which IMHO doesn't need a link to Crucifer, though one could be added if needed. Vectro 18:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. -- Seed 2.0 22:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just went through the relevant histories and talk page conversations and I don't see a reason to keep the disambiguation page either -- the direct disamb links look fine. If there's ever a need for a disambiguation page (not that I can see that ever happening in this case), it can be recreated and the appropriate moves can be dealt with at that point. On a more general (OT) note: figuring out if a dab page is indeed necessary obviously requires human interaction but the actual compilation of a list looks a task a bot could accomplish. There will obviously be plenty of false positives but the whole thing requires human review anyway so I reckon that's not really a problem. -- Seed 2.0 22:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Slavlin 02:05, 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 speedily deleted by TexasAndroid. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Matthews[edit]

Contested speedy. ~~Author removing tags in spite of strong warnings not to do so~~. No assertion of notability, and no sources to prove otherwise to satisfy WP:BIO DarkAudit 19:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn-bio. Tempshill 20:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one small role in one film and local theatre productions (none of which are sourced) doesn't meet WP:BIO from where I stand. No relevant Google hits that I could spot. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there was an apparent misunderstanding regarding how the {{hangon}} tag was supposed to work. I was able to set him straight there, so I'm assuming good faith once more. DarkAudit 20:32, 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 02:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EDXOR[edit]

Does not try to establish notability, does not contain any references, or reliable sources. No notability found by myself. Vacuum Cleaner 01 19:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every "review" I found on google sounded like a blatant advertisement, and so I doubt any of them could be considered independent. I'm not looking through all 13k ghits, however, so I'd be willing to change my mind if someone finds a good RS. Someguy1221 21:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We are neither sourceforge, freshmeat, nor download.com. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actually, only 382 unique non-Wikipedia Ghits [32], most of which confirm non-notability. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:51, 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 02:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lukia Racers[edit]

Appears to be unpublished group fiction. Was taged for a speedy but deosn't actually fit any of the criteria. However Wikipeidia is not for things made up one day. Completely unsourced and non-notable. DES ^(talk) 19:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my nom. DES ^(talk) 19:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and per WP:COI. The contesting statement suggested that it was the author's own project. DarkAudit 19:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbustoo 17:29, 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 Speedy deleted - blatant and evident hoaxes and nonsense. Newyorkbrad 19:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breakfast Experience and Dr Tony Lochet[edit]

Both articles are pure hoax. -- RHaworth 19:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax, too bad it can't be speedied. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, we don't speedy hoaxes because we can't be 100% sure they are hoaxes. There are exceptions to every rule, though. Articles speedied, and creator warned.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brielle "Brie" Baumbach[edit]

I tagged this for proposed deletion as "Unsourced orphan article about a living person". This was reverted but it's still unsourced and it's still an orphan. And so here we are. I propose that unless it's properly sourced and on its way to being a Wikipedia article soon, we just delete it. --Tony Sidaway 19:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable bio. Tempshill 19:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced and very minimal notability. Maybe if the TV gig works out, but right now it's probably a bit WP:CRYSTALly. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates Verifiability, Biography of living persons, Notability (people)... Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of converting your alphabet soup (which I frankly did not understand) to the English names of the policies and guidelines you cited. --Tony Sidaway 20:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant past credits. Crystalballism for the future credits. And no sources to prove any of this. DarkAudit 21:48, 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, not notable in its own right --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 04:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yantra Park[edit]

Substub. No context, not clear what this is about. Sounds like a division of a company. No links. Tempshill 19:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's the location of a branch of Tata Consultancy Services (which looks as if it needs liposuction). Tearlach 21:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not mentioned in the target article, and I can't find a logical place to insert it. In the context of the corporation, it seems minor. I could tolerate a redirect, but I can't see how to do a merge. Yechiel Man 01:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, agreed. It turns out to be the site of one branch of this company, unremarkable among the many others. [33] Tearlach 01:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tata Consultancy Services. Might have been best to do that straight away. SilkTork 16:58, 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 10:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Monroe pornographic film[edit]

A contested {prod}. Well, this is an easy one -- the information in the article just ain't true. Here's the story: in 1980 a Swedish photographer supposedly found a 1948 porn film starring Marilyn Monroe. Supposedly the FBI investigated the film (why? who knows!) and Joe DiMaggio even offered $25,000 to buy the only copy. Sound fishy? Well, for something as remarkable as this, not one reliable source seems to have ever written about it. Some blogs, however, appear to have the story. The Village Voice once made a reference to the rumor existing. But this article presents the once-referenced rumor as fact. This one has to go on account of totally failing WP:V and WP:OR. JayHenry 19:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, actually the VV source refutes the article, noting that the actress is Arline Hunter. Her article covers it adequately. --Dhartung | Talk 21:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, yes, to be clear, I meant the article on Marilyn Monroe presents as fact what the Village Voice mentions as rumor. I also found a Time Magazine story that explicitly debunks this Marilyn Monroe porn myth: Time Magazine story. --JayHenry 00:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung; if the sources dispute it then there is no Marilyn Monroe pornographic film and the article is useless. -- Mithent 00:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's patently untrue. The article presents as facts that which is not true, and is specifically states as untrue in the only reference in the article. --Haemo 00:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - patently untrue per Time article. Resurgent insurgent 01:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite - Since we have plenty of articles about urban legends, myths, and memes anyway, might as well add this one to the collection - just rewrite it to stress the apparent debunkings and make sure no one walks away thinking any of this has been conclusively proven as fact. wikipediatrix 13:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd support a redirect to Arline Hunter, and support adding a bit more information to the Hunter article about this and other tapes. But we can't have an article called "Marilyn Monroe pornographic film" when no such film exists. This whole thing was just some cheap commercial stunt to make some money off a 5-minute porno from the 1940s, and it wasn't even successful as the few mentions to this stunt are only in passing and virtually nobody has ever taken the claim seriously. In other words, there's simply not enough information about this trivial hoax to write a verifiable encyclopedia entry about it. --JayHenry 17:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but, especially if reliable sources (say, the Village Voice) can be used, add content to Arline Hunter (which doesn't mention it as a rumor, but rather that people have mistaken her). Rigadoun (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. --Abnn 18:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CautionThe village voice reference does more than mention the Arlen Hunter mix-up, but goes on to discuss the FBI files and the Joe DiMaggio issues. This may not entirely be a hoax. Whether or not the rumor is tru, it does appear to be a notable rumor, given the sources in Village Voice and possibly Time. I will, however, hold off on voting for now. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:57, 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 10:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely Framie Hollera[edit]

Apparent autobiography (creator is User:Lovelyframie) and relatively low notability - as the article states she has modelled only for local salons and worked for local radio and television. Only mentions of her name on the internet are places like YouTube (probably the outlet for the amateur films described in the article), social networking and blog sites. ~Matticus ^T_C 19:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No signs of notability or sources, reads like a resume rather than an enyclopedia article. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - five, count'em, Google hits, and that's about it. I don't think this meets WP:BIO unless there's a lot of sources we can't see. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 00:57, 23 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Millennial Age of Comics[edit]

Delete original research. The article has no sources and almost no content. If the term were real, the article would still be delete-worthy because Wikipedia is not a dictionary per WP:NOT. The term has almost no Google hits. Doczilla 20:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - No sourcing, no notability, no reason to keep it.Chunky Rice 20:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced OR Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 20:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check before deleting. I believe this term might be used in recent editions of the Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide. I don't have a copy handy, but if anyone else does, and it's used there, then the article can have a source added and be kept. Otherwise I support deleting if my memory is incorrect. Delete since my only concern has been answered, below. 23skidoo 21:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I have the Overstreet guide. The term isn't used. Doczilla 06:34, 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 to delete. merge possible as an editorial decision. W.marsh 16:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday Punches[edit]

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day article is unsourced and practice is not notable MisterHand 20:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 20:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there actually are references for this, altho I can't find any that are too in-depth. But I wouldn't be surprised if there are more detailed references to be found out there. [34] [35] [36] [37] --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 21:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the second paragraph, which appeared to be a joke/hoax. Now the article more closely matches your sources. But there's not much left. Merge with Birthday, which contains a section on traditions? -- MisterHand 22:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If sources can be cited in the article verifying the information, I would be inclined towards weak keep or merge. -- saberwyn 00:03, 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: G11 as spam. If this is indeed notable, write an article, not a press release. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane FC[edit]

Unsourced crystalballery that reads like a press release. Mattinbgn/^talk 21:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 21:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. rumour is that this is real, but "Brisbane FC" has been used to refer to other notable football clubs in Brisbane[38] (so it is surprising they were allowed to register this business name). I've notified new user BarcaGaffer (talk · contribs). At present, the club is probably real but as yet isnt notable. John Vandenberg 22:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Second sentence in the article, at the time of my !vote, is blatant COI. Reads like an advertisent per Mattinbgn. But, it's pro ball - so those are my contentions, and as a new pro ball team, it might hit WP:N by default. I reserve the right to change my mind accordingly, but for crying out loud, get rid of the COI and spammishness and that'll be a significant improvement. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no sources for the article. The article consistently refers to we. Further, there is already a soccer team from Brisbane, the Queensland Roar and they have a five year exclusivity clause. As our article on the A-League states, Football Australia are looking to expand into new areas rather than setting up new teams in existing areas. Capitalistroadster 03:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, also per CapitalistRoadster. Orderinchaos 04:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Playing in a professional league is notable. Wanting to play in a professional league is not.Ga rr ie 04:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Tagged with db-spam as vanispamcruftisment, it's a press release, crystal ballery, and shouldn't even be here. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:17, 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 --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 04:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hoosiers[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable band. --Finngall ^talk 21:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Do not seem notable.Hondasare^{GOOD (talk)} 23:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The two external links are "home page" and "Myspace." Enough said. Yechiel Man 01:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete for now. Although there is now a citation to a brief profile on BBC Radio, it appears to be a fairly trivial mention. Article can be recreated if and when it meets the notability criteria of WP:BAND. -- Satori Son 01:03, 23 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 --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 04:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmother's Wings[edit]

A one-sentence article, complete with amazon.com link, on a book that fails WP:BK. Victoriagirl 21:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not notable. The Amazon link is funny. There's one review -- from the author himself -- and he only gives the book 4/5 stars! -- MisterHand 21:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say that it needs to go until it gets some critical success or notability. Slavlin 04:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In writing the nomination I neglected to mention that the title is self-published. While this fact is not in itself cause for deletion, I think it is a relevant detail. Victoriagirl 04:16, 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, per all reasons below --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 03:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balls ball[edit]

It's a totally unsourced article about a game where you throw a lacrosse ball at another boy's genitals. If you check this diff, you can see it was made up at school, and Wikipedia is not for things made up one day at school. Was previously prod'd, but the tag was removed without comment. Not notable, and something Wikipedia is not. Haemo 21:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Strong violation of WP:NFT as per Haemo's findings. Certainly not notable. As an aside, I really don't like it because it's dangerous and possibly going to prevent the participants from having children...well, wait - if somebody is playing this, should they really be having children? =^_^=;; --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. Merge with Darwin Awards per Dennis? ;) DarkAudit 22:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not for things you made up in school one day. -- Mithent 00:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and if I don't hear any objection I'm probably going to speedy it. Newyorkbrad 00:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection, but on what rationale? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - One or more of blatant nonsense, non-notable, and/or WP:SNOW? Newyorkbrad 03:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - And on the grounds that it was an expired prod when it was vandalised, and the revert removed the prod notice. How many more reasons do you need? ;) --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 03:41, 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, no secondary sources. --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 07:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Communist League (US)[edit]

Article is sourced solely from the subject's own publications. There were numerous notable organizations that used "Communist League" as their name (or part of it), but this "recently formed" organization (after the 2004 elections) isn't one of them. It isn't, for example, the youth section of the Communist Party USA. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable organization. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 23:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for any political party whose actual existence can be demonstrated, and their own publications are sufficient for that. The various groups tend not to publicize each other, so other sourcing will be difficult. DGG 02:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They do not appear to have contested any elections, so I'm not sure if I would call them a "political party." Anyway, self-sourcing does not demonstrate they are an actual group. The Unabomber claimed to be a revolutionary group as well. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 13:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: "Because of its clandestine character, the names of its members, and its total membership, are kept secret. The only known name of a member of the Communist League is Henry Miles, who is the editor of Workers' Republic and a public spokesperson for the organization." ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 13:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep publications which have been continuous since 1994 point to notability, but just barely. page needs cleaning. --Cjs56 14:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete independent publications about this group seem nonexistent... an article is thus inherently problematic. --W.marsh 19:55, 23 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 - blatant and evident hoax and nonsense. Newyorkbrad 23:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Matthews[edit]

Doesn't seem to be notable, no ghits for books, and general flippant tone. Possible WP:HOAX. Clarityfiend 23:25, 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 03:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saw V[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - Saw IV hasn't even came out yet. This page has been deleted before, and I see no reason to recreate it at this point. Delete and Salt Ali 23:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as crystal ball until such a time as the director, cast list, and specific release date can be confirmed through the use of reliable sources independant of the people or organisations involved in the creation of the movie. -- saberwyn 23:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball --Haemo 00:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect until Saw IV is released and/or significant further information becomes available, per my comments on the previous AFD. The date is a good guess - the Saw movies have historically been released in late October, around Halloween - but the article is just that: a good guess. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I'm fairly certain that, judging by the past AFD's, this qualifies for the time being. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can always be created again when both official word comes out and the previous movie in the series is released. Genericchimera 06:27, 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 03:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seapatrick FC[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion with the rationale, "Club does not meet WikiProject Football's notability criteria (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability)"; that is not a legitimate speedy criterion. Procedural nom; no opinion from me. Chick Bowen 23:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to indicate it meets WP:FOOTBALL's criteria for notability. Absent of further information, all we know is that the club plays in the second division of a regional league of a minor footballing nation. I can't see it meeting WP:N. --Ytny (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, if you promotion isn't even listed then I don't think the club needs to be listed. Govvy 14:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Dave101→talk 08:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, given the league they play in is a redlink and the article is an orphan. Qwghlm 09:27, 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 keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terror (band)[edit]

Contested prod. Article makes no claims to notability, but I'm not an expert. Dchall1 23:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable by any stretch of the imagination. THF 02:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added notability rationale to the talk page. A band that has had an album chart is notable according to the Wikipedia criteria for notability.AndyMcKay 03:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a reference to the band page which proves the bands notability. Terror has been on tour throughout Europe, Japan and Australia. Mpete510 18:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I had to double check the WP:MUSIC guidelines to see if they have been changed dramatically, but of course they haven't. The band meets criteria 5 and 6 and possibly more. Punkmorten 19:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. They don't meet criterion #1, which means they flunk WP:N. -- THF 03:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:MUSIC: "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:". Nowhere does it say it has to meet criterion #1 and others, it just says one of the following. Mpete510 04:16, 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 14:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carry On (band)[edit]

Contested prod. Article makes not claims to notability, but I'm not an expert. Dchall1 23:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to keep. I have edited the article to make restrict the scope of the notability claims it makes. I also have added a source and when I get time I will add more. Also as stated on the articles talk page, it fits Wikipedias notability requirements. Mpete510 00:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable by any stretch of the imagination. Only source is the band's website, and that flunks WP:RS: a band doesn't create notability for itself by putting up a website. THF 02:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It may not be notable for you, but for fans of their specific genre it is. Mpete510 03:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find WP:ILIKEIT persuasive on this question. THF 03:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to keep it just because I like it. This band was huge for their specific genre and still has many fans today a few years after they broke up. Also some of this bands members went on to form the band Terror and they meet the notability requirements, so by default this band does also.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpete510 (talk • contribs)

Delete as nn and unsourced to anything other than the band and the record label's website. Ford MF 17:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added 2 references to support comparisons of the bands sound and about the constant line up changes. These sources are not the bands website or labels website. I have also added references to both of their CD's pages. Mpete510 18:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also by using WP:MUSIC and rule 6, this band is notable. Members of Carry On went on to form the band Terror. Terror is notable because they fulfill rules 4 & 5 on WP:MUSIC. Mpete510 20:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The only sources cited are the band's website, the band's label, and "other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves", which is well outside the scope of the requirement of independent reliable sources, especially when the interviews are with non-notable web-publications at that. That one has to scrape the barrel like this to find references is an argument against notability, not for it. Terror is non-notable, too. --THF 03:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carry On may not stand on its own, but Terror does (by rule 4 & 5) so by rule 6 Carry On stands. Are we not reading the same criteria? Mpete510 04:31, 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 Carbohydrate loading for now. With no prejudice against this article being expanded at some point, if possible. W.marsh 18:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pasta party[edit]

Nomination by an IP user, who is unable to complete the second stage of the nomination. No reason was given in the edit summary. Proceedual nom, no stance -- saberwyn 23:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless Cleaned Up - Not much there, but a specific type of carboloading might be worthy of an article if notable or widespread enough. Here, though, two widely varied concepts are sort of slapped together. The Endurance sports section should probably be merged or redirected to Carbohydrate loading, while the Italian food section could be sent to Dinner (as Dinner Party is a disamb to Dinner). ZZ 00:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's not obvious that this is a recognised term with reference to endurance sports (unlike Carbohydrate loading), and stating that a pasta party is a party where people eat pasta-based dishes is quite unnecessary. -- Mithent 00:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I made a stab at cleanup. I found more than 100,000 Google hits for "Pasta party" associated with marathons. None of them treats the pasta party as independently significant, but clearly the term and event are in wide usage around the world. (The page in interwikied into German.) I would also support a merge to marathon. YechielMan 01:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, carbohydrate loading is a better merge target. Yechiel Man 01:15, 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, notability not asserted --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 04:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Kwon[edit]

I removed the speedy since there is a claim for notability (published author) that made an A7 inappropriate. However, a single book with an Amazon sales rank of 3,341,281, here, doesn't speak of much notability either. Further there is a current failure of WP:RS. Delete. TerriersFan 23:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was the one who placed the original speedy. The research sounds interesting, but there's little if anything to indicate the notability of the researcher. --Finngall ^talk 00:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is not so much about her, but about a thesis. It's original research. Yechiel Man 01:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a very bad idea to judge academic books by Amazon sales rank. Only a very tiny fraction of such books sell lots of copies. More important is academic recognition via citations etc. I found four citations in other academic books, which probably indicates that the journal literature has many more. --Zero^talk 07:19, 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.