< May 21	May 23 >

Guide to deletion

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

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

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 22:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

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

AfD Stealthrabbit127's toolbox[edit]

This is my toolbox and should not be entered by anyone except me. It is not non-constructive, It is just so I can have templates to use when I encounter vandalism. Please do not delete my toolbox. I'm helping wikipedia with this toolbox. Leave it alone.

Happy Editing! --Stealthrabbit ^{Say it, baby, say it!} 16:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can also be done on your user page or in a sandbox. Strong Delete. Even if it is kept, where would you categorize it? Why not categorize it now so that way it gets out of the uncategorized pages?Postcard Cathy 21:30, 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 no consensus, although the "keep" view does a much better job of justifying their positions with regard to Wikipedia guidelines. For the record, simple comments as "nonsense" and "patent rubbish" in the face of references are not helpful to us admins in evaluating the discussion. AKRadecki 18:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beerwolf[edit]

An article about a word that has apparently only ever been used by one person. I don't see how this can possibly be notable. Derlay 23:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was recreated after it was speedily deleted as WP:CSD#A7. --Derlay 23:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

del looks like joke to me. Mukadderat 00:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fairly obvious hoax to me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article cited is real, and in fact does describe the term. I found this article and one other describing the term and concept on JSTOR. Sci girl 04:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as patent rubbish. Elrith 00:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think it's a hoax. My German isn't up to much anymore, but there are references such as this, and you will have to search for the word Beerwolf [1] that seem to confirm that Martin Luther did indeed use the term and in the context mentioned in the article. (That's a Google HTML version of a Windows .doc file and it is in German) I should also point out that there is a problem in the reference provided with the Wikipedia article as it requires registration to see the whole article on the JSTOR website. I tend more towards this being an article of unclear importance, as I can't find many references to Luther using the term regularly Perhaps the article might be merged into a more relevant article. Flowerpotman talk|contribs 01:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional Comment All that said, regarding the rest of the article, I should also add that I can't find any references to the term being used in any other theological context.Flowerpotman talk|contribs 01:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The only problem is FUTON bias, and that is not a problem with the citation in the article. Uncle G 08:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course. I did have a problem with the phrase "In the context of the theology of resistance", which I took to mean that the term was in more general use, beyond Luther, and I couldn't find any mention of the phrase, which I think would have appeared somewhere. But I think I might have misinterpreted the intent of the phrase. Flowerpotman talk|contribs 21:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep if there's more than this one source. Paid sources are perfectly appropriate in the absence of equally good free ones, and hundreds of libraries subscribe. WP is not limited to the free resources on the web, and the point isn't the least relevant in terms of an AfD discussion. (The ref should show the name of the printed source as well, as all JSTOR articles are simply electronic reprints of articles in specific scholarly journals.-- The print journal ref by itself would be sufficient, as there is no prejudice against printed sources, but its best to give the electronic version also.) I adjusted the refs, and changed the paraphrase to a more exact quote. Luther's concept is certainly notable, but I do not know if Luther used the term more generally, or just once. Otherwise merge into an appropriate article. DGG 01:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Total nonsense, bad scentence structure and unsourced quotes. Stealthrabbit ^{Say it, baby, say it!} 02:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The quotation is sourced. Uncle G 08:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KILL THE WOLF! aka delete, per nom and as a probable hoax. --Whs tc hy 03:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP Whstchy and others - look at the reference - it is a legitimate journal by a legitimate author. Unless that is no longer valid and equals hoax in your eyes. 172.165.190.243 14:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, if the article is expanded and the importance of the use of the word by Luther is explained in the context of the evolution of Luther's theological position. I think the article needs more context, but should be given the time to develop. And I think in fairness to the author, I think I should point out that there is nothing in the article that would lead me to think it is anything other than a good-faith, constructive contribution.Flowerpotman talk|contribs 21:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep

A few brief observations by the original author:

1. Regarding the comments on a 'fairly obvious hoax', 'patent rubbish' and 'kill the wolf'. While I understand the amount of total nonsense that comes up in Wikipedia, and the consequent need for your eternal vigilance, you would seem less silly if you at least extended your verification efforts to Google Scholar, Google Books or Amazon, all of which find references of the existence and use of the term as described in the article.

Needless to say, the fact that you do not have access to JSTOR has no bearing whatsoever on the issue of deletion. It certainly is not sufficient grounds for assumption of bad faith. I regret that so much information is locked up behind gated archives such as JSTOR, which is why I create pages like this, however marginal they may seem to Joe Bloggs.

2. Regarding 'sentence structure and unsourced quotes'. I hope you do not mean to suggest that this merits deletion? We all know very well that less than perfect style is, alas, one of the drawbacks of collaborative and constantly-evolving efforts such as Wikipedia.

3. Regarding Flowerpotman's comments. The significance of the term is not so much that it caught on (as many philosophical notions, the name itself did not pass onto authors), but that Luther used it to describe a rather radical idea, in strong departure from his traditional theory of resistance.

4. Regarding notability. As I understand it, this is the only reasonable grounds for deletion. As I noted above, it is true that the term was (probably) not explicitly used by others in highly visible ways. This is, given the historical context, understandable. A 'beerwolf', after all, is a mythical beast in German, and those who most directly drew on Luther's theory of resistance to secular power were Huguenots, who for understandable reasons preferred homegrown French words for their theories. This, of course, raises a further claim to notability: a 'beerwolf', just as a griffin or unicorn, is a creature of mythology.

I will make a few quick additions to put the concept it into better and clearer context, but I am neither qualified nor particularly interested in writing an extended article on it. I would be surprised if the article did not subsequently grow, as so many other inchoate entries on Wikipedia have.

I also readily grant that there is not even an article on resistance theory on Wikipedia. No doubt it will come into being before long.

5. Regarding Derlay's comments. Yes, this article was restored following a speedy deletion, which, in my understanding, unequivocally did not meet criterion A7, contrary to claims otherwise. Unless the user who opted for speedy deletion has never heard of Martin Luther, in which case, perhaps he should spend more time reading and less time editing Wikipedia.

In short, I would hope that the article be allowed to stay on Wikipedia, and that those rendering pithy verdicts such as 'an obvious hoax' engage in better research for the next article that they propose to delete. Sluggy 13:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In response to your third point first, and as I commented above, I did take the phrase "In the context of the theology of resistance" to mean that the expression had taken on a wider importance and usage. Your subsequent edits to the article have made the meaning clear, but I am sorry if my misintepretation added any confusion to the discussion.

Regarding JSTOR access: As someone who actually should know better as I do remember life before the World Wide Web, I think that DGG's comment and Uncle G's polite nudge above were a needed reminder. I must admit to a frustration, albeit wrong, in seeing a valid reference on a website but not being able to access it.

On a more general note: of course, it could probably go without saying that I am not a expert on the life and thoughts of Martin Luther. On first seeing the article, however, I did have enough general knowledge of the subject that even on first glance, I thought that it was potentially of importance. Again, your subsequent edits and other edits have clarified the notability of the subject and have addressed any of the concerns I expressed above. Flowerpotman talk|contribs 02:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Referenced and even if you don't believe those a simple google seach returns more than enough scholarly reviews. Nuttah68 12:30, 28 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 23:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frictionman[edit]

Hoax, no sources cited and Google search of "Frictionman" returns nothing related to subject of article, "Frictionman" and "Kevin Smith" or "Sticking it to Evil" returns no results. Wingsandsword 23:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

del hoax. Mukadderat 00:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Elrith 00:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A joke. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 18:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hoax. A1octopus 11:31, 25 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. Mmmmmm, spam. Herostratus 13:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Does Dallas ... Again[edit]

Non-notable television series, poorly sourced. External links are either spam or not accessible to those under 18 or outside of the US. Recurrent target of commercial spam. Risker 23:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a big ol' slimy slab of spam. No notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as rubbish. Elrith 23:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Absoloute no notability. --Random ^{Say it here!} 23:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no valid reason offered for deletion. I'm not seeing any reason why this isn't as notable as any other reality TV series. Sources appear to exist; just because they aren't accessible to those under 18 or outside the US doesn't mean they aren't reliable. Otto4711 01:40, 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 delete per A7. Sr 13 07:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UU Players[edit]

Non-notable, unverified, barely even a stub. Elrith 23:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7--Whs tc hy 03:35, 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. - Bobet 18:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hereditary Peerage Association[edit]

Obscure, non-notable stub on tiny UK pressure group that seems to exist largely only as a website. I did try and discuss the notability but was basically told to did it myself if I wanted notability proven!. This society reminds me a lot of the Federal Commonwealth Society and I am sure those same editors who have WP:COI issues will turn up here. I would prefer if the wider wiki community that is not conflicted would determine the notability. Additionally there are only 10 ghits for the association, some of which are for its own webpage and only ONE mention in a reliable source here in the FIVE years that it has been in existence, therefore fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:CORP .Vintagekits 23:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Its membership makes it notable. - Kittybrewster (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no comment!--Vintagekits 23:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Kittybrewster. --Random ^{Say it here!} 23:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (god help me). It is a genuine body, and while by definition it's only going to have 92 members, those 92 are all notable (right or wrong) by Wikipedia standards, and by virtue of who they are it's more likely to have an impact as an organisation than your typical club. It does get (some) independent non-trivial coverage (for example). Judge it by the article, not the two primary contributors (who I admit set off warning bells) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, ONE fleeting mention in a newspaper in FIVE years! Just because it has notable members doesnt make this association notable - what is it notable for? It fails both WP:V, WP:N and WP:CORP--Vintagekits 00:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Certainly not a strong keep & I wouldn't lose any sleep if it were to go (they certainly don't seem to have accomplished anything), but since presumably they'll be the source for talking heads come the final push against the Lords by Labour once Tony goes/restoration of the old system under the Tories (delete as appropriate), I think warrants keeping. I certainly agree that they appear to have been the least effective pressure group of all time. However, I do think they (just) meet WP:ORG#Non-commercial_organizations ("The scope of activity is national in scale and can be verified by independent sources") — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complete nonsense - it needs multiple non trivial sources - its doesnt have this - but ignoring that it has never done anything!--Vintagekits 00:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it holds regualr events, but only members (who must be hereditary peers or their heirs can attend, they may bring guests - but they too must be hereditary peers)

~~Strong~~ Keep. Google can not be the arbiter of notability for the subjects of articles that do not have a cyberspace focus.

The HPA is notable for the size of its membership and the members' political influence within the United Kingdom (since if it is indeed a "pressure group", its notability is largely determined by the influence of its members.)
As regards, its influence as a "Peers' trade union" and whether we like it or not, the membership of more than 200 seems to have a certain degree of influence within Her Majesty's current Loyal Opposition:[2] and includes at least one member of the European Parliament. This is a bad faith nomination by a sloppy User who can not be bothered to even proof read his own nomination and only wishes to harass and expel editors with a different political viewpoint to his own minority political view point rather than improve Wikipedia. I note again the nominating User's bad faith technique of deleting material in the nominated article (without prior consensus or discussion on the article's talk page) so that he can then justify deletion of the shrunken stub article as non notable. I personally find it difficult to believe that its members (many of whom have run large businesses or organisations) would each be conned into paying £15 for annual membership of something that "seems to exist largely only as a website" and that this amazing confidence trick should continue for 5 years. W. Frank ✉ 00:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you make that reply a bit longer, please? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, is that your reason for a "strong keep". This is an AfD nomination not a joke = please try and take it more serious in future.--Vintagekits 00:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I know your tactics, Vintage, I'm sure the serious squad will be along very shortly. Do we need to wait until they come back from their Wikibreaks? W. Frank ✉ 00:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this is not some points scoring excersise - you have attacked my nomination and myself - try basis some analysis on the article in relation to wikipolicy instead - this is a discussion NOT A VOTE. This organisation has ONE reference to it in the real world yet you !vote strong keep - that speaks volumes.--Vintagekits 01:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Google is not the real world. I presume that you have already read relevant Wiki policy so I can not help you further if you do not understand the comments of others above. Please do not expect others not to attack your sloppy and harassing conduct. [3][4][5] And please be a bit more accurate and less cryptic and formulaic with your edit summaries. It's hardly a "reply" when you (justifiably) delete more than 3000 characters of another user's comments. W. Frank ✉ 01:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The material removed was a paragraph containing historical background to the fact that only some of the Peers now sit in parliament. It does not mention the association [[6]].

Comment, Instead of commenting on me would you like to comment (per policy and guidelines) on why this Association is notable.--Vintagekits 11:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless additional references are provided. As with many organisations, it is notable if people know about it and write about it. At present the only evidence is the Guardian article cited, which mentions it in one short paragraph with a much longer article. Its members, however distinguished, do not make it notable . There have been other articles on aristocratic organisations of one sort or another which are strangely never mentioned in public sources. DGG 02:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is notable due to its membership, its aims and the fact that it is the only "trade union" for hereditary peers. I would also like to question whether this article was nominated in good faith. Vintage kits made no attempts to improve the article, but was intent on its being nominated, and also made comments such as this; "Read what these these snivellers have to say for themselves", made on User:One Night In Hackney's user page here [7] show his obvious PoV in this area.--Counter-revolutionary 07:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - above Vintagekits says this has one reference. Not true. [8], it is mentioned by the Dept. for Constitutional Affairs etc. Also not all refs. appear on the internet.--Counter-revolutionary 07:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe that Vintage's claim, that there is only one reference for the subject, refers to the fact there is only one reference in the article. Under that interpretation, the statement is demonstrably true. In any case, it is good that you're taking the step of trying to find more sources. Now, I would suggest you take a further step: add the source, properly cited, to the article. If multiple sources can be added, as you suggest, then there isn't much reason to delete here. Charlie 08:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Instead of commenting on me would you like to comment (per policy and guidelines) on why this Association is notable.--Vintagekits 11:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment, unfortunately your reasons for nominating the article seem to be relevant. --Counter-revolutionary 11:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, my reasons for nomination are clearly set out in the nomination above and on the articles talk page and are soundly based on wiki policy. If you can not defend the article based on policy and prefer just to attack the nominator and the nomination then that is fine but you are then just losing the argument. This is a discussion not a vote. If there are 100 "keep" !votes and only 1 "delete" !vote then the article can still be deleted as it the the argument you put across that counts not the number of !votes.--Vintagekits 11:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, another ancient body that as useful as a glass hammer in British politics, won't be around for much longer either. Tiocfaidh Ár Lá! 12:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, its not that ancient infact it was only founded five years ago and doesnt seem to have done anything since created.--Vintagekits 12:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So obviously the above "delete" did not even read the article. He also seems to be arguing that he doesn't like it, not that it's not notable. Counter-revolutionary 12:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldnt disagree with that, however, if you read the "keep" votes - none of them are rooted in policy. I knew that the same old editors would turn up and vote to keep this hopefully once we get through these the unbiased community at large can have their say.--Vintagekits 12:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, more rubbish that has no current purpose to wikipedia or anyone else. the site should contain info that is useful. Maplecelt 13:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the above user has made only 10 edits, the last contribution was to Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet's unsuccesful Afd. It also argues that he doesn't like it, not that it isn't notable. --Counter-revolutionary 13:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "they appear to have been the least effective pressure group of all time": if this statement is even partially accurate then this, by and of itself, is a ground of sufficient notability in the way that Eddy the Eagle (Britain's Olympic Ski Jump competitor) was notable for his failures rather than his achievements.

Actually, the scales have fallen from my eyes and I wish to apologise to Vinny the Vulture. His edits and nominations for deletion really are notably accurate and neutral. W. Frank ✉ 14:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they were the worst "pressure group" in the world that would be fine. What we are missing is multiple non-trivial sources. Please provide this!--Vintagekits 14:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable organisation due to its membership and their relation to British politics. Nick mallory 15:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a notable organisation with very notable members, of which we will undoubtedly hear more of their much-heralded legal constitutional challenge goes to the High Court. David Lauder 19:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, wiki is not a crystal ball.--Vintagekits 21:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, for the reasons (for keeping) given by User: W.Frank -- irrelevant "pressure group" unrepresentative of any meaningful constituency, fighting a lost cause, in a "country" the size of a pinhead which is daily attacked for crimes against humanity stretching back 4 centuries and more. Even if there was a shred of notability in this (which there isn't), it is such a morass of irrelevancy to the new century as to be utterly unworrthy of Wiki. If the authors love it so much, let them found their own (SPA) Wiki for it. -- SockpuppetSamuelson

Comment - again this is simply a PoV statement of why you don't like it! --Counter-revolutionary 07:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Samuelson is basically telling all comers that Wikipedia is now a communist/socialist/republican site which loathes any other perspective of life. His approach is a disgrace. David Lauder 14:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An organisation formed in response to the single largest constitutional change in Britain in recent years, by and for people who have previously been members or are currently members of the country's upper legislature and are therefore inherently notable. Reliable sources here and here. I don't know what more you want, and while I try to assume good faith I clearly see that the majority of the delete !voters here are driven by their own POV against the cause that this group represents. In response to the original nominator's unsubstantiated suggestion of WP:COI I declare that I am not a member of this group, nor do I know anybody who is a member of this group. JulesH 11:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I've waited to see if this has improved, but it has not. There are no non trivial reliable sources that an article can be written from. While The Guardian does cover the association, the coverage is not sufficient for an article to be written from it. The second "source" is nothing of the kind, as this clearly shows the sites are user-submitted. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a member of the serious squad, you have made a good and valid argument, 303. Unfortunately, if we were to be as rigorous in applying your (traditional) standards of scholarship and only summarise existing secondary sources in print to make an article, the majority of WP articles would be strong candidates for deletion. As I understand the sequence, one begins with the test of notability for a non-profit organisation.

I genuinely believe that the Hereditary Peerage Association is notable according to WP standards. The article is currently a stub and I believe that none of the material included in the article as I saw it when I voted is either controversial or wrong and there are sufficient sources to confirm the existing statements. I have amended my support to a keep on the basis that if we delete this article we should logically then proceed to delete some 720,000 other WP articles (including many of the articles that you personally hold so dear).

Niggles: Please don't edit this page without placing a signature. Please don't edit the comments of others (obvious minor typos excepted). Please don't add or move contributions out of chronological sequence - if each did that, the record and sequence of contributions to this debate would become very difficult to follow. W. Frank ✉ 13:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my lengthy experience of AfDs, chronological sequence is not always followed. If adding a "keep" or "delete" !vote the comment is added at the bottom, however if a comment replying to another editor is made the comment is placed below that particular comment. To do otherwise would make the debate very difficult to follow. This organisation is not notable according to Wikipedia standards. WP:CORP specifically states that even non-commercial organisations must satisfy the primary notability criterion, in that it has been the subject of multiple reliable secondary sources. At present there is only one such source, and it is insufficient for an encyclopedic article to be written even if one source satisfied notability requirements. Also we are not discussing other articles, we are discussing this article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The organisation in question was consulted by the Department for Constitutional Affairs with regards to the continued reform of the House of Lords; it thus fulfills a lobbying function, rather than "exist[ing] largely only as a website" [9] [10]. It has been referenced in Parliamentary debates (albeit by a member) [11]. The group itself is small, but the members, for the time being, possess a considerable degree of legislative power. McPhail 14:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of the links you provided are non trivial sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: coverage by Intute [12]. McPhail 15:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's user-submitted, as I noted above. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as far as I can see, this is a genuine association of British legislators. How about the All-Party Group for World Government or the Palestine All Party Parliamentary Group? (What would you say if someone took the time to write up the Lords and Commons Cricket Club, or the House of Commons Yacht Club?) -- ALoan (Talk) 19:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd insist on multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, as required. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- It clearly exists - it has a website, people claim membership in debates the House of Lords, it submits responses to consultation papers. Is the complaint that its profile is not high enough? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This article seems to scrape through all the tests. First, it clearly meets WP:ORG#Non-commercial_organizations; this is the association of a group of people who elect a sizeable proportion of members of the House of Lords. It is irrelevant whether any editor thinks that arrangement a good or bad thing, but that's how it is, and this body has a position not unlike a sort of unofficial grouping of the majority of members of a parliamentary constituency. As such, it is clearly a group of national scale, albeit not a high-profile one.
Secondly, there is no dispute that this group exists: we have one good secondary source, and several undisputed primary sources.
WP:ORG notes that "smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." If this was a paper encyclopedia, I doubt that this article would merit as many as five lines, but Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This is a weak article, but it's not a bad or misleading one, and it's a pity that it seems to have gotten caught up in a political dispute between some editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still fails WP:V due to lack of multiple independent non trivial sources. Explain your way around that.--Vintagekits 21:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am being obtuse, but which part of WP:V says that we have to delete articles which lack "multiple independent non trivial sources"? WP:V says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. ... Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." So which parts of this article do you think need further verification? Which parts are challenged, or likely to be challenged?

In any event, this article has sources ranging from the organisation's own website (to be treated with circumspection of course, but, to pick an example at random, much of Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists comes from its own website - shall we delete that too?) to Hansard, papers published by the Department for Constitutional Affairs (as was), and The Guardian (all about as copper-bottomed as sources get). -- ALoan (Talk) 22:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a lot of the deletion arguments here are based on the assertion that policy requires there be "multiple non-trivial reliable sources" written about the subject. I would like to draw everyone's attention to the fact that as a result of a challenge as to whether it has consensus or not, WP:N (the source of the assertion that this is required) no longer requires multiple sources, although it does state multiple sources are preferred. However, as the group in question is clearly important due to its membership, I would say that a single source, in this case, is adequate. JulesH 14:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, so what criteria should be judge it by then?--Vintagekits 14:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria on WP:N or WP:ORG as they are now, not as they were a couple of weeks ago, would be my suggestion. The standard is requiring reliable sources, preferably multiple. But due to the obviously important nature of a group formed from former and present members of the upper legislature, I think a single source is adequate in this case. JulesH 23:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:ORG/NGO. The rationale behind the nomination, i.e. is this a republican vs. royalist debate, is irrelevant. Mmoneypenny 20:56, 27 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 23:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terence John Arbuthnot (2nd nomination)[edit]

Second nomination — the first is here, and was closed somewhat dubiously - aside from Kittybrewster's keep, there was one "keep" with no explanation, one "weak keep" again with no explanation, and three "deletes".

This is, I believe, the first time I've entered the murky world of an Arbuthnot nomination (Kittybrewster, before you start attacking me you might want to remember that I generally !vote keep on them) but I really can't see anything salvageable about this one. It's virtually unsourced (not even Memories of the Arbuthnots in this case; the only information is from the thepeerage.com website, which comes from the creator of the article). The only assertion of notability is the two military awards (the award from the Venerable Order of Saint John is meaningless). However, the Croix de guerre is a lot less notable than it sounds, being apparently awarded to every airman following their first air-to-air victory. The Order of Léopold is a bona fide "Highest military decoration", and if he won it would warrant a keep. However there's nothing to indicate that he did win it or what he won it for; it was added to the article by Phoe in December, but the sole source for this is thepeerage.com, which as discussed ad nauseam in recent days cannot be taken as a reliable source. I would expect the winner of the Belgian equivalent of the Victoria Cross/Medal of Honour to be listed in numerous places (especially someone who won it as a foreign national) but nothing, not even Dutch/French Wikipedia. A source for the decoration given on the talk page is about him, but does not mention the award at all.

In terms of WP:BIO he fails utterly (only 3 Ghits excluding Wikipedia mirrors and the three Arbuthnot sites, all three of which are trivial sources which appear to be mirroring this article; not a single hit on an RAF or military history site, even as part of a laundry list of pilots).

Obviously, if anyone can find a reliable source for his having won the award, consider this nomination withdrawn. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: clearly a notable airman who participated in importanty early campaigns for the RAF and who received seriously high military honours. I have added two important reference books, one with an ISBN for those who wish to consult. David Lauder 21:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a group captain isn't notable. If some independent record of the awards and some documentation of what they were for were forthcoming, we might have a case to retain it. But in the absence of that, not at all notable. If this guy is genuinely some sort of war hero, then sourcing it from more reliable sources should not prove too hard. -Doc^g 23:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per this conversation, apparently the reference for the Order of Leopold is Burke's, which is a reliable source. Is anyone in a position to check and confirm this — if so & it checks out, I withdraw this nom — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very thin sourcing. Burke's is a start. Would reconsider if more sources are added before the close of the AfD. Since he lived until 1995, he might have been written up in some newspaper stories. At a minimum, someone should be able to find his obituary. EdJohnston 00:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Daily Telegraph would certainly have given him an obit since (if genuine) he ticks every one of their boxes. No hits on a search of their website for "Terence Arbuthnot", "T Arbuthnot" or "T J Arbuthnot" but I don't know how far back they archive — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Elrith 00:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I may have tracked down, or begun to track down, a reliable reference for the award of the Order of Leopold. See here: "ARBUTHNOT, Terence John, G/C - Order of Leopold (Officer) with Palm and Croix de Guerre (1940) with Palm (Belgian) - awarded as per London Gazette dated 27 June 1947." - now it is just a question of searching the London Gazette. Carcharoth 01:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable. This is an encyclopedia not a private family web-site. Giano 06:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Highly decorated by the allied governments, nominated for deletion by the users of wikipedia. That says it all. --Counter-revolutionary 07:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a recipient of the highest military honour in Belgium is notable (it would be nice to have more information about what he actually did of course). -- ALoan (Talk) 10:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to delete in the light of the new evidence. I was under the impression that his Belgian medal was a Victoria Cross analogue - in which case he would clearly have done something especially notable, whether the article mentioned it or not. In the absence of that, his article discloses nothing of particular note that justifies an article on him. Perhaps he did something interesting in India or Europe, but we just can't tell from the article as it stands. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as we don't actually 'know what he did'. Tiocfaidh Ár Lá! 14:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've found official proof that he won the Order of Leopold here (near the top of the first column). ~~As confers automatic WP:N as a "highest military decoration", changing to keep in this case; I can't withdraw the nom now there are delete !votes.~~ This doesn't change the basic problem that the article says nothing about why he won it and I'd urge Kittybrewster and friends to improve the existing Arbuthnots rather than creating new ones — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems like rather a lot of people got this award for "services rendered during the liberation of Belgium". I don't think all those people should have articles. If anything, a section in the Order of Leopold article mentioning the "World War II" awards of the Order of Leopold might be better. Carcharoth 21:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If we knew anything about why he was given this medal then it should be considered that it contributes to notability - its certainly doesnt give automatic notability especially as there is no detail.--Vintagekits 21:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe he is a coat-hanger to wrap other notable facts around? Aatomic1 22:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC) PS Kitty, I think the emphasis is on you to explain the Mohmand Operations[reply]
Delete If you look at the dates, this article appears to be an amalgam of information about two individuals. While the peerage info seems reliable, it doesn't make him seem terribly notable on its own, and the newspaper must refer to another individual as it was published before his birth. Sci girl 04:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless proved to be truthful; and delete again as non-notable. -- SockpuppetSamuelson
Delete the article per Sockpuppet (did I really say that?) but with thanks for the link to the St John mumbo jumbo article, where we can view a charming fancy-dress partygoer. -- Hoary 07:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested to know how he came to serve in the East India Company which was disolved some 48 years before he was born. Giano 07:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So would I...It doesn't seem to say that in the article, though I may be wrong.--Counter-revolutionary 08:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Arbuthnot ended his career in the HEIC as a Colonel" I assume that is not the local building society in his nearst High Street! Giano 08:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've just noticed that. Hmmm... --Counter-revolutionary 08:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aatomic has been adding nonsense. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...er, I think you will find that it was not me. I have done the research for you. [13] Aatomic1 10:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)...er maybe I did ...sorry Aatomic1 10:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it the passage true or not? Additonally - Kitty there is no need to refer to Astomic as a "muppet" either.--Vintagekits 10:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true. The above user added it by mistake, I presume. --Counter-revolutionary 10:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you answering if you dont know, I would prefer a concrete answer rather thana presumption - please allow Aatomic1 to answer the question and to explain how and why that section was added. regards--Vintagekits 10:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I do know; unless he had a time machine it was impossible. --Counter-revolutionary 10:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that instead of hitting return; I hit paste; My memory is not serving me well but I believe that particular snippet came from User:Gustav von Humpelschmumpel's research on a different Arbuthnot Afd Aatomic1 16:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that was George Bingham Arbuthnot not this one... Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to wonder what exactly is going on with these Arbuthnot pages. For the record it would also be helpful if everyone editing pages, including Kittybrewster and Aatomic1 left edit summaries [14] Giano 12:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in case the above references to the East India Company and pre-birth newspaper references confused anyone, it was due to this edit, which was later reverted (it is a different Arbuthnot). Carcharoth 13:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, Belgian military honours notwithstanding. As I see it that can be used as a criterion for establishing notability, but does not automatically confer notability per se. Eusebeus 15:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've just written an article on his second wife Evie Greene - but my opinion of this article stands.--Doc^g 15:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His wife was never Evie Green. --Counter-revolutionary 16:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he met her over the counter in the local Building Society? Giano 22:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have your Arbuthnots confused. They were not married. --Counter-revolutionary 10:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too many inexplicable inconsistencies, no valid google hits. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we include all Colonels in the Army or Captains in the Navy who got a medal in WWII we are going to have a lot of articles about not particularly notable people (what did he do between 1945 and 1995 BTW?) Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that many of the other senior officers in the airforce who were awarded the Croix de Guerre + Order of Leopold medal (given to most people involved in the liberation of Belgium) have British C.B.E.s or O.B.E.s but not this person. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to strong delete. The plot thickens... Turns out that, while the "Grand Cordon of the Order of Leopold" is, indeed, a bona fide "Highest Military Decoration", ~~there's also a "Bronze Medal of the Order of Leopold" which is Belgium's 39th highest military decoration.~~ there's also an "Officer of the Order of Leopold" which is Belgium's 16th highest military decoration. Whilst Kittybrewster hasn't specified which version of the medal he won, in light of the general lack of any mention of him anywhere, I know which my money would be on. Changing back to strong delete unless someone can provide any evidence that he did win the higher version — and, since Kittybrewster presumably does know which version he actually won and has chosen not to mention the fact, if he does turn out to have won the lower version my willingness to accept the legitimacy of any other Arbuthnot claims has dropped like a stone — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are confusing me now! :-) You are claiming that the "Grand Cordon" is a "highest military decoration", but the Wikipedia article on the Order of Leopold says: "The Grand Cordon title is reserved to national and foreign royals", which doesn't sound like an inclusive "highest" honour to me. I'd also presume that the article's lack of mention of which level of the order is not a deliberate omission, but just a lack of information. If anything, this is a lesson to not jump to conclusions next time and assume that "Order of X" = highest level of that order. Maybe someone round here should go and tidy up the Order of Leopold article so things are clearer on that front? Carcharoth 05:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, you've also confused 'Order of Leopold' and 'Order of Leopold II' (two different awards). On the list you linked to, there is a 'Bronze Medal of the Order of Leopold II', but no equivalent for the Order of Leopold. Go back to the gazette link you gave above, and that makes clear that he was made an Officer of the Order of Leopold, which is the fourth of five classes within that order. Doing all this research is great, but it is misleading to start making mistakes like that, and confusing two different orders. The London Gazette is a reliable source, so why did you cross that out? It won't make much difference, and I don't particularly want the article kept, but swinging back and forth like you've done only muddies the waters. Can you make clear your final stance on this, following what I've said here? At the least, you might want to retract your "the plot thickens" comment. Carcharoth 05:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment To clarify, he was awarded the Order of Leopold with Palme and Croix de Guerre 1940 with Palme, officer class (the fourth out of five classes). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment In which case, it is definitely not a genuine "highest military decoration", so he doesn't get the exemption from normal WP:N rules which that would give him under WP:MILITARY#Notability. The article, either through innocent mistake or deliberate omission (I'm certainly willing to assume the former) gives a misleading impression that he won the higher version. For the benefit of Carcharoth, sticking with strong delete now; that "London Gazette" entry now counts against his inclusion, while Kittybrewster's attempt to change other users' comments in this AfD[15] appear at the least unconstructive — iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Iridescenti, you missed my point. I was pointing out that you have confused the Order of Leopold and the Order of Leopold II (see Leopold I and Leopold II)- the "Bronze Medal of the Order of Leopold" that you got all excited about doesn't exist (you were, in fact, referring to the Bronze Medal of the Order of Leopold II). I was hoping you would strike out your comments about that, as they are just confusing and misleading for others reading this discussion. Carcharoth 13:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. Since all this means is that he won the 16th highest decoration instead of the 39th, I don't see how it detracts from the point — WP:MILITARY#Notability is very clear that only winners of the highest award are exempted from normal WP:BIO rules, and this still clearly isn't — iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree. I've !voted below. Carcharoth 14:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to me a thoroughly poisoned afd. Please note from the history that the person who inserted the Order of Leopold was not me but Phoe. Presumably she got it from the London Gazette It is confirmed in Burke's Peerage. - Kittybrewster (talk) 08

41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete abject failure of WP:N. This is what a notable airman looks like. There do not appear to be any non-trivial sources independent of the Arbuthnot family for the article under discussion, and it is about bloody time that Kittybrewster discovered GenesReunited instead of trying to put his family tree on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 10:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr Politenessman wishes to point out that we should avoid use of the "B" word: it scares the horses. Instead, we may choose among "about sanguinary time", "about corpuscular time", and others. Thank you. -- Hoary 10:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Guy. Dodgy awards or not, that doesn't matter: there's just no evidence he passes WP:N. Moreschi ^Talk 10:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Guy. failure of WP:N. --Fredrick day 11:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - received multiple military decorations, including the Order of Léopold, which is described in its article as the highest order in Belgium. This means the subject is notable per the guidelines set out at WP:MILHIST. JulesH 11:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- MILHIST guidelines don't really matter. WikiProject guidelines do not trump WP:N. Moreschi ^Talk 11:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then why have them? WP:N is only a guideline, and I'd suggest that in this case we're looking at a subject-specific exception that has consensus among those who work on the subject. A clear case of WP:IAR. JulesH 17:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the article clarifies that he has done something exceptional or notable. The mere fact that he was awarded several orders and medals do not constitute notability. It's not because he was made an officer in the Order of Leopold that he merits mentioning. Literally hundreds of those are awarded and most are awarded as a long service award. More so as officer is the second lowest class of the order (Grand Cordon - Grand officer - Commander - Officer - Knight) . -- fdewaele, 25 May 2007, 13:55.
Delete per Guy. Userify if there is anything of value to keep but I suspect that a bare recitation like this one doesn't have much to salvage. Unless this airman is much more notable than the article indicates and unless more varied and more reliable sources are introduced, this article utterly fails WP:N. Apparently there are a fair number of other Arbuthnot articles that need more close examination as well. ++Lar: t/c 13:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could I just point out Lar before there is a huge rush to nominate pages, following the publicity on (WP ANI) those that seem non notable and obvious candidates for deletion cannot be nominated for non-notability if they are Peers, Baronets, Members of Parliament or (it now seems) Bishops, many have been deleted over the last couple of weeks those remaining probably need close examination rather than immediately nominating for deletion. This is not going to be quickly solved problem Giano 13:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, most definitely. I'm sugggesting close examination, not willy nilly nomination for deletion. If a bunch of articles are nommed for deletion that oughtn't to be, that just makes more work for everyone. Note that an article about a notable person can be deleted (or superstubbed out to just the name and clearly verifiable facts, which may be a better approach than nomming) if it doesn't contain any verifiable information. Thanks for the reminder, though, it's good to keep in mind. ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not quite correct there, I'll take this to your talk as this is not really the place Giano 16:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Resolute 13:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:N and WP:V, per Guy and Lar. Sarah 14:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per various discussions above. Carcharoth 14:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with hot-ass fire. Utterly fails just about every person-related criteria for notability I can think of. Wheres the news articles about him, discussing him in a critical fashion, not lists of award winners and lists of people related to someone? -M^ask? 14:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person is simply not notable. Acalamari 17:15, 25 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 02:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AegeanLinux[edit]

No notability (still)

Delete Agreed. Why would this have a Wikipedia article of its own? Elrith 23:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of notability. Someguy1221 03:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. NicM 23:13, 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Enough for Us All[edit]

This is a little-known album and there is nothing to the article except for a list of songs. It does not merit an encyclopedia article. Tetty2 22:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A self-published demo, and no information about it to boot. Elrith 23:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Elrith -- ShadowJester07 ►Talk 06:37, 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. - Bobet 18:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E J Boys[edit]

Article was nominated for speedy deletion, but doesn't qualify: there are several claims to notability, enough to avoid speedy deletion. I'm moving this to AFD instead. Procedural listing, no opinion. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tagged it for speedy originally (said tag got removed several times), the thing is here, none of the claims have been backed up. Also, check the logs, it'll go from "world's leading researcher into" to "the world's foremost authority" to "a leading authority" on his supposed subject matter. Just because the author claims the person in the article is notable, doesn't mean he is. --Whstchy 22:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Add on comment Also check what links to the page. The subject the person in the article researched doesn't even link to it. --Whs tc hy 22:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the premise that the subject doesn't even link to the page in question. Obviously non notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually there is a link to this page from the relevant article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darren1986 (talk • contribs)
- Comment The link to the article was added by you user:Darren1986, after this appeared. Pardon me, but something smells of sockpuppets. Whstchy 18:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - just tryin to be helpful...a link is a link isn't it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Darren1986 (talk • contribs)
    - Comment Yes, but you also removed CSD tags from an article without asking first.--Whstchy 19:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oops..sorry! I'm new at this. I thought that if you didn't agree with a deletion or the article had been amended you could remove the tags. My mistake.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.81.41 (talk • contribs)
Delete unless sourced. I know this is valuable research but there is no, available, evidence that the artice subject has ever been noted. Nuttah68 12:37, 28 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. AKRadecki 19:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby Plaza[edit]

A article on a fictional place that seems to be a direct copy of infomation from the How to Stop an Exploding Man episode article. It is not notable enough for it's own article, and i highly doubt that any of it can be expanded beyond what is there now without just simply copying and pasting from the character and episode article articles for Heroes. I recommend that the article be Deleted, since merging it serves no purpose to the Heroes articles. dposse 21:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article seems pointless and redundent22:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harlock jds (talk • contribs)

Delete Not significant enough to warrant its own article. Windmillninja 02:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a recurring place within the show, other articles pertaining to shows have articles for repeated reoccuring places. 04:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godloveslamb (talk • contribs)

Comment - Recurring, how? It was only featured in two episodes as the meeting place for the final battle. dposse 14:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Which in itself means it's an important place, as the entire SEASON was leading up to this. There's also the office complex itself that the article lacks, as a great deal happened in there as well. Keep or Merge.--Brad Rousse 02:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to appropriate episode article in the background or script section. --Madchester 15:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable, only mentioned in last few episodes. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 23:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not significant enough for an article, information can easily be folded into an article about a particular episode or season of the show.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not significant enough yet. --Piemanmoo 06:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Put it in the article for the Heroes finale episode How to Stop an Exploding Man.--70.146.45.154 09:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - reasons already stated above, otherwise Delete. It seems unlikely that this location will be used again, but who knows? — « hippi ippi » 13:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Myers (Artist)[edit]

Sources are missing (on the site advertised as "Gives more information about the artist and his projects", I can't find any biographical information about him), questionable notability (at least his current publisher seems to be himself - reviews of his work in well-known publications? Awards? Sales figures? ...). High on a tree 21:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, self-published comic-book artist, fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 22:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability aside from creating a non-notable graphic novel. Fails WP:BIO, WP:RS and likely WP:COI/WP:AUTO (article was written by Vestalman, subject is from Vestal, New York. Caknuck 23:03, 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. Sr 13 23:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katilce Miranda[edit]

This survived a previous afd. But despite that, it has no content,, no sources, and no obvious notability except that she snogged Bono^{[citation needed]}. Sort it or kill it, either way.--Doc^g 21:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally non-notable. Bigdaddy1981 21:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utterly fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 22:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kissed Bono, you say? Unlucky. tomasz. 23:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ^{[citation needed]}. Obviously non-notable person. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could argue that she has notability for perhaps being the least-notable person ever recorded on Wiki -- but, no: delete and salt -- SockpuppetSamuelson

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, since it has been wikified and reviews provided that demonstrate notability. AKRadecki 19:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Grabka[edit]

Not notable as per WP:BIO. No independent sources. —Visor (talk · contribs) 21:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, principal soloist is a position there might be several at any given ballet (i.e. it doesn't mean THE principal soloist), but it seems like she's had a fairly strong career. Most of the search results I found are in Polish, though. --Dhartung | Talk 22:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment currently there are twelve soloists with the Hamburg Ballet.Bigdaddy1981 23:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Definite Keep per below. Bigdaddy1981 21:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is now cleaned up, sourced (reviews in New York Times, the U.S. 'Dance Magazine' etc) and wikified. She's danced as a soloist with a host of major ballet companies - English National Ballet etc - and if she was an actress, rather than a ballerina there'd be no question about her notability. She has 40,500 ghits and if many of them are in Polish that's because she's, you know, from Poland. Nick mallory 02:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - that NYT review just made my heart sink, especially that part about war's soldiers songs. What else is new? greg park avenue 01:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Elinks are not proper references, per WP:BLP we bios of living people should be better referenced to avoid any possible hoaxes.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Weak delete. Self-promotion, perhaps. Picus viridis 00:47, 27 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. - Bobet 18:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Chopra[edit]

non notable person. no sources. could not verify his stated television apppearances. only article by creator. vanity article C5mjohn 14:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, provisionally. Person is obviously notable IF he's a regular commentator on television. Article just need it sources listed, and a thorough chainsawing to eliminate the fluffery. Before any editor posts "delete", they should consider taking this task up.--Mike18xx 08:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all, if you need verification you can look on the www.bastioncapital.co.uk web page, look under the newsroom section and then click on media, Some of the clips of Ronnie Chopra on TV can be found there. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.82.81.179 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 21:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources, nothing in Google News Archive either. NN talking head. --Dhartung | Talk 22:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung; non-notable person. Bigdaddy1981 22:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Modify per Mike18xx. If one is not lazy and uses something other than Google for their source of nourishment (as if Google holds all the knowledge of mankind) it's pretty evident going to www.bastioncapital.co.uk and scanning the video archives that this bloke has indeed done a few notable things. I suggest someone editing the article to clean it up a bit, but to say the guy is NN is ridiculous. Seems a lot of Wikipedians are themselves people who will never, ever amount to anything at all, and therefore have a grudge against those who are out in the real world, slugging it away and doing something. I suppose if I were a computer programmer, sitting in a dark room and getting my nourishment from Digg.com, I'd be a pretty sad bastard hating MySpace bands, up-and-coming actors, and other sorts of REAL PEOPLE who are out there doing something constructive, instead of wanking-off in front of Wikipedia. Oh, and let us not forget your "esteemed professor" who turned-out to be no more than some bollocks git from Kentucky. Hail Wikipedia! Nightlink 21:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced possible vanity 65.241.15.131 21:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced biog of a non notable. If evidence is provided of notability I will reconsider. Nuttah68 12:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! I am quite new to this so please accept my apologies if I get the format wrong, just a quick note regarding guy, I have seen him on TV. Have also seen some of his articles somewhere. I travel to London now and then and do remember seeing this guy on Sky News. All the Best. Brian Walters [email protected]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Esmie Tseng[edit]

A minor convicted for manslaughter, who had 15 min of fame by blogging about it. I'm just not sure we need to do this. Please delete it. -Doc^g 20:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete a person killing their own mother, while sad, is Common. Check out Google News for the past month or so. While this has some false hits, just read the stories and you can see that killing your mom (or planning it) is more common than what some think. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No google news hits afree with Doc and zscout that she just had 15 minuets of fame. --St.daniel ^Talk 20:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone has fifteen minuets of fame, wouldn't that make them a composer? :-P Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would there be google news hits on a story that mostly wrapped up a year ago? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who hasn't killed their mother in a knife fight at one time or another? This was a one-day wonder, not of lasting encyclopedic value. Herostratus 21:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources and lack of notability. Per the above users, someone killing their mother is (sadly) a common thing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep try Google news ARCHIVE search. Gets 51 hits, including multiple instances of non-trivial coverage going on for almost 10 months after the murder. [16] She even gets trivial mentions from before the murder for her school accomplishments along with several of her classmates. Also has international coverage, e.g. [17] cab 22:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 51 hits in the 10 months after. How many since? I clicked on three of the 51 at random and all of them had been removed - the 15 min of fame are over. We should not be in the business of prolonging them. Someday this child comes out of prison and tries to get on with her life - does a Wikipedia bio then follow her about. Perhaps we need a Rehabilitation of Offenders Act--Doc^g 22:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Let's make a bot that strips criminal records so we can have an article for every criminal ever. Zsinj^Talk 00:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets notability standards for people by receiving multiple nontrivial coverage; doesn't lose it just because no one's written about her lately. It was a high profile crime with sufficient coverage for us to write about. Being common isn't a reason for exclusion. That's the essence of WP:NOT#PAPER Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:29, 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. - Bobet 18:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruna Surfistinha[edit]

A blogging prostitute that got 15 min of TV fame. Yawn. -Doc^g 20:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless waste of bytes. WP:BLP / WP:UNDUE apply, of course, but even if they didn't it would be pointless. Anything even vaguely porn related gets gazillions of hits, if we can believe them (which we can't). Guy (Help!) 20:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Guy and Doc. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Ok, so I misjudged her fame inside of Brazil. Based on what I saw below, keep. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and continue to expand and cleanup. Not a BLP issue, again, as she's very much a self-promoter - chances are, writing a blog and book about one's sexual exploits does not imply shame, nor should anyone's specific ethics get in the way. Over 150 Google News Hits in the archive, the page is at her pseudonym, there's no problem here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She looks to be notorious enough. Herostratus 21:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. May be a yawn for us but was she a real topic of debate in Brazil? Canuckle 21:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If she is then keep. But that's not grounds for keep unless she is verifiable so. We don't keep things just in case they have merit.--Doc^g 21:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could ask the Brazilians, since they could have more coverage about her than what we have found in English. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep' per User:Badlydrawnjeff. The Google News hits seem to indicate a fair enough amount of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Guy & Doc. --Random ^{Say it here!} 23:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person is obviously notable in Brazil. SchmuckyTheCat 03:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep

Delete bruna surfistina from wikipedia ? This is crazy. She is a well known person in Brazil. She gave interviews to dozens of brazilian periodicals. She Gave interviews to portuguese magazines She also gave interviews to the BBC, as well as argentinian media.

The new york times as well as the times of london made articles about Bruna Surfistinha.

From the times of London

"Online call girl exposes sex myths of Brazil".

SHE was known to her clients as Bruna the Surfer Girl, a chic São Paolo prostitute who fled her middle-class home at the age of 17 to sell herself to up to five men a day. Then Bruna took to the internet, and her racy accounts of life as a high-class Brazilian call girl have earned her international fame. Six months after she gave up prostitution to turn her blog into a bestselling book, Bruna — whose real name is Raquel Pacheco — has become an improbable sex symbol in Brazil and a potential goldmine for publishers and film-makers around the world.

bruna surfistinha in the times of london

Larry Rohter in a New York Times article does call Bruna (quote) " a cultural phenomenon ".

article about bruna in the NYT

The fact that bruna is not well known by many english speaking people does not mean she is not deserve to have an entry in wikipedia.

second reason : there is an entry of bruna surfistinha in the portuguese wikipedia.

Bruna surfistina in wikipedia portuguese version It does not make sense to delete an entry about bruna in the english version of wikipedia while leaving a large entry about the same person in the portuguese version of wikipedia.

Either she deserves or does not deserve an entry in wikipedia. If she does deserve an entry in wikipedia both wiki in english and portuguese should have such entry. If she does not deserve an entry ( as many claim ) if it is justifiable to delete bruna from the english version of wikipedia why the portuguese version has a large entry about that very same bruna? Deleting the english entry of bruna while leaving the portuguese entry does not make sense.

According to the Times of london Bruna is a Symbol in Brazil . Her book sold 100 000 copies. She more than deserves an entry in wikipedia.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chartered Insurance Institute. AKRadecki 19:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insurance Institute of Manchester[edit]

From speedy. It claims to be the oldest insurance institute (what an insurance "institute" is I cannot say) in existance, which I suppose could be notable. It was only founded in 1873, though. The article in its present form is pretty bad, too. Herostratus 21:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Neutral as nominator, I am just bringing this in from speedy. Herostratus 21:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too much spam. An exam-giving body with a royal charter could possibly be notable but not to this degree of detail or self-promotion or lack of sources. Canuckle 21:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing on Google News Archive. Some results in Google Books (as a publisher of e.g. electrical safety lectures), but nothing substantial. The timeline and some other parts of the article are taken directly from the Chartered Insurance Institute article, and are a history of British insurance institutes generally. Other than being the oldest in Britain, a fairly minor claim of notability, it's not clear why this should be here. --Dhartung | Talk 22:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but prune - This appears to be a professional body concerned with insurance. However too much of the article duplicates Chartered Insurance Institute. This duplication should be removed and the article Wikified. Since it merely gives a timeline, the article is weak, but I have seen many that are worse. As the first of its kind, I would have thought it was notable, even if it is now only of local significance. If the eventual decision is to delete, then redirect to Chartered Insurance Institute. Peterkingiron 22:19, 26 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. I'm withdrawing this. Sources and claims to notability have been added. -Doc^g 08:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raven Riley[edit]

She pretty. She's a porn ~~star~~ actress. She's virtually unsourced and terrible typical. I guess I know what you'd like to do to her, but I think you should delete her.--Doc^g 20:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ an interview on a fan site and an industry report with 1 line about her that says she'll be in some movie... these are not acceptable sources. While covering porn stars and any fringe topic for that matter is something that should be done and it would be nice if Wikipedia could do, it is not currently compatible with our policies of verifiability and neutrality unless sufficient reliable sources exist. That these are less likely to exist for porn stars doesn't justify running what amounts to original opinion of fans about them alongside other factually accurate and encyclopedic articles. I will reconsider if better sources are found. --W.marsh 21:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- neutral for now, source mentioned below is a start... but not sure it's enough. --W.marsh 21:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She recently won Front Magazine's Top 20 Girls on the web, satisfying #1 on the criteria for WP:PORNBIO. —Ocatecir ^Talk 21:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might help if the article included that info and it was verified.--Doc^g 21:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just added that 5 seconds ago.—Ocatecir ^Talk 21:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the magazine contain any actual information on her? Meeting PORNBIO doesn't really mean much if there's still no verifiable information to include in an article. --W.marsh 21:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it has a blurb, then an interview, spreading about 3 pages. [18]. —Ocatecir ^Talk 21:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I so wanted to make a comment about "spreading", but I refrained. :) Corvus cornix 23:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well-spread references, and hot to boot. -N 02:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator seems to want to delete all such porn stars from Wikipedia which would be, and I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking this, a tragedy. Sources have been added to the article and it passes the necessary standard for such things. Nick mallory 15:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't.--Doc^g 17:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, decent references and after all she is a real person and can be classified into the amble "Category:Lists of porn stars", it seems that the Pat Robertsons of Wikipedia always want to delete these things. Aricci526 04:30, 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 delete per CSD#G11. ^(H) 22:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Massage Therapy Schools[edit]

Looks like a bunch of advertisements; links go to commercial sites; I think this article is pure SPAM as it is. Only a complete rewrite would make it encyclopedia material DanielCD 20:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam, speedy if possible. It's structured as a listing page, links to the commercial sites for this one business, and lists bios of people who are likely non-notable using marketing language. I'm not sure whether the institute itself is notable enough to have an article, but if it is, this shouldn't be it. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete WP:CSD#G11--Whs tc hy 20:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam (G11). So tagged. Article exists solely to advertise the Cortiva schools, apparent COI - (User:Cortiva created the article). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:19, 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. AKRadecki 19:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cajun instrument makers[edit]

Yet another list - I think Alaibot's reached the letter L on its stub/uncat tagging run. All but one of the entries are redlinks and I suspect likely to remain so for the foreseeable future, but I don't really want to prod it since for all I know this is a big thing in Louisiana — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no point in this. Also, from the page (at the time of this vote): "This list includes people who are not necessarily Cajun." --Whstchy 20:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think what the author means by that is that there's some peculiarly Cajun method of making the instruments that they follow — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Good point, still delete though.--Whstchy 21:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I know... another list. However, does a list get removed because the "red links" have yet to be written? Plenty of other lists have this same issue yet stay on. See List of Cajun musicians. Noone outside Louisiana knows these people however, they are well known in the state. What percentage of the world has to know these people before the article can stay? Lets say the articles on the Presidents of the US haven't been written yet, a list of them is place on Wikipedia, causing lots of "red links". Does this list no longer matter? Should it be removed??? However...... do what you wish.--User:falcanary
Delete. I can see no value to this list. The phrase 'This list includes people who are not necessarily Cajun' concerns me. If the instruments are made in a unique way for Cajun music, that deserves a mention on the instruments page or maybe even a new page and exponents can be listed there. If the maker of, say triangles, is renowned for their skill they deserve an article, regardless of what genre of music their instruments are played in. Unfortunately, what we appear to have here is a list of people who make instruments that are used in Cajun music, and that isn't notable. Nuttah68 12:54, 28 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. AKRadecki 19:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkwood-Dellinger[edit]

I tried a speedy under WP:CSD#A7, but that was removed. Don't think it's really notable, but the main reason for this is the lack of resources. They also seem to be a garage band that formed in high school. Whs tc hy 20:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep - even though I'm sure they're only getting press coverage (in local papers) because he has a famous dad, I think the papers are just non-trivial enough to push them over the WP:MUSIC line — they're not just reprinted press releases but bona fide features — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - their record label just barely exists according to Google, they're reported to be touring a little this summer. I looked at the refs; a couple are short bits that make me think 'entertainment calendar,' but the longer ones aren't bad. However, it's still quite local coverage, and I'd be more comfortable if a) they were covered outside their home town, and b) the one member wasn't getting coverage for being the son of a Meat Puppets member. In time, if the band continues as it has, we'll see. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:51, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Karcz[edit]

Not notable as per WP:BIO —Visor (talk · contribs) 19:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Everyone's a photomanipulator... tomasz. 20:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced. Only claim to notability is designing cover art for a book and a handful of album covers for minor artists. Caknuck 20:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced bio of a living person.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 23:55, 26 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 (along with Maggie Leigh which is about a character in this film). WjBscribe 01:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Side of Youth[edit]

A movie (that I can find little to no outside references for) that is still in pre-production, yet already has a plot summary (an unsourced one) Tagged as possibly non-notable since Feb. 2007. Looks like unverifiable speculation or the plot is written by someone involved in production Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless it is sourced. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per no notability —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Telcourbanio (talk • contribs).
Delete - Not notable Kernel Saunters 22:50, 26 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 13:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nat Cassidy[edit]

Deleted via PROD, but restored as a contested PROD per deletion review. Brought here as I feel that the merits of the article may need to be discussed; however, as this is a procedural nomination, I abstain. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nomination. Telcourbanio Care for a talk? 20:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Per me" doesn't really work here, since I didn't give a reason one way or another... --Kinu ^t/_c 20:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--WaltCip 20:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the nom abstained, there is no "per nom" deletion criterion. Please come up with your reasons. Corvus cornix 23:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on what can be done to add merit to article? Credits seem extensive and respectable in regional scene.

Weak delete. Two reviews of his work in a production of Hamlet are the only sources on notability I have; a review wherein he's quoted and his page on Horror Unspeakable are the only other two links. Biggest problem might be of regional interest - he only seems to be notable locally. Are there sources that establish notability beyond one production of Hamlet, or something wider than that? If yes, I'll change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability. Corvus cornix 21:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have stayed prodded. How is the Hamlet reference notable? "His Hamlet was a huge local success1 and was filmed by the UA Channel. It continues to air on Tucson's channel 19." WP:BIO says: "With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." How is a university production of Hamlet notable? It plays on cable broadcast. Whoppie do. My high school's production of Macbeth won a nationwide award in 1997 and it ran on the community access channel. Should I go making biographies for my former classmates? I don't think. One also cannot really rely on local theatre critics--many of them tend to gush on and on about how wonderful local actors are. The rest of the claims to notability are also dubious. --Kunzite 05:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted, too, though, that Arizona Rep and Arizona Theatre Company are very reputable, to say nothing of the world premiere of a Steven Dietz play, working with Jon Jory, etc. I went to his band's Myspace page and he's got over 11,000 listens and seems to be popular in the NYC music scene. And many pictures--that Hamlet is pretty far from a video taped high school production on cable access. I'm not saying one way or another not to delete, but this entry strikes me more as just poorly written and documented (he has reviews on nytheatre.com and the Off-Off Broadway Review, it seems, too), rather than totally unnotable. --(random stranger who gets a kick out of reading AfD logs)

Comment: Now that I re-read this article, it reads to me as if it was copied word-for-word from a Playbill. Corvus cornix 17:16, 26 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 02:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zvezdno Obshtestvo Observatory[edit]

Not any prove of notability. Publish or perish fails to find any reviewed articles from researchers from that observatory. Few observational notes can be found on the Net, in majority coming from their site. Although they claim they found "five new asteroids and recovered a number of comets", the observatory is not listed in the Minor Planet Center's list[19] of Minor planet discoverers. PetaRZ 19:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PetaRZ 19:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Someguy1221 21:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , with my sympathies, for lack of sources to demonstrate accomplishments Their blog says they suspended regular observations in Sept 2006 due to lack of money. Canuckle 22:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is discovering "five new asteroids" (unsourced claim in the article) a big scientific contribution, or is it something I can do in my backyard on a bright night with a cheap telescope? A ecis^Brievenbus 22:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even with a very expensive (visible wavelength) telescope, all but the largest of asteroids would be too dim to reliably spot (at best it would look like a faint star moving a bit too fast. You might see it, but good luck identifying it). Detailed asteroid observations often use radio telescopes instead. However, there are likely millions of asteroids in our solar system, so there is no shortage of asteroids to discover. Someguy1221 22:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we can assume that if this claim is verified and referenced, it goes a long way to establishing the notability of this observatory? A ecis^Brievenbus 23:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Er, I was actually trying to make the opposite point. While amateur astronomers can't detect most asteroids, most asteroids are decidedly uninteresting. However, if they have the equipment to do more than the most basic observations (ie, figure out its axis of rotation, or probable composition and shape, which are much harder than simply finding it) then they likely received enough attention to be considered notable. Someguy1221 23:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I completely agree with SomeGuy. The majority of the bright asteroids are already discovered, so finding new ones needs sophisticated telescopes, and is not of great interest. In addition, the last NASA's surveys (e.g. LINEAR or NEAT) find them automatically. PetaRZ 06:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sorry, guys. Elrith 00:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It takes more than 5 minor reports to make a scientific institute notable. That wouldn't be enough forthe notability of even one of its members.02:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Comment Copied from the article's discussion page : Look gays, A79 have a lot of contributions (go to the IAUC and MPC) and considering the small country I think that this is ok.. Unsigned message, sent from 82.199.197.34 ----PetaRZ 15:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck this comment. If the user wishes to join the AFD discussion, he or she has to come over here and cast his or her !vote personally. Comments made elsewhere carry no weight in AFD discussions. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is what I found, many mentions of objects having been discovered, observed by this observatory, but no actual discussion of the observatory. Reliable soruces must discuss, not merely mention the subject of the article. Someguy1221 21:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete" Sorry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.50.182 (talk • contribs)

No edits have been made from this IP outside this AFD. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:39, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entrance Software[edit]

Deleted via PROD, but restored as a contested PROD per deletion review. Brought here as I feel that the merits of the article may need to be discussed; however, as this is a procedural nomination, I abstain. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entrance Software serves the oil and gas industry in Texas. They were recognized as one of the fastest-growing high tech firms in Houston. They are accredited by Microsoft and have a high customer satisfaction rate, according to reliable source x. Clients include x, y and z, according to reliable source y. Everything else is spam. If they can't source those, then Delete. Canuckle 22:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Article cannot be made encyclopedic without fundamental rewrite and therefore should have been speedied as blatant advertising per CSD G11, not prodded. 75.62.6.237 06:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tone is poor, lack of independent sources. Guy (Help!) 15:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this ad. Mmoneypenny 19:45, 26 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 - Nabla 18:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Road to Success is Always Under Construction[edit]

Contested prod. Non notable self published book without reviews, awards, or other reliable secondary sources about the book, thus fails WP:NOTE. Fram 19:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems much like an ad, nothing to commend its notability. tomasz. 19:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please. It is not my book. I did not publish it. I did not write it. I just have a copy at my house. If you insist on being bullies, then I guess you can. But in that case, you might call your selves Bullies. Sincerely, Sir intellegent - smartr tahn eaver!!!! 21:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
continuation of previous There. I added external links. Are You Happy Now??? And I forgot to add to my previous comment that you are basically discouraging me from Being Bold. Sincerely, Sir intellegent - smartr tahn eaver!!!! 22:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence presented showing notability of subject matter. Sir Intellegent, we do not mean to discourage you from creating articles, but they should meet minimal standards of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 22:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment well, then, you could help make the article better.... That would help, wouldn't it? Sincerely, Sir intellegent - smartr tahn eaver!!!! 00:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No, it wouldn't, because the subject of the article is still non-notable. That's what we're voting about here. Elrith 00:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Fine, do what ever quickly please. This would be the second article of "mine" that has or will be deleted. The other was my school, Paradigm High School. It seems like everyone hates the articles that I create, so I guess I won't create any anymore. Sincerely, Sir intellegent - smartr tahn eaver!!!! 21:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. don't forget the picture. I won't be using that for anything else.[reply]
Delete An article on a self published book that offers no indication or evidence of notability. Nuttah68 13:02, 28 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 - Nabla 18:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foul Mouth Shirts[edit]

This article was originally a G7 speedy-deletion. DRV found an assertion of notability was present, and so refers the matter for a full AfD. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 19:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite Rewrite as encyclopedia article. If not rewritten with reliable sourcing by AFD close, delete. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I have never heard of these people and their claim to notability is backlinks. A good Search engine optimizer would manufacture such notability. However, the number of google hits lends credibility. The problem of this page is that the age of the company begs WP:VSCA contestation. I truly believe they are a valid subject for a counterculture article and but have trouble voting to keep the article as presented. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no google hits at all. I searched for "Foul Mouth Shirts" and only one link was actually related to the site. Hardly a basis for notability. G1 gg y ! 11:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some of the claims of reliable source coverage in the article are turned into references. Google only returns ads and blogs. Nuttah68 13:07, 28 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 13:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Euphrates (Iraqi hip hop band)[edit]

This article was nominated for speedy deletion per A7, non-notability. There is an assertion of notability in the article, in multiple outside coverage in sources independent of the subject. I don't know if those sources are non-trivial though, and whether they are enough to establish the notability of the subject. That's why I'm bringing this to AFD. Procedural move, no opinion. A ecis^Brievenbus 19:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I kind of have my doubts about the reliability and non-triviality of those sources; there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of salvageable material here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, not much in Google News Archive to prove they meet WP:MUSIC, but there are some indications they may have toured Canada (they're from Montreal), which would suffice. Albums are self-published. --Dhartung | Talk 22:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletions. -- Canuckle 22:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fix the citations and keep - If those citations are valid; maybe attempt to search Google for more or better citations to satisfy notability. "A7"? --R e m i 09:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Enough of an assertion not to warrant A7 (although in its current state could probably be G11, but those sources are about as trivial as you can get short of myspace pages. It's an ungooglable title so relies on someone with a knowledge of the field adding something by the end of the AfD — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from this Wikipedia without prejudice to their inclusion on their local one. As has been stated they aren't googlable, which means they have no references in English, which suggests that they are probably not notable outside the Iraq. However in Iraq they might be the biggest thing since... ...er... ...the supergun. However as notability for this wikipedia cannot be ascertained, we should delete it here. A1octopus 15:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If they're notable in Iraq they're notable anywhere per WP policy. This is the English-language Wikipedia, not the US Wikipedia — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khush Pish[edit]

The term does exist as i use it myself but wikipedia is not a dictionarry - FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a dicef, or possibly transwiki to Wiktionary. As the nom states, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per TenPoundHammer. --Random ^{Say it here!} 23:58, 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 06:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Comic Book films cast members[edit]

Delete this poorly named, incorrectly capitalized, and useless article that is wholly redundant to other articles, yet another creation from a User:EJBanks/Poker Master/Fatone411/Creepy Crawler/Batman Fan sockpuppet. Doczilla 18:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely redundant, all material available in relevant linked articles already. No need for an incomplete, as well as confusing, list. Charlie 19:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --GentlemanGhost 19:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stephen Day 22:55, 27 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 - Nabla 18:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EDSA Micro Corporation[edit]

Nom - adverspamcruftvertisement. Fails WP:SPAM - a couple of editors have been very active trying to insert this orgnaization's product into various articles (see: Power Analytics). No indication of notability. Self-referenced. Likely conflict of interest. Rklawton 18:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Canuckle 22:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article mention the figure of $100 billion, but it turns out that is the total revenue of any of the power companies who have every bought one of their products. DGG 02:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Save - Company recently recognized by the technical staff of a) 7x24 Exchange and 2) the Critical Power Coalition, for developing one of the most important new technological developments for preserving the maintainability of electrical power grids, and keeping mission-critical operations (hospitals, transportation, etc.) functioning in widespread outages. See http://www.7x24exchange.org/downloads/7x24Newslink_Spring07.pdf— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrneumann (talk • contribs)
~~Save~~Comment Correction to the above. $100 billion refers to the value of equipment and infrastructure being protected by Power Analytics technologies, e.g. power generating facilities, FAA gound stations, computer data centers, public data networks, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrneumann (talk • contribs)
- Comment - the above was added by the article's author and the author of Power Analytics. This editor's contributions revolve solely around promoting one company. Rklawton 16:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam with no evidence of independent sources to show notability. The one external source is an article written by 'Jim Neumann is Vice President of EDSA Micro Corporation'. Nuttah68 13:16, 28 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, "club" with no notability asserted. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ro-JA[edit]

Non-notable kid's club Nekohakase 18:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as completely NN fanclub and tagged as such. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:32, 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 deleted by Alabamaboy. Non-admin closure. Resolute 03:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rolf Lyneborg Lund[edit]

Subject not notable EvilOverlordX 18:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Fails CSD #A7. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 18:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Del. per nom, Nenyedi. My advice would be to get that 9-string bass guitar on the market. tomasz. 20:04, 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. WjBscribe 01:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Shepard Scholarship[edit]

Lacks the necessary multiple sources to meet WP:N. No doubt worthy, but non-notable. Delete recommendation Bridgeplayer 18:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Matthew Shepard. Struggles on independent notability, but surely worth a paragraph in the main article. ~~especially with two notable recipients.~~ EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per EliminatorJR's suggestion; not notable on its own, but probably worth a short mention at Matthew Shepard. Krimpet (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per EliminatorJR. Merits a paragraph at Matthew Shepard, maybe as part of a "Legacy" section or similar. However, I wouldn't include everything in the current article; the list of recipients is unnecessary, and it's not clear that the two active links in the list actually point to the correct people. EALacey 19:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, Josh Olson definitely isn't the same one (compare the photos at [20] and [21], and the other link leads to a dab page. I still stick with Merge & Redirect, though EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, scholarships abound, and this one just has a famous name, not independent notability. If merged per above, do not include the list of recipients. --Dhartung | Talk 22:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletions. -- CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a local scholarship, available only at three colleges in Iowa. The list of recipients, almost all red links, is an indication of non-notability.,02:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Delete At best this should be a sentance in the Matthew Shepard article. If kept, then we should include any scholarship offered Jmcnamera 03:47, 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. AKRadecki 19:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Winter SWATriplex-18[edit]

Ain't no such thing. A web search turns up only the Wikipedia entry and various mirrors thereof. scot 17:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no claim to notability, no proof it exists. Nom is right that there's no on-line mention of it, though that's not proof... EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do believe most gun makers have websites these days. Someguy1221 21:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, lack of a website might just mean they're out of business, but the complete lack of mention on the web means they were almost certainly never in business, and it absolutely means that if they were, they're non-notable. Oddball guns often achieve notability just because they're oddball, such as the Dardick guns, Gyrojet and Liliput pistol. scot 21:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, the SWATriplex did exist, but only as a prototype. You can read a little bit about it and see photos in "The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons" (1st Ed). D.E. Watters 22:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Appears that it did exist in some form - I see reference to it on google groups a couple of years back in rec.guns - being in a 1979 issue of a gun magazine. Megapixie 22:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW: I just found an article about the SWATriplex's design by the inventor, John W. Winter. It can be found in the December 1979 issue of "Guns" magazine. Winter was a columnist for "Guns" during the late '70s to early '80s. The column was devoted to Winter's various experimental firearm designs. Also, in the late '70s, Winter was profiled in a cover story in "Guns" sister magazine, "American Handgunner." (I have yet to dig out that particular issue from my collection.) D.E. Watters 23:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, article still needs a rewrite, and it seems you're the only one with access to detailed sources ;-) Someguy1221 23:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, since you twisted my arm, I went ahead and wrote up a stub using the information that I had. BTW: Mr. Winter's profile in "American Handgunner" was published in the May/June 1979 issue. The positive reader response to this article led to the introduction of Winter's "Guns" magazine column in the October 1979 issue. D.E. Watters 04:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bit is it notable? Some prototypes, such as DWM's .45 ACP Luger, are notable due to some historical or other significance. Radical designs can also result in a collector' market, but generally only if there was enough production to allow a collector market. Since it was a prototype, odd but possibly not revolutionary in design, and there's only one source, that argues against notability. scot 13:56, 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 Delete - (please kick me if I screwed up the close) —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Q.U.E.S.T.[edit]

overlong, in-joke-ridden tract describing single column in non-notable student newspaper. tomasz. 17:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Even Fails CSD Part A7, according to my interpretation. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 18:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no assertion of notability, no sources. So tagged. Nenyedi, AFD discussions aren't votes per se, but a search for consensus, so we don't number our comments. ---Dhartung | Talk 20:44, 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. AKRadecki 19:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles H. Dillemuth[edit]

Biography that does not assert notability outside of a extremely small region. Article reads like an obituary because the primary sources are family contributed newspaper obituaries that do not pass as a reliable source. waffle iron ^talk 17:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep You said "Biography that does not assert notability outside of a extremely small region.", implying that it DOES assert notability inside a certain region. The subject may not be broadly notable, but if someone in that region wanted information, it would be a good page. I do agree however that the article does need some cleanup. --Nenyedi ^TalkDeeds_@ 18:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It was determined in March or April that congressional nominees of either major party automatically met "notability". Mr. Dillemuth's involvement in some fifteen civic activities should also be considered. If this is deleted, then what about Gloria Williams Hearn?

Billy Hathorn 19:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO. Greatest notability is as a failed candidate for Congress. As for "Realtor of the Year" ... --Dhartung | Talk 20:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The statement, "It was determined in March or April that congressional nominees of either major party automatically met 'notability'" is patently false. There's never been any such determination, and, in fact, each of the four times the subject has come up on WP:BIO discussion pages, the majority sentiment has been exactly the opposite: that such individuals are not notable automatically. Dillemuth may yet meet WP:N in his own right. (Per Dhartung, this article certainly does not establish him as such, but I also like to try to look into it myself before I make a final decision, and I haven't had time to do that yet.) But if he is, the reason wouldn't be any such automatic determination. Mwelch 20:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. OK, after looking for more about him and not finding it, I'll go with delete. I have nothing but respect for DGG's opinion, but even a lot of those who do support congressional major party nominees being considered notable have offered the rationale that their status as major party nominee must mean there are adequate non-trivial reliable sources out there about them. I'm just not sure that I buy that. Today . . . maybe. But a candidate from almost 50 years ago? I'm not convinced. I certainly could be wrong in having my doubts about that. But if I am . . . hey, show me the sources, and I'll certainly change my opinion. Mwelch 16:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. By the way, very good point about Gloria Williams Hearn. I looked and she's no more notable than Dillemuth. Her election loss was just last year and I still don't really see anything out there about her that's both independent and non-trivial. (So once again, I really, really don't buy the "Losing major party congressional candidates should be assumed to be WP:N because there must be plenty of sources out there about them" argument.) I've gone ahead and nominated her article for deletion. Mwelch 23:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was my suggestion in March that congressional nominees of a major party ought to be considered notable, but the consensus at the time was otherwise. I'd still like to see the practice changed, but it is unfortunately has not been. DGG 02:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to meet N or BIO and the article reads like a memorial.--Kubigula (talk) 18:08, 28 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. AKRadecki 19:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sloshball[edit]

I can't find any good reliable sources about this; many in the article are either college newspapers or sites with user-contributed content. Google News search shows 2 extremely tangential mentions. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - i actually started/stubbed this article a few years ago (but no, i don't own it :-) ). today i am kind of embarrassed to say i did, and recently considered AFDing it. an editor sprang up though and took up the article as part of his class and i had renewed hope for it. after these efforts however i still believe it's non-notable - no reliable sources could be found. i would love someone to prove me wrong though, *shrug*. JoeSmack ^Talk 21:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and lacking sources. Kudos to User:JoeSmack for actually voting delete on an article he created. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As the current Sloshball article editor, I agree that it should be deleted. There were very few dependable sources and scrounging up information on it was not an easy thing. However this is an article being graded on Wednesday May 23, 2007 for just strictly the content, so if we could delete it after then or take this petition to delete down for just a day I would appreciate it and so would my grade. I know this is a rather odd request but to who ever put this up if you could just take it down till one more day, it would really help me out. After that feel free to delete it. Sloshball
- AFD discussions normally run for at least five days, so even if the determination is to delete, the article should survive at least until the 27th. Deor 01:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The revisions made since the last version turn this from barely acceptable work to a real contribution. The research is extensive, from a variety of sources and kinds of sources, the organization is clear and logically sequential, the tone is neutral, sober and yet a bit whimsical as appropriate to the subject, and the final advice is tolerant but sensible.

I believe the article will get considerable use and that readers will find it helpful. I give it an A grade.

In earlier versions, I might have agreed with commentators, including one of the authors, that the article should be considered for deletion. At this stage deleting it seems to me unfair and ill-advised. The reasons for deletion offered at the deletion discussion page would apply to any of the articles in the series prominently featured as "Popular Drinking Games." Rudolph2007 17:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - you're right! it would apply to many in the articles on {{Drinking games}}! any that do should be tagged for deletion as well. i'm at work right now, anyone have time to throw up some AfD tags? JoeSmack ^Talk 22:03, 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. WjBscribe 01:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of controversial album covers[edit]

Tagged as missing sources for a long time, this page's title is a problem unto itself. I don't think a neutral formulation of "controversial" is possible, nor do I think this list of otherwise unrelated content really adds any information. Verges on an "indiscriminate collection of information." (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak keep Well it makes a okay article although it would be a much better category. But with out sources I just don't think I can give it full support. (It would need a pretty massive amount of sources)--St.daniel ^Talk 17:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per nom. I, too, have my doubts about being able to conform to a WP:NPOV with the word "controversial", except maybe if enough reliable sources refer to something as being controversial. However, as it stands, there are no sources on this article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting idea, there have been many, but it would need a lot of work.--Gloriamarie 17:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really Weak Keep could be a good article if separated into sections (i.e. religion, nudity etc) and actually expanded on why some of the covers were controversial. As it is, it's pointless. Give it time to expand, and if it comes back to AfD in a few months time in the same state, then get rid of it. EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of any possible objective definition of "controversial," the lack of sourcing and the whiff of original research. Otto4711 18:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Exactly my thoughts.--Whs tc hy 18:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've copied the text into my userspace and I'll have a go at making an article of it. Looking at the individual records, there doesn't seem to be a huge amount of WP:OR and I think it could make an interesting and encyclopedic article - but not as a pure list. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The titled article would fail as WP:OR. The perceived intended article which is List of banned/censored album covers is something that could be passed if sourced. If sourced should be renamed and kept. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yep. some of the "controversies" are real storm in a teacup stuff, and I'll remove them. EliminatorJR ^Talk 09:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this can never be objectively defined Kernel Saunters 22:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to provide a definition of controversial in context. No references are provided, and the subject matter of the list itself is too general anyway. CloudNine 11:31, 27 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. PeaceNT 18:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dannatt[edit]

Notability not asserted or evident Decoratrix 17:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notability not asserted? Played at the highest level of his (professional) sport and represented his country. Not a huge amount on the web, though, probably needs expanding by a Hull fan with access to paper sources. I've edited the article slightly as it wasn't even clear which sport he played.EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What El.Jr. said. tomasz. 20:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Easily meets WP:BIO for athletes, having both played in a fully professional league and achieved representative honours at the highest level. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and expand as it definitely meets WP:BIO for athletes. Unfortunately, I'm not a Hull fan (whatever the Hull that means), so I'll leave the expansion to someone else. I did remove a bit of non-NPOV though. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 21:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it seems that the only problem of the article is its size. I would improve it myself, but I haven't even heard of the Hulls... :) *Cremepuff 222* 23:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability not asserted? Representing GB at a major sport seem to assert plenty notability to me. - fchd 16:40, 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 without prejudice to recreation once it is released and there is something to base an article on. WjBscribe 01:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Momma's Boy[edit]

Crystal-ball-ism on an unreleased book, blatant advertising. Nekohakase 18:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This here's a press release. unsourced, not necessarily even out. tomasz. 20:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, until the book is released and sources can be possibly found. *Cremepuff 222* 23:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On one hand, this should be speedy deleted as blatant advertising. On the other hand, it's already receiving some coverage, e.g. [22] [23] and most likely this meets the criteria of WP:BK. Pascal.Tesson 03:32, 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 - no sourced content to merge. WjBscribe 01:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FoolProof Security[edit]

Non notable security program that hasn't had an updated release in over five years Rackabello 17:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being old doesn't make the program non-notable, but the article doesn't even assert notability or cite any sources. EALacey 19:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Riverdeep. Without sourcing this cannot survive as a standalone article. TerriersFan 19:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Someguy1221 21:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I thought I might be able to improve this article, but I found it quite impossible. The only sources that I could find on the web stated what the article did: where and when it was founded, and the system requirements. This alone proves that the subject isn't notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. *Cremepuff 222* 23:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Riverdeep even if notability (doubtful) can be established. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 01:27, 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 - no independent sources to show notability of book or author. WjBscribe 02:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Road Letters[edit]

An unencyclopedic entry for a self-published book that fails WP:BK. The creation of Pribaudo, a single purpose user whose only other contribution has been the creation of Phil Ribaudo, an article on the author of The Road Letters. Victoriagirl 17:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page as it fails WP:BIO:

Delete both as non-notable book and author, possible WP:COI too. By the way, I fixed the "Related article 1" link for you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as non-notable Bigdaddy1981 17:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per my nomination (and suspected WP:COI). Victoriagirl 18:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, nn book/author + ~~poss.~~ almost certain self-promotion. Would still run if i saw him with a kitchen knife, mind. tomasz. 21:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, non-notable author and a non-notable book by a non-notable author. Seems to me like self-promotion... *Cremepuff 222* 23:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete either, Does not fail:WP:BK or WP:BIO
Pribaudo, NEW user whose FIRST contribution has been the creation of Phil Ribaudo, an article on the author of The Road Letters.
Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and a 1000 other notable, non self-promoting places are selling this book. The book has significant importance. Raises: Breast Cancer, Social awareness. The book is currently being review by Hollywood producers to be made into a major motion picture. Phil Ribaudo is anything but not-notable—do your homework! Read the book if there's a question.

Who is the judge of significance?
Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia to share and educate—why are you trying to prevent that???
tomasz. would run if he would see him with a knife—grow up!

NickAnthony.22 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Notice that my serious reasons to delete this brace of articles are spelled out in the sentence before my "hilarious" commentary. The fact i said latter doesn't alter in the smallest part the legitimacy of the former. and thanks very much for nicking my sig, P"Jolly Roger"ribaudo, you can stop fronting like it's not you now. tomasz. 05:56, 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. WjBscribe 02:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper McVain[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC, minor musician - totally non-notable. The page reads as vanity, no independent non-trivial verifiable sources, Myspace as a link puts the top hat on it. My deletion tag was removed so here we are. Delete as nominator Bigdaddy1981 16:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:MUSIC; no independant, reliable sources, and seems to not have made any major accomplishments throughout its life as a band (unless you count being on the Venture Brothers...). *Cremepuff 222* 23:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jasper McVanity. A1octopus 15:47, 25 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. WjBscribe 02:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Ellquist[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Delete See previous nom. GreenJoe 16:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Co-chair of Arizona Green Party. The nom is AfDing, prodding or speedy tagging a majority of Green Party member articles. Could be a bad faith nom. --Oakshade 16:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. I just saw a lot of non-notable entries in the cat. --GreenJoe 16:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Key words are "could be". That kind of single-party deltion effort cannot be ignored. Not uncivil at all. --Oakshade 16:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's uncivil when you put it in multiple afd's. GreenJoe 16:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Information of a possible deletion agenda should not be kept hidden from other AfDs. All editors can make up their own minds. --Oakshade 16:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --GreenJoe 16:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you bringing a straw man into this? I don't see the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or WP:POKEMON arguments being used here. --Oakshade 16:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all, regardless of the "agenda" or lack of one on the part of the nominating editor, AfD discussions should focus on arguments about the article and its suitability for this encyclopedia, not how it ended up here for discussion. Sancho 17:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. An unsuccessful candidate for county attorney is not notable. Her co-chair status of the Arizona Green Party (which according to the article has only has 2 county organizations) is not relevant and it's not clear that this party has any affiliation with the national one (If it is affiliated, it should probably be deleted as not notable; I note that there are no parallel articles Arizona Democratic Party (except for a stub with a logo) or Arizona Republican Party and surely someone in Arizona votes those ways). Carlossuarez46 22:18, 16 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 15:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, her political involvement in itself dosn't make her notable, but I think her political activities do. I did some background research on her, and it seems that she is pretty well-known for her anti-death penalty beliefs. *Cremepuff 222* 23:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment quite possibly so, but it's not clear from he article, which just says she had them and campaigned on them. DGG 03:22, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mourning Online[edit]

Fairly unclear situation here, so I'm removing the prod (which removed a speedy tag) and taking it to AFD. This article has been around in one form or another since August 2005. Back in March it looked more like this, with some judicious trimming as the websites have gone down, etc. I'm not entirely comfortable with deleting something that was once making news just because the ephemeral web-links are disappearing, so I abstain. -- nae'blis 15:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain - I replaced the speedy with the prod, but I suspect that the original speedy tag was placed ina WP:POINT tantrum, so I abstain. DarkSaber2k 15:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - dubious sourcing, probable WP:CRYSTAL violation, about a technology that little is known about and may not either work or exist. Yeah, not so much. Otto4711 18:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most links lead back to pure speculation and heresay with no factual evidence backing up anything. For example - the link leading to a supposed "legal threat" is nothing more than a link back to a satire or joke website with some "supposed" email text correspondence. Not to mention the fact that the posting of email correspondence on a public forum can be considered a violation of privacy laws and can be grounds for legal action. This page looks like nothing more than an attempt at defaming something or someone.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sosoman78 (talk • contribs) circa 13:31-13:35, May 22, 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Ignoring the amusing legal spat with Something Awful, all signs point to this project being vaporware - nothing's been heard from them since 2005 or so, and the company web site is down - and as the game wasn't particularly notable before then, there's nothing left to write about. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, lacking in proper sources, appears to be close to vaporware. Gwernol 13:23, 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.

And once again, Wikipedia has deleted an article on something I wanted to research for no apparent reason. God damn you people are idiots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.172.137 (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Daniel .Bryant 06:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Hana[edit]

This is an article about a homeless person, Ben Hana. I could find articles about homeless people from all over the wrold. On the page he is talked about as if he was spritual medium. He was arreted a last year for drunk driving(what a suprise). He said he was not driving the unregistered Toyota he vandalized but a 'Waka'. When he reported for community service he could not work becuase he was required to wear shoes, which he says he has not done in seven years.

Why is this bum and a criminal on here? Is this what wikpedia has resorted to? Lets take him off for godsake!--MD1954 16:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was incomplete. Fixed now. Yomangani ^talk 14:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be enough reliable sources to validate him, plus he seems to be the New Zealand equivalent of the Shakespeare Lady. Wildthing61476 16:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is an encyclopedia, not a compendium of agreeable people. hateless 17:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - he is notable within Wellington and maybe slightly wider in NZ, although a tad annoying. --Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 20:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Midnighttonight remind to go do uni work! 20:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Being homeless or a criminal does not make him any less important to Wellington. There are plently of articles in WP about criminals. --Roue2 00:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never would have guessed this before reading the article, but Keep. Seems sufficiently notable. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Widely noted within Wellington and sufficiently notable in the wider NZ press. In fact, no reason to consider this AfD has been given: it's not being claimed he doesn't meet WP:BIO, just that the article is about a homeless person and that somehow this lowers Wikipedia. I'll assume good faith, but I find MD1954's reasoning at the top there to be pretty insulting. --Dom 19:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relatively Semi-Adequate Keep. This is not just any homeless person...he's on Wikipedia as an eccentric celebrity, and we have plenty of those that nobody deletes. Also, considering the grammatical and spelling errors you have made, you have not thought out this deletion thoroughly. The reason for deletion is weak.--Dch111 01:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for all reasons posted above. - Axver 07:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if wiki has crim's why not have it. pwapwap 18.36 23 October 2006

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lehigh University trivia[edit]

trivia from a college forked into its own article. Plenty of trivia articles on more notable subjects have been deleted, and this violates WP:TRIVA and various elements of WP:NOT Biggspowd 15:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This would be a fantastic sort of article if this were, say, the Trivial Pursuit Study Guide. But, it's Wikipedia, and a trivia guide is something that we are not. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there's anything that notable in there, put it into the Lehigh University article, and not in a trivia section. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 16:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The information should be inserted into the Lehigh article-- I remember looking at the Lehigh article a few months ago and it's pretty short compared to many university articles. It could use some expansion.--Gloriamarie 17:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:TRIVIA. Corvus cornix 23:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Someguy1221 03:05, 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, ye sinners! DS 18:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of sins[edit]

A laundry list with no substantive encyclopaedic content. Reads like an essay or OR (in fact, see bottom of the page, where it says, "Compiled by: Dr Mohan C Thomas" — this article was created by User:Drmohancthomas). Severa (!!!) 14:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete list of sins is subject to interpretation and the term is too broad, it would include sins of other religions and of course it is not encyclopedic.--Janarius 14:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. Nothing in the article is verifed by multiple non trivial sources (not that it could be). The only source listed is the Bible and surely we aren't going to set precedent by allowing articles to exist solely on their connection to biblical passages. My only hope is that this discussion does not degenerate to the point that we are discussing the Bible's merit as a reputable source. --Cyrus Andiron 15:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is actually borderline A1 speedy material as there is no real context to this article. "Murmuring" is listed as a sin, but what is that supposed to mean? "Discouraged"? What? No context, no article. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm afraid I don't trust the bible as a reliable third party source in the slightest, seeing as it's criticized so heavily for its ambiguity and being open to any interpretation. If this stayed, there'd probably be countless edit wars about other sins which might be suggested by the book, depending on how you read the passage (and what translation). And as Arkyan said, if it were much shorter, it would fall under CSD A1. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 16:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Penitential, of course.--Ioannes Pragensis 16:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. WP:OR out the wazooty here -- possible WP:SOAP too, given the article's creator. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:59, 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 06:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pink Floyd ROIOs[edit]

Listcruft. Arbitrary listing of mostly non-notable Pink Floyd bootleg recordings. WP is not a directory listing. Fails WP:MUSIC. The Parsnip! 14:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Decoratrix 17:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - quite apart of the suitability of the list, this is pure OR (right down to the "excellent quality" comments). There's a place for this on the internet but not here. (BTW in this context RoIO isn't the same as bootleg - an RoIO is one where the copyright status is unclear, while a bootleg is a known copyvio) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:31, 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. Sr 13 23:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game 5 of 2007 Eastern Conference Finals[edit]

Artcile about overtime of a playoff hockey game being preempted for a horse race pre-show. While this is a controversial game for hockey fans, the event (which ended about 4 days ago) really hasn't had enough time to be written and talked about to be really considered significant and notable outside of the hockey community. This game already has a mention over at Heidi game, which seems to be enough for this event. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While this personally infuriated me on Saturday, its not worthy of its own article. A brief mention at 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs might be in order, but that's about it. ccwaters 14:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RECENT, etc. Mention it at 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs, and recreate if anyone at all remembers it in a couple years. BoojiBoy 15:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not Sports Illustrated. This information has no business hanging out in an article on its own and at best belongs within the context of the 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs article. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per norm Kaiser matias 15:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per comments of Ccwaters, BoojiBoy and Arkyan. Flibirigit 15:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above; this places undue weight (never mind the coining of a neologism) on an event that has not, in fact, yet demonstrated any widespread notoriety. (Me, I just flipped the dial to Versus) Fully half the long article discusses unrelated incidents better described in a Preempted sporting events on TV article, presuming Wikipedia doesn't already have one. RGTraynor 15:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' A lot of these events are listed at Heidi Game. It seems there are enough events to make a separate article. Patken4 21:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the good reasons above. --Djsasso 15:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. While I have seen at least three reliable sources describing the controversy surrounding this, there really is no reason why this needs it's own article at this point. It can be given a paragraph at 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs and 2006-07 Buffalo Sabres season, though in the case of the latter, I am not sure if the game was preempted in Buffalo itself. Resolute 17:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the Buffalo NBC affiliate stayed with the game. That was mentioned in one of the articles. I wouldn't be surprised if Rochester WHEC stayed on as well. ccwaters 17:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, the game definitely stayed on in Buffalo. In fact, I had no idea this had even happened until I heard Jim Rome talking about it the next day. Skudrafan1 17:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. GoodDay 17:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Skudrafan1 17:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; agree with Resolute above. Elrith 18:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not going to bother voting, seems set as to what will happen, but what NBC did was rather stupid in my opinion.--Whs tc hy 20:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a poor quality single game article without any of the proper infobox formatting for important games. However, this game is more important than the Heidi game. Actually, the article does not really cover the details of the game very well. It focusses on the controversy. Any decisive Stanley Cup Conference finals game is important enough to warrant an article, if done well. Many merge destinations could contain a synthesis of this poor quality article including 2006-07_Buffalo_Sabres_season, 2007 Stanley Cup Playoffs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs)
Delete. This event has already been added to the Heidi Game article. As RGTraynor says above, it could be added to a new article about sporting events that have been preempted. Patken4 21:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 21:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete haha, oh you poor American hockey fans. The victims of idiocy in the NHL front-office and their suck-uppetry to the apathetic NBC brass, kinda like a nerd doing the jock's homework, blindly hoping that the jock will finally befriend him. You guys can all hike up to here to Canada, where we got so much hockey up our televised wazoo, that they aren't even showing my blasted Blue Jays because of the Memorial Cup... anyways I've had my piece, I vote delete as per all the reasons above and I'm gonna go watch Game 6 of Detroit-Anaheim now without any fear of it being cut off prematurely. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 00:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well ... in the network's defense, horse racing is a good bit more popular than hockey is in the US these days. It reminds me vividly of listening to a radio sports show in Hartford where a caller complained that Whalers games were preempted for UConn basketball, and the moderator (Chuck Kaiton, who's been the Hartford/Carolina radio announcer since WHA days) drily responded that a hell of a lot more fans cared about the national champion Huskies than about the Forever .500s. RGTraynor 13:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And yet the NHL still bows to NBC's every desire. Hmmmmmm.... Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 01:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. --Pparazorback 23:49, 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, as redundant to the category, without the sourcing. Sr 13 00:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Towns Western Australia[edit]

Content is straight copy-paste from existing town articles (without wikimarkup). Subject is better dealt with through a new Category:Ghost towns in Western Australia (subcat of Category:Ghost towns in Australia)

Creator made a total of six WP edits in January and has not returned. —Moondyne 14:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the deletion is supported and the proposal for the new category is excellent. Satu Suro 15:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- —Moondyne 15:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to the category. For what it's worth I'd not have supported the creation of the subcat, there really aren't enough articles in this category to warrant it and would ahve been better served by the parent category. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can foresee another dozen or so articles eventually going into the subcat, but I do take your point and would not oppose a speedy merge back into the parent cat if there is consensus here to do so. —Moondyne 16:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SYNTH the article, though I can think of a dozen towns off hand that would go into that subcategory. Gnan garra 16:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I think an interesting, informative and encyclopaedic article could be made on this topic that would not be redundant to the category, this article is none of those things. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 22:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. John Vandenberg 00:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there could be a good article on this, it is merely a cut and paste of the articles on the towns minus the sourcing. Capitalistroadster 02:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should be the category instead to ensure minimum redundancy - the cut'n'pasted articles are already four months out of date. Orderinchaos 12:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create category per nom. JRG 23:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment category should only be created if there are reliable references that the towns mentioned fit somebody's definition of a ghost town.Ga rr ie 03:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, much better grouped using a category. Lankiveil 23:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep for the present - I commonly oppose the retention of lists where a category would be better. However this is a case where a case where a list is useful, because a list can have red links showing where an article is needed. The first few items in this list have substantive text and articles of their own, but the last few do not. I would suggest converting this to List of West Australian Ghost Towns, and deleting the material that appears in separate articles on specific towns. Peterkingiron 22:29, 26 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 Doc glasgow. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kabalyero[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially not for languages other than English, and references are missing. High on a tree 14:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (and so tagged) - No context; does not even say what language this is in. If it's supposed to be Spanish, it's misspelled. ◄Zahakiel ► 14:50, 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. WjBscribe 02:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huges Kesteman[edit]

Notability not asserted. No sources. Decoratrix 14:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless third-party reliable references are provided. Propaniac 16:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable Corpx 19:19, 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 Discounting the SPAs and "this is useful" arguments, whats left is No Consensus. —Ocatecir ^Talk 03:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xmonad[edit]

Non-notable window manager written about a month ago. Was spammed all over the internet, but now that all the Ooh's and Ahh's are over, it seems it doesn't belong on WP after all. Estimated userbase: <25 and unlikely to gain much more. Catofax 10:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vaguely reliable source here, but I'd say it falls under the category of "trivial", consisting as it does of less than 3 lines of text. JulesH 15:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

I know I can't vote, but the number of lines don't shows that something are trivial, specially in functional programming, when less is more. I am not sure if this work is really notable, but it's a great piece of software. I also think the user base will increase with the time, so wp-en should not be so greedy to delete. --189.12.138.73 05:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The window manager is particularly interesting due to its use of a purely functional programming language, Haskell, and semi-formal methods to ensure correctness (notably, QuickCheck, and an unusual 'zipper' data structure internally) -- a first for a window manager. Due to these interesting implementation techniques, it can be radically distinguished from other window managers.
Articles and coverage since the 0.1 release
A recent article on its design
The window manager has been the subject of a mechanical proof, by an external researcher, for correctness of the window manager's internal logic, a significant reference.

It is also unclear how catofax reached the user base conclusion of "<25 and unlikely to gain much more.", as the irc channel alone has grown to 30 in the last week, and the mailing list to over 60 users. Without stronger justification, and given the application being referenced as a subject of research, growing discussion and analysis of it by external parties, and the technical innovation of the application itself, deletion seems particularly unwarranted. Finally, similar, yet less technically interesting window managers, such as Dwm happily have entries on WP. 220.233.48.34 14:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The applications of QuickCheck and Catch are not interesting. The window manager is trivial, and a fully developed human being with moderate programming experience should be able to verify correctness without resorting to convulved automatic checking. The application of the Zipper structure is not interesting either - since the amount of data is small the updates could be O(x^x) and there would be no performance hit. XMonad cannot be radically distinguished from other window managers - it is essentially dwm rewritten in Haskell but with even less features.

The #xmonad population consists largely of lurkers, including dwn, dmenu, dzen, ion developers, most of which do not use XMonad. Moreover, blogs are not press.

Finally, I note that writing a window manager is sort of a rite-of-passage in unix circles, and that many of the window managers with pages on WP do not in fact belong on WP, and I intend to prune the list as time allows.

Catofax 09:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with your assertions. Most channels have a lot of lurkers. The use of QuickCheck has caught numerous bugs; the user of zippers has simplified Xmonad considerably - before, the devs had bumped the LoC limit up to 550 to fit everything in, but with the zipper changes, it's back down to ~500 (so it's the first real use of zippers that I know of and the use had nontrivial effects for the codebase). And if correctness is so very easy for any decent programmer - why do so many window managers keep having bugs? For such a simple task, as you seem to think of it, it has tripped up a surprising number of programmers. --Gwern (contribs) 16:59 18 May 2007 (GMT)

Disagree. The Zipper is not used for performance reasons -- but to embed window manager focus behaviour directly in the data structure, leading to simpler code, and code that is easier to automatically test -- a main development goal of the project. The automated testing and proofs are novel and critical to the development project, as they test a side-effect heavy program like a window manager, and continue to catch bugs as the code is developed, ensuring the unstable branch is more stable than in similar projects. The Catch proof alone is significant: there are simply no other similar projects with automated proofs of their behaviour, and such levels of assurance. Xmonad is entirely unique in this respect. 220.233.48.34 00:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While not relevant to the question of the merit of the page under discussion, Catofax's unsourced assertion that the IRC channel is mostly lurkers disagrees with the only available evidence, the logs, which indicate of the 31 irc users, 21 have written more than 30 lines of text in the last 4 weeks, and 51 unique users have contributed text. The second assertion, about the number of users of the application, is entirely unverifiable: it is simply impossible to know. Unsourced assertions by Catofax regarding user base, and glaring misunderstandings of key contributions documented in the article, such as the the zipper or correctness proofs, only emphasise that the nomination was made in bad faith, based entirely on incitement from the 4chan forum, ["Haskell bullshit on Wikipedia"]. 220.233.48.34 04:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find this entry useful and informative. It is humorous to imply a lack of reliable sources when everything stated can be directly verified from the source code itself.

TomMD 15:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as the author of the article, I've got to agree with the anons. I wrote on Xmonad because it's one of the more popular pieces of Haskell software (especially given how young it is), that it was intrinsically interesting. I've edited the article and hopefully more fully brought out the subject's points of interest and novelty. I don't think it lacks notability any more than do dwm, larswm, StumpWM, etc. and I'm disappointed to see a more than usually interesting one singled out for AfD.

I particularly commend to the closing admin a reading of this 4chan thread, "Haskell bullshit on Wikipedia", and a look at Catofax's contributions. In short, this looks to me like a bad-faith nomination by a single-purpose throwaway account. --Gwern (contribs) 22:48 17 May 2007 (GMT)

I have been using XMonad from the onset on my laptop and think it is rather neat. I also think it is not notable enough to be included in WP, and take issue in the way it was spammed everyhwere. I think this AFD soft of demonstrates the non-notablity with the lack of votes: nobody seems to care either way!

While this is indeed a new account, because I do not wish to be identified in the Haskell community (otherwise nice people) it is not necessarily a throw-away account (like always, that depends on my level of disgust when this finished.) I did try to do this accountless, but WP would not let me. Catofax 09:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most AfDs don't get many votes. If it gets as many as ten, it's doing very well. Also, you can't create an AfD as an anon because page creation for anons was disabled back during the Seigenthaler incident. --Gwern (contribs) 16:59 18 May 2007 (GMT)

Keep I think that functional programming is an important research domain in computer science, and that systems-level functional programs are often important demonstrations of what can be done. The number of regular users is not the point - the research is the point.Bhimaji 23:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No other window manager on the site is up for deletion, including crap like XWEM. What's this really about? 209.149.58.156

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 14:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article presents useful information about a window manager that is doing a lot of noatable things (zippers, functional programming, automatic testing, formal verification) - at the same time as being used by people for real tasks. Responding to Catofax: the suggestion that "automatic checking" can be "convoluted" (high complex to who? its automatic!), and that a "fully developed human being" can "verify correctness" shows a lack of understanding as to the current state of computer science. --NeilMitchell 16:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or just possibly merge). Xmonad's launch was mentioned in a short article on OSNews (see http://www.osnews.com/story.php/17744/Xmonad-a-Tiling-Window-Manager-Written-in-Haskell) which suggests that it is notable. The content is informative and probably deserves its own article. However, if another editor comes up with a good suggestion on merging, then I would consider it. Greenshed 22:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rewrite As it is now, the article contains no information as to why this is somehow a notable program. If someone can explain in the article why this is notable, then I'll vote Keep. Elrith 00:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "This emphasis makes Xmonad unique in a number of ways; besides being the first window manager written in Haskell, it is also the first to use the zipper data structure for managing focus, and its core has been proven to be safe with respect to pattern matches...." --Gwern (contribs) 00:41 23 May 2007 (GMT)

Yes, and are these things somehow notable? If they are, this needs to be somehow explained in the article. Elrith 00:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use of Haskell is notable as it is one of the first non-academic projects with a focus on practicality to make use of Haskell. The pattern-match checking means that XMonad has a formal proof that its core will never crash - something which makes it very notable indeed. Perhaps a section on the formal proofs, testing and derivation strategies would improve the article and bring out the unique aspects.--NeilMitchell 01:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's rubbish, and you know it. There are plenty of such projects. Permit me to name a few: Conjure, FRAG, darcs, hmp3, lambdabot, HAppS, TagSoup, Cabal... These are the ones I've used, and there are a lot more [24]. Futhermore, application of Catch (and I note that you are the author) may or may not (who verifies the verifier?) catch inexaustive pattern match errors - XMonad can crash for any number of other reasons that have nothing to do with this (and in fact I've had it crash once, which is one more crash than other window manager as far as I can remember).Catofax 09:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darcs meets the criteria I mentioned, as does HAppS. Lambdabot might, but I don't think any of the others do - and I wrote one of the things on that list :-). I am indeed the author of Catch, and the question of verifying the checker is a difficult one - the intention is to generate input for a theorem prover, along with a semantics of Haskell and a formal proof that Catch is correct. If you want to know more about Catch either email me or go on the Haskell IRC channel (I'm ndm), as this isn't really the place to go into detail on it.--NeilMitchell 20:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article goes far deeper in technical detail than any similar project's article (see ion, dwm, wmii), provides many useful references, and does a good job of highlighting the novel aspects (formal methods, automated testing, unusual data structures, extensibility via Haskell). 220.233.48.34 01:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if we have any principles besides ILIKEIT. There are zero third party sources, reliable or otherwise. It's being kept not even on the basis of OR--on the basis of personal belief based on personal experiences that it is an important program.

Neil, reference one in the article is from your own blog.

Reference two is from the program manual, and that is all the references there are.

The first group of external links is the program's own site, divided up into homepage and press releases

The second external link is from the programming language site, the third is a blog with a long thread of personal experiences with the product

The fourth and fifth are descriptions from the guy who wrote the program, and the sixth is a newsletter for those who use the programming language.

This is the epitome of COI: the subject is important because we who are working with it say so, and we've said so before in the blogosphere, and if that's not enough we'll explain right here at AfD just why it's important--

As the guideline on self-written autobiographies says, if it's important, someone else will say so. When I've argued before that blogs were acceptable sources for internet things, I didn't mean that one's own blog was acceptable as a source for one's own program. If such are the standards, all the Arbuthnots are notable because kitty has a web site on them, and because some members of the family have compiled books about each other. All the Louisiana politicians are notable because Billy wrote a thesis about them which he can now cite, and has recorded where their tombstones are.

Ironically, just as perhaps some of the Arbuthnots may actually have done important things, but KB hasn't done the research to find out, this may be important and there may be discussions from those who are not themselves working on or with the program--but the article makes no attempts to find them. A nice looking windowing program like this might well have been noticed in the trade press. DGG 03:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under what criteria are any of the window manager pages on WP suitable? Barely any provide external references, other than their own web sites. The Xmonad article would seem to be the most well referenced, citing the OSnews article, the HWN article, and Neil's work on pattern match verification (who is neither a user nor developer of xmonad) -- so it is odd that it is singled out, trying as it does to provide a useful, referenced article. See for comparison pages on dwm, wmii, Ratpoison, TrsWM, XWEM -- all cite merely the project's own web page. Why delete the most thorough article in its class? Should the technical/blog references be reduced? 220.233.48.34 04:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten some paragraphs to refer to the external sources directly. I hope this eases concerns. 220.233.48.34 05:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The external sources are not independent, and so this does not erase the concerns. The people who work with the program telling each other about it. An article on other subjects with sources of this nature would be rapidly deleted without much argument. WP seems to be asked to make an exception on this subject, because of the acknowledged technical competence of the various editors here.

It could perhaps reasonably be argued that these are the only available sources, that knowledge of such programs is diffused in this manner, and that the importance is shown by the impressiveness of the work itself. I'd be willing to accept such a completere-orientation of the notability rules if we accepted this for all phenomena and projects that have similarly blog-based and self-publishing sources. I am open to the argument that anything adequately documented on its own terms should be included--I might even support it. What I do not accept is that it should apply only to this subject area DGG 02:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I quite like this analysis. The article in question makes a good-faith attempt to refer to the available material on its subject, and for web-based subjects like this, that often means internal documentation, blogs, and maybe trade articles based on blogs. I'd imagine many software projects already on WP are in fact, in this class? 220.233.48.34 03:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is this any different than any other software product particularly one that is prerelease. The Windows Vista article was started 19 September 2003. What in your argument wouldn't have applied then? jbolden1517 ^Talk 09:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This one is clear cut. I admit it probably got listed too soon. However I'm getting 44600 google hits on it. And I when I check they are genuine articles. Reviews, people excited about future versions, a tutorial on X window manager user xmonad as an example. And this is for a 0.1 version! I think we keep and revisit in 2-3 years. We have no idea of this thing pans out but at this point its notable enough and obviously becoming more so quickly. jbolden1517 ^Talk 16:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that it was spammed surprisingly well, but it's still trivial and non-notable, and does not (yet) belong on WP by a large margin. Catofax 06:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In case anyone's counting. Catofax 06:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think as the nominator it's safely assumed you voted delete. :) --Gwern (contribs) 14:15 25 May 2007 (GMT)
Comment The article's changed quite a lot since I originally !voted 'delete'. The program in question now appears to be an interesting academic excercise, even if it isn't particularly notable as a window manager. However, I'm still tending towards deletion. My primary reason for this is that all of the sources other than the OSNews article are self-published, and aren't reliable sources. Specifically, the interesting aspects of this project can only be verified from (1) the project's own web page or (2) the blogs of two students, one of whom is one of the project's authors and is therefore not independent. My suggestion: delete for now, bring the article back if and when something more substantial (e.g. a conference paper) is published on the subject. JulesH 13:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will definitely appear in my thesis, in some detail, by Christmas. I suspect it will also appear in a conference paper before then.--NeilMitchell 22:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- original submitter of deletion request is exercising some agenda based with no basis

I think you will find my basis to be quite orthonormal and sturdy :) Catofax 11:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that you as nominator have moved from "it doesn't belong on WP" to "does not (yet) belong on WP". The 4chan thread where you tell the mob you have AfD the article, along with the fact no other wm pages are up for deletion, makes your motivation highly suspect.

Stop grasping at straws. Here's what's what: (1) I'm not clairvoyant. XMonad may belong on WP in the future. (2) It's just me--I've never told anyone about this AfD. See these people voting keep? They're mostly associated with XMonad somehow. See the people voting delete? They're random Wikipedians. (3) XMonad is probably the least notable WM on here. If it stays there's no reason to AfD the others. If it goes, I'll start adding the others too. Hope that clears things up! Catofax 20:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can safely attest I have no idea how to write a window manager. jbolden1517 ^Talk 00:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I voted 'keep' and I don't know anybody associated with the project. In fact, I've never written anything in Haskell before. You're not going to AfD the others because, in your opinion, they're more notable but still don't belong? Strange reasoning. If they don't belong, AfD them and clean up as much as possible. Maybe you'll find that enough people disagree with you on the other WMs that everything stays. Bhimaji 22:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"probably the least notable WM on here". Have you even looked at the full list? For example, the array of window managers with single paragraph entries, pointing at their own website? It would appear xmonad is the best referenced, and one of the few that attempt to seriously justify notability. If notability was really your concern, you'd have nominated one or all of the obviously trivial articles such as Wm2, EvilPoison, HaZe or JWM. But you didn't. The xmonad article appears quite reasonable, and interesting!, by comparison. 220.233.48.34 00:46, 28 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 02:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watch Out, There's A Flying Pig![edit]

Non-notable bootleg recording. No acceptable independent sources and unverifiable. Fails WP:MUSIC The Parsnip! 14:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Decoratrix 14:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. random question: what's with all the pink floyd bootlegs popping up here lately? --Whstchy 20:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All the old goats are finally learning how to edit Wikipedia. :-) The Parsnip! 21:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Elrith 00:16, 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. >Radiant< 10:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Kitzrow[edit]

Not notable Croctotheface 04:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete credits are not sufficient as per WP:BIO for entertainers/actors. DarkAudit 04:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep "Boom shakalaka" is a word still used in Basketball today, and the man to credit is Mr. Kitzrow. His voice still appears in several notable video games, which may be enough to score him the "With significant role in notable films...and other productions" mark under WP:BIO, but not enough to make him a clear candidate for WP. Sens08 21:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better sources can be found. The IGN interview is a dead link, and the other interview doesn't really say much. Ford MF 07:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep and strongly recommend that the article's editors work to improve the article information, and update the links and references. Example: if he is notable, why does he not appear in the List of notable voice actors? And: if "Boomshakalaka" is a notable term, why is it not wikified? But I really hate to throw away useful information. The question is, will Tim Kitzrow "still" be "notable" in 5 years? 10? If so, then keep. Now - he does have an entry at IMDB - [25] which is at least a little notable, and which supports a keep. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 13:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not evident or asserted. Decoratrix 17:45, 22 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 14:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a notable person. If he is so notable, then how come there are hardly any articles on the video games he does? --Thekittybomb 15:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no-one's coming forward to add any further assertions of notability, it's consensus that what's there is insufficient; dleete and move on -- SockpuppetSamuelson

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 02:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xenofon Kavvadias[edit]

Reading the article, I did not manage to find any clue proving or indicating this artist's notability. My research in Google was even more disappointing. What makes this artist notable? Is there something more not mentioned in the article in question? Yannismarou 13:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not asserted. Decoratrix 14:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete borders on speedy for complete lack of notability. It asserts an award of indeterminate value, so just a regular delete today. Resolute 04:02, 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. WjBscribe 02:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Tommy - Rough Diamonds feud[edit]

Non-notable fued about two non-notable local Derry bands. No references or assertation of notability provided. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Joke made up in school. BTLizard 13:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Look, ma, i made a wiki! tomasz. 21:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references. Seems like something made up in school. Megapixie 22:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the articles of these bands...oh right, they don't have articles! Guess we'll have to delete them. --Адам12901 ^T/_C 04:57, 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 keep. Sr 13 00:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henning Svensson[edit]

Speedied with the reasoning "Amateur soccer player who never played a match... this cannot be notable in any way at all..." Well, the answer is that yes, it can in fact be notable. He did after all play internationally, so this is an obvious keeper, but I'm listing it here for procedural reasons. Punkmorten 11:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Where is the claim to notability? He never played in the Olympics. As far as I can tell, his team did not win a medal in the event. Who knows what it means to "play internationally?" Say I've played a lot of shuffleboard internationally (in international waters even). What does that say about my notability? If playing internationally means something other than the plain meaning of the words, perhaps it should be enumerated. I don't know that I disagree with the speedy deletion rationale. Deranged bulbasaur 12:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 'He played a total of 20 full international games for Sweden. He represented his country from 1912 to 1923' seems pretty clear to me [26]. He may not have played in the Olympics but he played for Sweden and for IFK Göteborg. This is football we're talking about here, 'Deranged', not shuffleboard, he's clearly notable. Nick mallory 12:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 20 caps is a prima facie pass on WP:BIO. The meaning of "playing internationally" is well known to anyone modestly knowledgeable in football/soccer. For my own part, I'd hesitate to put my oar in on an AfD where there were technical terms I neither understood nor cared to learn. RGTraynor 12:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:BIO for athletes having played at the highest amateur level. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 12:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The original nominator probably didn't read past the reference to the Olympics. BTLizard 13:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the history of this article I notice that it was nominated for speedy deletion exactly two minutes after its creation, despite being sourced even in its first incarnation. This is ridiculous. Nick mallory 14:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a Swedish international is an easy keep. Davewild 14:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per users above. Easily passes WP:BIO; article is well sourced, etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can see the consensus is going against me here, but my reasoning was he may have been part of an Olympic team, but he did not play an Olympic match, had only 20 caps, and was not notable for any other reason. Once again I see the tide going against me so will hold no grudges, but stand by my view. Raerth 18:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "If the law supposes that, ... the law is a ass" I accept this passes WP:BIO and accept the consensus is minor sportsmen from a century ago deserve their own article, despite the lack of additional information. I will keep my views away from sports articles in the future. :) Raerth 13:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Only 20 caps" are, as previously mentioned, enough for WP:BIO. tomasz. 21:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:BIO. Played 20 games at the highest level of international competition making him notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:BIO cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 08:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 10:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if he was playing today as a full international he would merit an article; therefore the fact that he played 100 years ago is totally irrelevant. Daemonic Kangaroo 11:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:BIO. WikiGull 11:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:BIO Dave101→talk 11:49, 25 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 (note that I am not the deleting admin). Sr 13 00:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Lafleur[edit]

I think Mario Lafleur is in Bad Intentions head. Mannafredo 10:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced (and unlikely) notability. Charlie 10:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notabality and no sources --St.daniel ^Talk 12:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G7, no assertion of notability. Also fails WP:BIO, WP:V, with extremely scanty information. Just about the sole Wikipedia activity of the article's creator. "Mario Lafleur" just gets 29 hits on Google, most of which are this article and mirrors and various networking sites. RGTraynor 12:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G7. Victoriagirl 18:56, 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 speedy delete, csd a7. - Bobet 11:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Elite (futsal team)[edit]

Non-notable sports team. Zero ghit apart from this article. BTLizard 10:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - most likely a hoax, but entirely non notable :: maelgwn :: talk 10:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 10:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7 An under-12 futsal team! Nowhere near notable. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 11:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete so tagged. CSD A7 without a doubt. Mind you, I never thought i'd learn about something through AfD - i'd never heard of Futsal before today. Thewinchester ^(talk) 11:03, 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 and Redirect to Jaangiri. Really it should be TransWikied to the Cookbook section of WikiBooks, but (1) nobody suggest that, not really and (2) it's a block of unformatted text and has other problems. Somebody who can spell a word the same way twice can come along and write the WikiBooks article from scratch. Herostratus 01:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imarti[edit]

This article on a food item seems to consist mostly of instructions for its preparation. There's no indication that this food item is notable, so delete because Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Deranged bulbasaur 10:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as unreferenced, and failing to assert notability in any way. Charlie 11:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly, without prejudice to re-creation. This article also mentions jangiri, an article which is slightly better, albeit currently unreferenced and containing a recipe. Since the articles claim that the two dishes are variants of each other, I'd suggest that this redirect there. Experts on Indian cuisine might be able to improve one or both. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article refers to Jangri which is notable in south India. -- Ganeshk (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jaangiri. Gizza^Chat ^© 11:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to [[Jaangiri. Is notable, I live in west India and I can vouch for that. Although in my opinion, we could very well AfD the entire Cuisine of <so-and-so-country> and be done with it. Theres honestly no need to have all this in an encyclopedia. Shift it to WikiRecipes or whichever the site may be and save WP from turning into a culinary and academic mishmash.xC | ☎ 14:47, 26 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. AKRadecki 19:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StarCraft: Hybrid[edit]

Declined speedy to contested prod to AFD. This is an article about a book based on the StarCraft video game. It has no references other than the book itself and an ebook that appears to also be fiction. There's nothing here to establish notability of the book and no reliable sources for analysis or critical commentary. It is a plot summary of a non-notable book and should be deleted. Chaser - T 09:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks more like a magazine published short story than a book to me. My understanding is that it would only be notable apart from the magazine itself if it had generated some commentary in reliable sources. That does not appear to be the case. The first google hits pertain to the wikipedia article and its mirrors, and it's hard to isolate mentions of this work from other incidental positives. Deranged bulbasaur 11:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is a magazine short story, and as much to the point, the article consists of a spoiler summary that (with a six page story published in a digest-sized magazine) must be a full third the size of the original. This spoiler is the article's sole content, and so violates WP:WAF. RGTraynor 13:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge along with StarCraft: Revelations to the appropriate article on Starcraft. I'm not sure if it's that page or Starcraft universe, but I can accept that it belongs somewhere, just in a less extensive form. FrozenPurpleCube 15:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Starcraft universe. The main Starcraft article should be reserved for the game itself. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 22:44, 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. Sr 13 00:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Melbourne gangs[edit]

Unverifiable, mostly non-notable and verging on indiscriminate information. RFBailey 09:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 10:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suspect this is original research of a fashion. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 10:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a list it is probably impossible to meet WP:V for the whole list and in most cases individual gangs will not meet WP:NN - thus the list currently only appears to be the indiscriminate writings of an editor or editors - perhaps even original research.--VS ^talk 10:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Until sources are provided, it should be removed. Assize 11:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is difficult to see how this could not be original research. Charlie 11:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yikes, where to start? Almost certainly violates WP:OR, definitely fails WP:V. No sourcing of any kind, let alone one that might explain how a city Melbourne's size has several dozen gangs or why all the gangs have cooperated in assigning agreed-upon three-letter abbreviations for each. RGTraynor 13:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NN and given the points made by RGTraynor, probably elements of WP:MADEUP.Euryalus 20:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain ~~Keep~~ and trim down to verifiable entries only. In time, this could be a reasonable list like List of California street gangs. John Vandenberg 00:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching the vandalism on the page since the Afd and my enthusiasm has waned significantly. I've trimmed the list down to three that are easily sourced to Google News Archive. I am sure that more can be sourced with more effort, but I am concerned that having this article will encourages these kids to do notable things in order to get into the news in order to appear on this list. Any objections for this reduced list to be merged into a new section of Crime in Melbourne? John Vandenberg 14:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless totally rewritten from reliable sources. No sources provided for any of the article and appears to be original research. Capitalistroadster 02:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. John, recreate from scratch using referenced entries only and good luck keeping it vandal-free.Ga rr ie 03:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR at present. Don't let this stop someone recreating the article using only good third-party references though. Lankiveil 23:48, 25 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 02:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ABC's of being Me[edit]

Non-notable, recently published book. -- RHaworth 08:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought this was going to turn out notable, but it seems that Dorrance Publishing is a vanity publisher as indicated (rather more indirectly) here [27]. I see no exculpatory evidence to otherwise indicate notability. Deranged bulbasaur 09:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:, fails WP:BK. Amazon sales rank of #807,847, which pretty much sucks for a recently released book. RGTraynor 13:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is little more than a copy of the editorial reviews found on the amazon.com listing. Fails WP:BK. Victoriagirl 19:02, 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. A notable game, and I don't see why this doesn't deserve its own article. Sr 13 00:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three coin[edit]

Game. Looks like a case of Wikipedia is not for things made up by idle aero engineers. Article's author seems to think that refs are unnecessary. -- RHaworth 09:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, I'd say the "probably invented by bored engineers" statement in the article is a bit of a tell. NN. Deranged bulbasaur 12:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it can be sourced that this is actually the new college campus fad I would vote to keep. It seem to be the current generations Liar's poker. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~If reliable sources could be cited that this is actually "played nationwide on college campuses" it might be notable. In the absence of such sources, Delete.~~ DES ^(talk) 20:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Keep based on new sources and revisons to the article. Isn't AfD the greatest cleanup tool ever :)? DES ^(talk) 16:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I don't know who actually invented this game, nor if it's really played a lot on college campuses, but it is the subject of a scholarly article (at least the two-player version). Reference: Benjamin L. Scwhartz. Solution of a Set of Games. The American Mathematical Monthly, vol 66, no. 8 (1959), pp. 693-701. URL (You may not be able to access the full article if you're not on a university campus/academic institution that subscribes to JSTOR, but the article exists, and the rules are described on the second page of that article and basically match those described in this Wikipedia article in the case of two players. University libraries could also have paper copies of the journal hidden away in their storage.) Craw-daddy 10:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. I don't dispute that it might need some rewrites, however. Craw-daddy 10:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please add that reference to the article. That does suggest greater notability, IMO. DES ^(talk) 15:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not primarily about a not-very-notable game, but about some mathematical ideas that it illustrates. Michael Hardy 00:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hardy. This is about games as in game theory, not games as in Go Fish. (Snide remarks about John Conway and/or Elwyn Berlekamp notwithstanding.) Silly rabbit 00:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs work not deletion, since this discussion has started it seems that a source has been found and the offending passage has been removed.--Cronholm144 03:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC) I agree with Lambiam. (below)[reply]

Keep based on recent improvements. Doctormatt 01:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ and for notability: How to Cheat at Everything Simon Lovell (2003), ISBN:1-56025-973-6 makes a mention of this game and also details a strategy for play in pp63-69 - as not a game of chance but skill. Obscurans 02:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Spoof (game) per below, although I am inclined to say merge spoof into the three coin article.
- Comment: ~~I'm also inclined to agree with the merge in that direction too. Craw-daddy 09:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)~~ <shrug> Okay, then merge with Spoof, but in this case I would advise removing some of the less encyclopedic comments in that article. I find the "folklore" section in the external link on the Spoof article rather dubious, as is the "competition" section and "World Spoof Championships." Having lived near and been to Kenilworth on many occasions, I doubt such a competition would qualify as a "world championship". ;) Tournament rules for Spoof? Really??? Finally, while the Spoof article does have the Lovell book cited here, something should be integrated into the article for it to fully qualify as a reference. Craw-daddy 19:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Spoof (game), the name also used in the book referenced above (p. 63: Chapter "Spoof" starts thus: "Spoof is a very popular bar game in Europe. It is also rapidly becoming popular worldwide.") --Lambiam ^Talk 06:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As to the direction of a possible merge, I see no evidence that the name "Three coin" is actually in use for this particular game. In contrast, I find plenty of Google hits for "Spoof" in this sense. --Lambiam ^Talk 14:13, 26 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. AKRadecki 19:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fjordman[edit]

Non-notable inactive blog, fails WP:WEB, no reliable sources (only other blogs). Mackan 08:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Entry is for blogger, not blog. The blogger's opinions and articles are continuously quoted by serious and popular blogs such as Jihad Watch, Little Green Footballs and Brussels Journal and therefore is notable. Other blogs are reliable sources for the claim that he's "widely quoted by blogs". Misheu 08:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is indeed about a blogger, not about a blog. Thus WP:BIO should be applied rather than WP:WEB. The main criterion of WP:BIO is that the person has been covered in independent reliable secondary sources. However, blogs are generally not acceptable as reliable sources, see WP:SPS. As far as I can see, all sources given in the article are links to blogs. Thus notability is not established --B. Wolterding 08:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a writer whose work has appeared in many internet publications with huge readerships, rather than simply vanity 'blogs'. Nick mallory 09:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:BIO/WP:WEB. Mackan 09:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My writing here on Wikipedia appears in publications with huge readerships. That's irrelevant to whether I satisfy our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies. To make a case for keeping that actually holds water, you must cite non-trivial articles from reliable independent sources that are about this person. So far, neither the article nor any editor here has cited a single such article. Uncle G 10:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't seem that there are reliable sources confirming this pseudonymous blogger's notability. "Internet buzz" doesn't amount to much, and in this case is probably created merely by the controversial nature of his opinions on Islam. Deranged bulbasaur 10:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's more than "internet buzz". Fjordman's articles are quoted verbatim by people such as Robert Spencer, who's a published author on Islam and the West and Paul Belien who's a known Belgian journalist. His ideas and quotes are being parroted by many people in different places, but that's a bit harder to prove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misheu (talk • contribs) 2007-05-22 10:47:33
  - He's quoted by a bunch of talking heads in a manner that's impossible to source. Color me unimpressed. Deranged bulbasaur 11:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - He's quoted by a bunch of "notable" talking heads in a manner that's impossible to source (if you can find a reference for that) and which propagates itself across the internet. I think that means he satisfies notability but not your sense of proper journalism. That is a reason to keep, not delete. If he wouldn't be so widely quoted and yes, famous, he wouldn't deserve an entry. Misheu 11:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If he's indeed so famous, then certainly others have written about him in reliable publications. This in turn would make him notable. Such references should be added to the article, given they exist. --B. Wolterding 12:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - They have. As stated above, Robert Spencer and Paul Belien have both brought his opinions. The references appear in the article itself. Misheu 13:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It doesn't satisfy our Wikipedia:No original research policy if the only way to determine the truth of the statement that "his ideas and quotes are being parroted by many people in different places" is for readers to go and perform the primary research of counting how many people repeat this person's ideas and quotes and where they are repeated. We cannot just go making up a biography of this person's life and works. That is original research. We need sources. Misheu has made several statements about this person's life and works, but not cited a single source, who has already written about this person in depth, against which xyr statements can be checked. And those are what we need. Without them, this person does not satisfy our notability criteria. Uncle G 12:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The man is famous. The quality of his views is obviously regarded highly. If his chosen method of communication was radio or newspaper I suspect he would not be up for deletion. Mannafredo 10:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If "his chosen method of communication was radio or newspaper", it wouldn't be self-published so yeah, maybe. Relevent question is, would anybody hire this man to work for their newspaper/radio channel? Mackan 11:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fame is not tantamount to notability, as noted in the third sentence of WP:NN. Hypothetical comparisons are of dubious value, and the fact is that he isn't in the newspaper or on the radio. There's no inherent reason why we should have to treat those media interchangeably with online content, so the appeal to equanimity is vacuous. Deranged bulbasaur 11:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- M - I note your point on fame and notability, but would suggest he is indeed becoming a notable figure in his field (religion and society essayist perhaps). DB – I think your use of the word ‘equanimity’ is improper, but will not insult you by suggesting it was vacuous. Mannafredo 12:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Feel free to re-create this article once he has actually become "a notable figure", and when you have reliable sources to prove it.Mackan 12:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was aware of the more common meaning of the word, but the sense I'm looking for seems to be in some online dictionaries and not in others. Perhaps I would have been better served by the unwieldy "equitableness," but I will "insult" you by saying that I think you're just cavilling (there's one for you) my usage because your argument is wrong. Deranged bulbasaur 12:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It was not your argument that I took exception to, it was your use of the word vacuous, obviously. Your side of the argument seems a reasonable one - so yes, your right, once again, you insult me. Mannafredo 13:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per B. Wolterding. Mannafredo's argument is interesting, but is a hypothetical unsupported by any verifiable fact. That there are people who agree with this blogger's views is only to be expected (be he ever so inarticulate, any blogger's views are echoed by someone), but until there are independent, published, reliable sources speaking about the subject, as WP:V requires, this article should be deleted. RGTraynor 13:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fjordman is a respected and important essayist especially with regard to the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in Europe, and the on going debate as to the state of Western democracies, to remove this entry is a denial of freedom of information. 'Freshfield'— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.249.161 (talk • contribs) — 91.105.249.161 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note: The above comment is made by an anonymous IP. Mackan 20:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability not in question. More in question are possible political motivation of some votes for delete, since notability is so clear. Decoratrix 17:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Note: This account was created on 17 May. Mackan 20:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The (possible) political motivations of the delete voters are all but irrelevant, since the delete votes have been policy-based. Asking that people be disregarded when making statements about matters of fact just because of concerns you may have about their motivation is a type of Ad hominem. It's certainly not clear that notability has been established, rather it is quite clear that you're not assuming good faith. Deranged bulbasaur 18:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fjordman has become very famous in anti-multiculturalist circles. Very few intellectual opponents of the European Union and multiculturalism are not aware of Fjordman. His arguments are often unique, and his knowledge of European politics and history is so spectacular, his articles should be used in colleges as a way to understand the new European conservative movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icepickds (talk • contribs)

Note: The comment above was made by an account made today, see contrib list. Mackan 14:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fjordman is a thoughtful, well-informed blogger, now posting via The Brussels Journal. His opinions are well founded. You would not have any hesitation in keeping this entry if he were writing for a major newspaper. Juncal 18:15, 22 May 2007 (DST)
- Note: The above account has made only 5 edits outside of this AfD. Mackan 07:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Quite possibly not. Then again, newspapers have reliable and independent fact checking and have reporters who aren't pseudonymous, so that people actually have some assurance that they're dealing with the same person. These are among the reasons why newspapers are considered "reliable sources" per WP:RS, and blogs are not. RGTraynor 12:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From Wikipedia:Deletion policy:"These processes are not decided through a head count, so people are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy". Mackan 20:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO, no independent publications covering this anonymous blogger. Note: allies are likely to post appeals on their blogs, so expect a lot of unregistered or newly-registered users in this discussion. --Dhartung | Talk 22:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is notable, widely quoted, far more than others who have articles in WP. Jmcnamera 03:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. People keep saying that he's notable, but all that is just mere assertion until somebody breaks out the reliable sources. Deranged bulbasaur 06:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This vote has been externally canvassed on the blog Gates of Vienna. Mackan 08:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The page seems not to render correctly in firefox. I don't see any content. Deranged bulbasaur 09:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try giving it a little time, it may take a while (I can see it in firefox). Mackan 10:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I'm actually having troubles loading it myself, now. It works in IE thuogh. Mackan 10:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's definitely canvassing here. --Haemo 21:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haemo, you know of people who had been approached on their talk page? Mackan, you read Gates of Vienna? Misheu 21:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCKS#Advertising_and_soliciting_meatpuppets, aka external canvassing. Mackan 21:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Mentioned in articles of the the Washington Times, 20minutos.es (a spanish TV news?), Salon Magazine, Jewish World Review, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, AINA, and the American Thinker. Sources, via google news archive: [28]. Moreover: Twice at google scholar [29] and in two books at google books [30] Azate 23:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fjordman is a common last name in all of Scandinavia. Your google scholar and book results have nothing to do with the blogger. The Washington Times didn't mention Fjordman, they mentioned an article by the Danish newspaper Berlingske Tider, which Fjordman had translated. Jewish World Review had re-printed the same article. The Salon mention was on a "letterbox" page, AINA doesn't seem to be a RS, American Thinker is yet another blog. And you know what, all the actual mentions are trivial, per WP:BIO/WP:BIO.Mackan 09:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Google Books: Two of the results (Lester Harry Wright's and Yoel Natan's books) concern the fjordman in question here, the others don't. That's why I said above that there were two results.
- Google Scholar: Same thing. Two papers (M Carr's and Ю Каграманов's) with this guy, the others not. Again, thats why I said two, above.
- "Washington Times didn't mention Fjordman": Check again, they did. Even included an URL to his blog. I see nothing about any "translation", as you claim.
- "Jewish World Review had re-printed the same article": Yes, so what?
- "The Salon mention was on a letterbox page": Right. I retract that one.
- "AINA doesn't seem to be a RS": Why would that be so? The are a regular news agency, specializing in the affairs of catholics in the middle east. If they are good enough for the UN[31], Amnesty International[32], and the US State department[33], but not for you, I think you should rethink your standards.
- "American Thinker is yet another blog": They have a publisher, named editors and dozens of real-name contributors. They also have a blog, but that doesn't make them one. Azate 14:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fjordman as a common name - Mackan, you keep repeating that claim, but can you prove it? If Google Scholar brings 5 responses, two of which seem to be talking about Fjordman the blogger, how does that prove Fjordman is a common name? 'Mackan' has 100 times more hits on Google Scholar (but not on google, as blogger Fjordman has so many hits) Misheu 11:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO, he has not "been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject", he has been mentioned, in passing, by a few of the above results in Google Scholar. Mmoneypenny 20:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Over 500 people decided to comment on one of his articles: http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/889271.html

The spectacular popularity of Fjordman's work makes him notable. Surely the hundreds of thousands of people who read his work would want to know more about this unique author, and Wikipedia would be the place for them to turn to. I can't believe this is even up for a discussion. Fjordman's work is not only notable, it's unique. If I were a Political Science Professor (which I may be in the near future), I would include some of his work in the required reading to help people understand intellectual European nationalism.
Wikipedia's Jihad?Jihad Watch, Brussels Journal, Daily Pundit, Global Politician. All came under fire by the same editors. Interestingly, GP (of which I am the senior editor) had profile for a long time without a problem when we ran predominatly liberal articles. Recently, several conservative, anti-Islamist writers joined and bingo, we came under fire. I'm sure it's a coincidence... - Global Politician

I guess I have to participate in this discussion because it was Fjordman's article running in the Global Politician that caused all this trouble. An article on Islamic apartheid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_Islamic_apartheid) cited Fjordman's article in the Global Politician: "Given sharia’s inequality between men and women, Muslims and non-Muslims, it is de facto a religious apartheid system.– Article in the policy journal, Global Politician.[8]"

Mackan79 apparently disagreed with the concept of Islamic Apartheid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Allegations_of_Islamic_apartheid) and waged his own little Jihad against GP. The author of the article, Urthogie, cited that GP interviewed many key people (for ex., Sri Lankan President after the Tsunami and leaders of every Lebanese political party/grouping right after the Cedar Revolution). MacKan then tried to take down Global Politician and Fjordman Wikipedia pages to prove our worthlessness and, therefore, win his little debate with "Urthogie".

MacKan is also the person who has since decided to put Jihad Watch, the Daily Pundit and Brussels Journal up for AfD.

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

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

The result was no consensus. AKRadecki 19:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science Foo Camp[edit]

Makes no claim of notability, doesn't even explain what it's about & may be an advertisement or OR. Cheers, Delete - Spawn Man 06:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems there are other articles like this out there. The overall article seems okay (Foo Camp), but others like the Kiwi Foo Camp etc, read like an OR advertisement & certainly didn't get any airtime on the news etc here in New Zealand. (I live in New Zealand & have never heard of the Kiwi Foo camp). If anyone else sees fit, those articles could be included as well... Spawn Man 06:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs much work. JJL 14:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough, but this article like most on wikipedia needs a lot of work. Decoratrix 17:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the page in an effort to try and clarify what SciFoo is a bit better. Hope it helps a little... Andrew Walkingshaw 15:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science Foo camp deserves its own small entry, but more material is required. Perhaps after camp #2 this year that will happen. dsingh 23:48, 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. JLaTondre 15:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suparno Satpathy[edit]

Contested prod, original reason was "fails WP:BIO". Claims of notability are unsourced. Kusma (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Most of the article isn't about him. Yechiel Man 08:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I've been watching this contributor since he first attempted, months ago, to introduce information about Suparno Satpathy into the Nandini Satpathy article. It was explained to him why information about a non-notable grandson does not beling in the latter's article; he responded by creating this one. I asked for some criterion of notability. None was forthcoming till the single sentence "won prizes for bodybuilding in college in 1989" was introduced. I asked for a citation of that. Nothing appeared; I prodded the article again. Really, this needs to go. Hornplease 05:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hindu sportspeople[edit]

Unless these people are somehow obstructed from participating normally in sports because of their religion, this is a non-notable intersection. If this was a category, it would likely be deleted as overcategorization by religion and ethnicity. Deleting as list. Bulldog123 04:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. cab 04:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Delete if and when List of Jews in sports is deleted. Peter Ballard 05:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was nominated in November 2005, with a result of "No consensus". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jews in sports. You may also wish to see the movie Airplane! =) cab 05:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Nominate it if you wish. It roughly has the same argument for deletion as this list. However, I warn you. Jewish anything on wikipedia is almost impossible to delete. Lots of "fans" of these lists and categories exist. That's why so many are nominated and almost always end in no consensus. If you want to prevent WP:BIAS and nominate it, then go ahead, but good luck. Bulldog123 15:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Hindu" refers solely and strictly to religion, NOT ethnic heritage or nationality. I checked the articles of the first ten individuals on the list - only one of those articles even has the word "Hindu" in it, and in that one, the word's part of a category!! There is absolutely no attribution that any of the individuals I checked practise Hinduism. I suspect few or none of the rest are attributed. This is therefore an unattributed list on a non-notable topic. --Charlene 06:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of sports personalities by religion is a case of WP:NOT. Loosely related, indeed. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete invalid intersection. Carlossuarez46 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. PeaceNT 16:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese American Food Society[edit]

Contested CSD, appears to be possibly notable, wider consensus sought. If refs can be found, I'd support Keep. AKRadecki 03:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - It's been several months, plenty of time to find sources.--0rrAvenger 03:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No non-trivial external coverage. Just another academic association. Google News archive search only showed 2 hits, neither was actual discussion. Incidentally an organisation by the name of 華美食品學會 which I suspect is the same thing gets a few mentions in Chinese academic journals, but unfortunately I don't think it's enough to support an article on them. cab 07:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non Notable and not adiquitally sourced. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an organization founded by Chinese-born Americans who are involved in food science and technology. It was founded in 1974 and is a legitimate organization. Chris 12:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm sure those things are true, but what elements of WP:ORG do you assert this article fulfills? No sources, no references, and no reason to find this organization notable. Only 130 G-hits, and the first several are this outfit's website, this article and various Wiki mirrors. Ravenswing 13:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additional information and sources have been found and posted in their activites that they have done (2004 conference in Beijing) and that they will be doing (2007 conference in Chicago, Illinois in late July). This should help in this source. Chris 13:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More information has been found on what CAFS does. They are a part of the community and should be kept. They are a relevant society in food technology, especially in the growth of Asian culture and the Asian food market. Equally, they are important in Sino-American trade relationships with ther symposia and professional activities. Chris 14:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This is sort a sub-scientific society. I think many organizations of this type are not notable or worthy of an article. This society may be an exception. It is a large, active and highly organized sub-society of a very large society. ike9898 00:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I do not agree with argument like "Just another academic association." There isn't an academic association about which this could not be said. I think that academic societies are to be judged on the notability of the work they do, and this seems to be just barely enough. I think most similar ones might also be at least borderline notable, because the groups typically do hold a convention and publishing something. DGG 02:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It has 388 Google hits, including being mentioned on University websites and by other academic societies. The society has apparently a long history and is mentioned as doing things like giving scholarships, publishing series of monographs, holding joint conferences, etc. People seeing it mentioned might want to look it up on Wikipedia and find out about it. Perhaps barely notable enough for inclusion. --Coppertwig 00:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the commenters directly above, a rough exception to the rule. Yamaguchi先生 07:29, 28 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 13:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolai Gudkov[edit]

This is a hoax story from Weekly World News presented as fact, so should be deleted. There is a copy of the WWN story on the web at http://www.subgenius.com/subg-digest/v0/0006.html Peter Ballard 03:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN news hoax. Oddly, this was discussed in a book (as a WWN article, though, dismissed as at the least exaggerated), Morality and Machines: perspectives on computer ethics by Stacey L. Edgar.[34] I don't think that's enough to hang an article on, though. --Dhartung | Talk 05:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable hoax. Amusingly enough, there appear to be a few real people by the same name; a search in Russian gets about 1k hits on the name, including some for a minister of the press or something or other who might be notable (can't really tell, my Russian sucks). [35] cab 07:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Spokesman for the Ministry of Natural Resources, who is often quoted in stories about the oil industry in Russia, but I doubt he's actually been the topic of an article. Russian results, btw. There's also a Major-General (non-notable) and a martial artist (I wouldn't rule him out notability-wise). No real chess champions, though! --Dhartung | Talk 20:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable material, would deserve a reference in a hoax listing.DDB 08:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:04, 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. >Radiant< 10:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Morrill[edit]

Guy fails WP:BIO. Delete GreenJoe 15:52, 16 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 02:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable losing candidate for high office, fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 05:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is borderline (about 1000 ghits). Without citations from media reports, I cannot support keeping the article as it stands. Yechiel Man 08:40, 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. >Radiant< 10:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NCMO[edit]

This has been marked for 8 months as non-notable and little effort has been made to make it so. Also, it is little more than a dictionary defintion with a bit of history attached. Psu256 15:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should stay. I'm the last person who edited this and tried to show that it's of much wider interest than the flash-in-the-pan websites that were originally the focus of the article. Definitions of terms like this -- well-known in subcultures but little-known outside -- are one of the major attractions of Wikipedia for me. Deleting this makes it poorer only; leaving it documents a term and phenomenon that is still current and has been used for decades, and harms Wikipedia in no way. As for the assertion that the article is too little: That's how an article grows. It's got to start somewhere. 216.128.233.19 03:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean you no offense, but if your interest lies in definitions of terms like this, you are in the wrong place. Please refer to WP:NEO. Psu256 12:04, 21 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 02:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as dicdef, possible neologism too. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism and since "the term is still fairly uncommon outside of the Provo, Utah or Rexburg, Idaho", unlikely to be of sufficient notability. BTLizard 09:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, local neologism. Not sure much more needs to be said about it. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:41, 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. Krimpet (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Tea Queens[edit]

This was originally deleted at AfD. DRV overturned in light of new evidence for notability. Please consult the DRV before commenting here. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete It qualifies for a G4 (re-creation of deleted material). Regards — The Sunshine Man 17:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No... that argument was addressed and rebutted at the DRV. This isn't recreated in light of the new sources. Besides, even if it were the exact same article, DRV overturned those prior deletions. In fact, I'll strike that comment for you, as it makes very little sense, under the circumstances. Xoloz 18:49, 16 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 02:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per concerns of DRV. Some notability is asserted in the sources found there, but I'm not certain if it's enough. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just about makes it. BTLizard 09:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sweet Potato Queens since it is a chapter of that larger organisation. CIreland 10:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per CIreland sounds about right; the notability seems reasonable, but I'm not certain we need a separate article about a single chapter of the larger organization. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep appears notable, albiet marginally so. Sourcing seems sufficient. DES ^(talk) 21:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just as we delete any article about a local branch of a society unless it has attracted significant outside attention. The media sources are local, and only can show that they're known in and around Spartanberg. Most local units of a society are notable in their home towns. DGG 04:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*"""Keep""", as per my lengthy prior documented statements, under "separte" coverage since every "chapter" is considered "it's own" as I beleive that this group is copywrited and all logo's are trademarked. The Sweet Potato Queens gave the founding idea's, but if you read the "legal" information of each web site you will understand the differences and why Sweet Tea Queens is unique and should remain posted as such.

Merge A chapter of any organization is always considered "its own." No doubt every Masonic Lodge, each its own, in the country has this level of sources. But none of these sources suggest that the Sweet Tea Queens have any significance outside their region, therefore merge to Sweet Potato Queens, where the information is more likely to be found anyways. If every chapter is similarly autonomous then STQ are as representative as any chapter. More people will read about STQ in the SPQ article and they'll do it in a context that makes more sense. The picture can still be used to illustrate. The wiki is better organized, no information is lost. Everyone wins. --JayHenry 15:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP! This organization is well known in both North and South Carolina, as per all documentation. I understand the above rational, TO A DEGREE. I truely believe this is UNIQUELY it's own. The Sweet Tea Queens built this foundation, that qualified it to be accepted under the stringent guidelines that Wikipedia has set forth. This is an "Encyclopedia". IN ALL encyclopedias' there are found NUMEROUS "regions" under "separate cover", "separate subject", even though they are peripherial to a stated subject; they are still listed. I understand that some think "everybody" wins. Personally, I think not. It is a discredit to The Sweet Tea Queens, any of the past, present, and certainly it's founder, by allowing this disbarment,or even any "attachment". Therefore, on it's own merit, structure, and strength, the article should not be merged; and should be allowed to remain. The web master should be allowed to place the original contents back in the article. Thank you for your time.
Keep The Sweet Tea Queens have appeared in Conde Naste's Travel & Leisure magazine, hardly a local publication. They are also aligned with a fund-raising drag queen organization in Denver, CO, called the "Denver Cylcle Sluts, once again, hardly from backwater South Carolina. They are called a "chapter" because the core ideas came from the Sweet Potato Queens author, so credit MUST be given, but are not one of the leagues and march to their own beat. Most "chapters" are comprised of a few women who meet at local restaurants and gossip, then once a year trek to Jackson, MS to walk in the Sweet Potato Queens parade. These women have their own float, parade in their own parades and have nothing to do with the Sweet Potato Queens, other than giving them a nod for inspiration.Their website is more extensive, by far, than the Sweet Potato Queens, let alone a chapter.Ssignature 03:36, 25 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. Tyrenius 02:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Away with vega[edit]

Contested speedy. Non-notable band. No reliable sources to back up any claims. DarkAudit 02:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom and WP:CSD#A7--Whs tc hy 02:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per the above. --Haemo 02:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete If there's any notability it's not evident. No sources. JodyB_talk 02:25, 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. >Radiant< 10:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ITalk[edit]

Lacks notability, essentially an advertisement for an obscure ipod accessory that isn't made anymore. Doesn't mention the newer model (iTalk pro), and even if it did it doesn't belong here. Thepopularloser 20:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A minor product out of circulation. If it was ever notable, it isn't anymore and will soon be forgotten. Yechiel Man 23:39, 16 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 02:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete it's historyBalloonman 04:21, 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. >Radiant< 10:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Vespe[edit]

Not clear to me that this is a notable bio. Looks like he has been an extra in a few films. —Gaff ^ταλκ 08:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is notable because he is the main interviewer for Ain't It Cool News, the largest movie news site on the internet. See: Harry Knowles; Drew McWeeny. Cnota 08:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd personally like to see some sources, preferably the independant, third-party kind, before claims of notability or lack thereof are made. -- saberwyn 12:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I'm not that impressed that Ain't It Cool News has much going for it in terms of notability. As saberwyn comments, there is a definite lack of sources here.—Gaff ^ταλκ 15:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the multiple non-trivial sources needed to establish notability. There is a single link that, in my judgment passes but otherwise no. JodyB_talk 02:30, 22 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 01:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete really nothing notable here-Doc^g 20:01, 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. >Radiant< 10:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Azriel (Band)[edit]

Previously deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azriel (Band), but the article has been expanded and may deserve a new consideration. Still, delete due to insufficient notability. - Mike Rosoft 21:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The notability just isn't there. They release a couple of unpublished songs, whatever that means, and they'll release an album later this year. That rings a crystal bell. :) Yechiel Man 23:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems that WP:MUSIC is on point here and this band fails the test. I would expect the article would be possible if their first album is a significant hit. It's not often that a band would be notable before their first album release. JodyB_talk 02:33, 22 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 01:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As has been stated above, the band currently seems to fail music notability guidelines. In particular, the article does not reference any non trivial published sources and a Google news search doesn't bring up any either. If their first album is a success then they may well gain sufficient notability, but not yet. Will (aka Wimt) 09:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Elrith 23:35, 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. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Far Cry[edit]

Doesn't appear to meet the notability criteria, at least as far as I can tell. FisherQueen (Talk) 18:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of course. Why don't I list my classmates in my chemistry course? Yeah. Yechiel Man 23:47, 16 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 01:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. JJL 01:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. And Yechiel, thanks for that laugh. --Whs tc hy 02:23, 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 02:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fardad Farahzad[edit]

This article came to my attention as a possible conflict of interest since the article is almost entirely edited by User:Fardad2007 (suspicious as either the subject of the article or a zealous fan). The content of the article isn't too bad as far as self-promotion, but I'm not sure about the position of notability since I think this is a grey area (newscasters and other figures in the media). The only seemingly independent source on the article for any kind of notability is an interview by Radio Zamaneh, which is in Farsi, so I'm not sure as to the content or if the source is indepedent: [36]. This was a disputed prod. Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 01:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go with a delete here. He does a great job of trying, but no matter how hard you try, WP:AUTO is right - it's pretty difficult to write a non-objective autobiographical article. I'd hedge that he might be notable on the grounds that he is a news anchor (if only a small time one), but if that's the case, again going back to WP:AUTO, somebody will get around to writing about him. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Insufficient assertions of notability from independent sources. Also verifiability problem, for the same reason Mukadderat 00:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree this sounds like a conflict of interestBalloonman 04:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that he tries, but he doesn't succeed. KrakatoaKatie 08:15, 26 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 and cleanup. —Ocatecir ^Talk 21:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darkbuster[edit]

Fails WP:BAND. A few releases over the years, but ultimately not a prominent band. -- Y not? 01:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A number of relevant ghits, but mostly "trivial coverage." Seems to be a band of only local interest and limited touring. Highly unlikely to provide reliable sources, thus OR. Feeeshboy 04:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Their press kit [37], while not really reflected in the article, shows quotes from both the Boston Globe and Boston Phoenix. The Phoenix has given them a cover [38]--and it's a widely read arts paper in a major city. There are other quotes that appear to be from feature stories written about the band, in various other arts newspapers around the Northeast. They satisfy the multiple, independent sources requirement of WP:MUSIC. Darkspots 11:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: The various quotes are either unsourced or represent trivial mentions. The Phoenix article is significant, but it's the only such source, and while the Phoenix is Boston's leading alternative weekly, a single source isn't enough to support WP:V. Should other significant articles appear, my vote would change.Keep per new evidence supplied by Darkspots. Ravenswing 13:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Okay, how about the Boston Globe feature story? It's from 2000: [39]. The Globe's website verifies that the story exists, but I don't want to pay the three bucks to get it there, so I accept the band website's scanned copy of this feature piece. I don't understand the need to delete this article--punk bands are not very organized people as a rule, but these guys have been around for a long time, played a lot of shows, and had a lot of things written about them. Much of it is trivial coverage, but I would argue that enough of it is substantial to demonstrate notability. Darkspots 17:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Despite the similarity in our names, I have no relation through either blood or marriage to the band. Darkspots 17:46, 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. Sr 13 00:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey L. Bass[edit]

Subject is not notable per WP:BIO; no reliable sources for article. Mwelch 01:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No consensus in the first AfD, so trying again. This article is sourced only by the subject's family-provided obituary in the local newspaper. Lubbock Avalanche-Journal obituaries do not indicate notability, since anyone can have one; they don't indicate anyone other than the family found the subject to be notable. And they also are not reliably fact-checked. So they clearly are not WP:RS. Aside from that, this article has no other sources to verify its info about this man. Neither other listed "reference" in the article mentions the man in any way. Even if everything in the article is assumed to be correct, is the man notable? Well, two of the "keep" arguments in the previous debate were WP:POKEMON. So if an editor is convinced by WP:POKEMON, then I guess they can decided that yes, he's notable on that basis. Aside from that, though, there is nothing in the article that meets WP:BIO. Other "keep" votes in the first debate said he was notable "as a local individual". But with no press coverage to go along with that, that seems to go very much against the standards of WP:BIO. And even that aside, once again, the article offers no actual reliable sources for even such "local" notability. Whatever local importance he may seem to have had (not that I agree that even that is very much), we apparently have to just take his family's word for it. The author touts the subject having "won" a "major" Rotary award. This is again unsourced (other than by his obituary), but this time it doesn't matter, because the Paul L. Harris Fellow is, in fact, no such thing. Quoting from the Rotary International website: "Anyone who contributes — or in whose name is contributed — a gift of US$1,000 or more to the Annual Programs Fund may become a Paul Harris Fellow. . . . Donors are eligible for Paul Harris Fellow recognition when their cumulative giving reaches US$1,000." The flowery language used by the author ("won the coveted Paul Harris Fellow designation for outstanding community service") isn't supported by the organization's own description of the designation. There's no "winning" of the award and no "outstanding community service" necessary; just a check for $1000 will do. Mwelch 01:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

or 20 checks for $50 each over the years. DGG 02:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete see above. Mwelch, have you ever considered a career in journalism? --Whstchy 02:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. What? And destroy my hard-earned reputation as a computer geek? Surely, you jest, sir! ;-) Mwelch 16:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment one of the people using WP:POKEMON was a sockpuppet --Whs tc hy 03:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I'm sure he was a fine person and is missed very much by those who created the article in his memory, there doens't seem to be any notability here and Wikipedia is not a Memorial seems to apply to me. LaughingVulcan 03:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as accomplishment and living a full life are not notability. --Dhartung | Talk 06:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is tenuous, but 'cult following' humorously suggests itself. Liveing a full life is not notable, but seventy odd years as a community leader, and editor of a community journal is. The bio positions, significantly, the local history. There has not been established that anything is wrong. DDB 08:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the charge has been raised twice, once above and once below, that there's only one source in existence here that is about this person, and it isn't either reliable or independent. You have not answered that, let alone refuted it. Your argument is a purely subjective judgement. Notability is not subjective. Uncle G 10:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the Paul Harris award is effectively meaningless (700,000 recipients), and without that he's a minor local shopowner and chair of a local party committee. Of the three sources, two do not mention him at all, and the third is his obituary from the local paper — iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as even a supporter says, "notability is tenuous"DGG 04:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is non-existent.Balloonman 04:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability is indeed not subjective. Nor is the need to delete. Arguments of the type "I don't know what this is about, but in my opinion this isn't worthy" is not compelling to me. What I would find compelling is someone who knows why this does not meet the exacting standards of Wiki. Preferably someone who is knowledgeable of the person or locale. Otherwise it just looks like people are filling a quota, or exercising muscle or aligning for the possibility of future collaboration. DDB 12:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Not a single one of the deletion advocates has offered as their rationale "I don't know what this is about, but in my opinion this isn't worthy". So you're conveniently ignoring the arguments people have actually made, in favor of dismissing an argument that no one has made. Excellent example of a straw man, actually. The reason why this does not meet the standard is that the standard is "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." No one has offered any indication that this person has received significant coverage in any reliable source that is independent of him. That would pretty much be why. Mwelch 16:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to DDB. In addition, the subject of the article is mentioned essentially as a politician, creative professional (editor,) (and local businessman,) following the sections of Notability (people). There is nothing in the article or sources to indicate that the subject satisfies any of those criteria, nor has there been a keep contribution to suggest that they are. "Local politician" does not meet WP:BIO, nor does having association with a local paper, nor does being a local businessman. As to 'Cult Following,' there is nothing in the article that I saw that suggested he is an Entertainer, which is the relevant section of notability for that criteria, nor has there been any evidence that he has a large following. The nom has stated one rationale: non-notability. I have previously stated that this article in its present form, closely resembling an obituary, appears to be a memorial, which Wikipedia is not. ~~Finally, I'd appreciate your trying to assume good faith, which I'm not positive of in your last sentence.~~
- Reply Please assume good faith. I feel there is a duty that an experienced editor has to explain as well as expedite. I'm not saying you are doing the wrong thing. However, I am trying to show you why it is said that the best editors are never noticed. Talent is something that acts on a whim, whereas the editor is someone who is often at their best when they fail to act. Should an article require deletion, it should be fait accompli. It shouldn't be the case that editors might joke about the frustrations they have caused creators, as I have recently read. Please don't take that personally, but accept it in the spirit of one who shares a journey in common. DDB 08:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment OK, I will certainly assume good faith. Explanation is exactly what I'm seeking, as I cannot see where any of the above of what you have stated is occurring or applies to this case. Someone who is knowledgeable of the person or locale should certainly be involved in editing the article to bring it up to notability standards, and/or explaining why the person meets notability in a non-subjective fashion. But as I understand it, the burden is upon proving notability when a lack of it is demonstrated. To me, that lack has been shown, and I haven't yet read anything that suggests it has been met. It appears to be fait accompli to me, unless any persuasive reason to keep can be shown. At any rate, I appreciate your willingness to share your experience and rationale. LaughingVulcan ^{Laugh With Me /} ^{Logical Entries} 14:54, 26 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 01:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.E. Airhart[edit]

Subject is not notable per WP:BIO; there are no reliable sources provided by the article Mwelch 00:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject's entire claim to notability is being a county commissioner in a 15,000 person county. WP:BIO quite explicitly excludes such local figures if they haven't received significant press coverage. The article offers no press coverage for this individual. Virtually the entire article is sourced by his and his wife's family-provided obituaries in the local newspaper. No indication of notability, since anyone who's family wants an obit run can have an obit run in the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. Nothing to reliably verify the claims in the article, since such obits aren't fact-checked. The other listed "references" tell us nothing more than that the man existed and supported the Children's Home of Lubbock. Mwelch 00:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the existing sources barely (if even that) even support the article. Notability isn't high enough to be in a Wikipedia article. *Cremepuff 222* 01:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer WP:BIO, and WP:N.Shindo9 Hikaru
Delete It seems undecided to what extent we go by available sources , and to what extent by some intrinsic N as indicated in subject-specific guidelines. He fails by both. There are no RSs other than trivial ones. And local roads commissioner is NN intrinsically. BH should apply his admittedly great skill to writing a book, instead of writing these articles here. DGG 02:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in accordance with WP:BIO and WP:N. Acalamari 02:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability does not derive automatically from accomplishments. --Dhartung | Talk 06:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just being an elected official is not sufficient, but thirty years is substantial, and contributes to the history of the locale, also explains and positions politics of the day. DDB 08:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this type of figure is specifically & explicitly excluded by WP:BIO. Aside from the obituary, this article is completely unsourced, and there's nothing in the article to indicate any more notability than any other minor public figure in a minor area. Has someone taken a dislike to Billy today? That's the third one so far today — iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know who Billy is. The wording of WP:BIO is not as explicit as has been suggested with this case. The need to delete the article has not been established. The argument of 'not knowing, but not feeling generous' is logically fallacious. I'm assuming there is no quota for deletions and that this isn't an exercise in editorial muscle. I would find compelling an argument based on knowledge .. of the person or locale. My record will show that I don't merely oppose deletions, nor support them, no matter who posted them. DDB 12:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I wouldn't presume that you merely support oppose based on who posted, and I'm quite confident that iridescenti was also not suggesting that about you. The "taken a dislke to Billy" comment was more directed at me, and was an in joke for those of us who are familiar with the work of Billy Hathorn, the author of this article. He has in the past indicated that he takes personally the many articles he's had nominated for deletion. So it's to that, not to your opinions, that the comment was referring. I don't doubt your good faith in asserting your opinion, and I don't think iridescenti was at all intending to doubt your good faith either. For the record though, the argument is not "I don't feel generous". The argument is "the article cites exactly zero — count 'em, zero — non-trivial independent reliable sources about this man". Mwelch 16:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Thanks for the clarification. I have some sympathy for Billy's predicament. Personally, I'm a conservative, and would cheerfully delete those three articles on taste alone. However, I believe some editors are acting poorly and maneuvering posters into deletion referrals. A vice that is being applied by some involves either questioning the notability of a target, or, of accusing a target of original research. Assertions of plaigarism are easy and easy to obfuscate. Maybe these three articles need to be deleted, but there is a rush to judgement of which I'm wary. I'm not convinced by the argument, which I feel close to bullying, that goes 'I don't see why .. therefore I will delete.' DDB 21:17, 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. Sr 13 01:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arling Wiederspahn[edit]

No reliable sources offered — neither to validate specific article content nor to establish that the subject is even notable in the first place. Mwelch 01:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article lists ten "references". Only four of the "reference" links currently mention the subject of this article in any way, and each mention is trivial. The entirety of the information about the subject that can be discerned from all ten "references" combined is that the subject existed, married a woman named Edvina, founded a funeral home, funded a scholarship and donated to the Community House charitable organization. Obviously, none of those things make the subject notable per WP:BIO. Everything else in this article is completely unsourced. Since the author has a habit of creating Wikipedia biography articles about people based on their obituaries in their local newspaper, I suspect that's also the source of this information. The first listed "reference" appears to be a link to an obituary, though the link is now outdated. Of course, family-provided obits are not reliable sources because they do not indicate notability (anybody whose family submits one, gets one printed; no indication that anyone other than the family found the person notable) and because they are not fact-checked (the family gets to say pretty much anything they want that seems plausible and it will run like that). Other claims (not validated by references in the article) to notability would be that he was elected county coroner, was elected to a community college board, was appointed to the state's Board of Embalming and that he was the first person in Wyoming to offer cremation as a burial service. The first two claims are quite explicitly mentioned by WP:BIO as being insufficient ("Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability.") for WP:N. There's also nothing in WP:BIO to indicate serving on an appointed board, in the absence of any non-trivial secondary source coverage, is WP:N. The final claim about being the first in the state to cremate seems more interesting. Maybe there could be something there, but again the article provides no reliable source to even indicate that that claim is true, much less that any secondary sources consider such a claim to be particularly noteworthy. Mwelch 00:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, umm, I think Mwelch has pretty much said it all! *Cremepuff 222* 01:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... I think everything was covered (wow that's a long point). --Whs tc hy 02:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless he turns out to be notable as a funeral director--and it that case it will be very appropriate to delete everything else.DGG 02:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with Cremepuff222: Mwelch has said why. Acalamari 02:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as every location, flexibly defined, has a "first" anything, but that isn't real notability, it's boosterism. This is a really obscure first. --Dhartung | Talk 07:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no reason to believe that anything written may be contradicted through further research. Unless someone has evidence this is a plant, it would seem inappropriate to make the assumption. As it stands, the person's notability is explicit. DDB 08:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "This person's notability is explicit"? This is a guy who founded a crematorium. As Dhartung says, every town with a crematorium had a first one - unless he lobbied to get the law changed to legalise them, or something similarly significant, there's nothing noteworthy at all about it. And this reference in particular takes the prize as the single worst "reference" I have ever seen - an obituary for someone completely unrelated who happens to have been buried by his firm — iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In major newspapers, the obituaries are indeed fact-checked, and the editors do not print lengthy obits about every dead person. They print short terse obits in general. They print long obits on leaders in business, government, the arts, and philanthropy, and also for balance sometimes choose one of us ordinary people who led an interesting life. The obits of notables are prepared in advance and staff writers update them periodically. The AFD nomination have overstated the case for obituaries failing to demonstrate notability. They can, to some extent, depending on the paper. In a town of 4,000 they probably print whatever the family sends in if it seems plausible. In New York City, that is not the case. Edison 14:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The obituary in question comes from the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle which with all due respects, probably has less need to be selective & save space on the obits page than the NYT. An obituary in the Washington Post, Daily Telegraph, Die Welt etc I accept as prima facie evidence of likely notability, but a local paper in Cheyenne needs something else to back up the claim — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I appreciated Edison's making that clarification, which I certainly should have made explicit in the nomination. Because I have nominated several of this author's small-town-newspaper-obit-based articles for deletion, and indeed was nominating two others at the same time as this one, that is what I had in mind when I referred to "obituaries" in the nomination. I don't disagree at all that an "obituary" article (as opposed to a paid "death notice", which still anyone can get) in The New York Times is an entirely different affair (as evidenced by the fact that such an obituary has a by-line, so yes, you know someone worked on fact-checking it). I was sloppy in not having been more clear about the distinction, to be sure. Guilty as charged. But I stand by what I said with regard to this and the other obituary articles I've nominated. With The New York Times, you have to call them and suggest an obituary article (again, as opposed to a simple "death notice", which, even with The Times, anyone can simply pay for), and then they make the decision on the person's notability. The newspaper which ran the obituary that serves as the basis for this article, on the other hand, accepts obituaries like this. No one is making a call on the person's notability, and there's no by-line to indicate that what was submitted was subjected to anything more than copyediting. Mwelch 18:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'm not sure what you're basing usage on here, but in my hometown paper it's precisely the opposite. Everybody gets a basic death notice; longer obituaries are paid for by the family. In rare cases a local luminary -- pol, businessman, volunteer -- gets a bona fide bylined article which is basically full of encomia from associates. These articles are not called obituaries. --Dhartung | Talk 08:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply. Yes, that's about how it is with most small newspapers, the variable being whether they charge for the "upgrade" from death notice to obituary. Some do; some don't. And if there is an actual reporter-assigned article (not just a family-providec obituary) like you mention at the end, then that speaks to the person's notability, I would agree, and also is much more likely to be a reliable source, in terms of fact-checking. There was no such article here in the case of Wiederspahn. What Edison was pointing out, though, is that in a metro area, like New York with The Times, it's even the basic death notice that the family has to pay for, and it's not the family's option to just pay more to have it "upgraded" to a longer obituary. You have to call The Times, suggest that so-and-so receive an obituary, and then they make the editorial decision as to whether the person notability merits such. So with their obituaries, the "anybody can have one" and "they are not fact-checked" arguments would not apply. Mwelch 15:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if obits were reliable (and even those from major news sources aren't) this guy isn't notablyBalloonman 04:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree on that last point. Modern major newspapers maintain a high reputation for obit coverage--as the principal ones are prepared long in advance, they probably do in general represent a balanced view. DGG 02:22, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Streets and squares of Romney, West Virginia[edit]

Article is a list of roads in a small (population under 2,000 within city limits) West Virginia town. Fails WP:NOTE and qualifies for WP:CRUFT. Michael Greiner 01:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Romney, West Virginia and then take a long, hard look at whether it belongs there, but that's not an AfD issue. --Crunch 01:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this type of article falls under WP is not a directory CitiCat 01:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, I agree with CitiCat. Also, a merge doesn't seem neccesary as the size of Romney is only 5000 (which also proves this article isn't notable). *Cremepuff 222* 01:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not even worth merging. City isn't that big to begin with; and furthermore, Wikipedia is not a directory of streets. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hammer. I'm a loyal West Virginian, but even I say it needs to go. DarkAudit 02:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete and nice to see the list of churches for this burgh is gone, too. Chris 05:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not tom-tom go. Carlossuarez46 16:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not notableBalloonman 04:09, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Q Strange[edit]

This article fails to satisfy the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC. There is no evidence of reliable, independent coverage of this artist offered in the article. A google search turns up nothing further. Mad Insanity Records, his purported label, isn't a major label or an important indie label. It appears that the label's website is an internet forum. Darkspots 01:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I couldn't find any online sources, so it most likely fails WP:MUSIC. *Cremepuff 222* 01:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources to establish any notability. Fram 07:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing to WP:ATTribute, no grounds yet for a WP article. Murgh ^disc. 12:41, 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 02:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early Morning Special Service Exeter[edit]

Contested prod. Wikipedia is not a directory. Non-notable bus route. 99of9 00:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm not even going to try a google search for notablity. Wikipedia is not a directory, among other things. *Cremepuff 222* 01:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Might qualify for Wikitravel CitiCat 01:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Article has no sources, and I can't see that any could possibly be found. UnitedStatesian 01:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if anything, merge it into the article for the transit agency that covers Exeter. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic is already covered - and more understandably covered, too - in Stagecoach Devon. BTLizard 09:51, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Potential Candidates, 2008 Presidential Election[edit]

Bringing this to AfD for a consensus. Article right now is a list of non-candidates, and articles already exist here, here, and here for current candidates. Wildthing61476 00:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Existing articles are sufficient as nom points out. In addition, the concept of what makes a potential candidate "notable" is a slippery slope. --Crunch 01:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, content is redundant to existing articles (per nom). The notability is also a stretch for me... *Cremepuff 222* 01:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as articles already exist to cover this topic. Acalamari 01:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge merge it into the parent article about the elections, most likely they are already there.--JForget 02:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant. Maxa megalon 2000 05:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful info into one of the three articles mentioned by Wildthing61476 — 2008 United States third party presidential candidates, 2008 Republican presidential candidates, 2008 Democratic presidential candidates — then replace current article with a list of those three pages. Slightly Selassie 08:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no new info. here. JJL 14:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not one of the three is a candidate for the 2008 election right now. Worse, "notable" in the title, enough said. Dragomiloff 00:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all aboveBalloonman 04:08, 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. —Ocatecir ^Talk 21:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Team-BHP[edit]

~~Team-BHP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~
~~Vitara club of the philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~
MX-West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
~~First Generation Monte Carlo Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~
Myrtle Madness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
~~PFS Imports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~
~~Pulse Motorsport Developments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)~~

The reason to nominate these pages for deletion is,
1) Wikipedia is not a site for promoting car clubs, forums or whatever and these creators do not seem to think this,
2) These sites are rather too "recent", therefore more like a page to promote these clubs
3) Otherwise can somebody give me any reason of notability for these clubs. Willirennen 23:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. cab 00:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, per A7: Article(s) about groups or companies that do not assert notability.SuperDT 01:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete or Delete. per nom, 12,000 members isn't really that much in the grand scheme of things, tagged also for speedy A7. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 01:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Club promotions; no reliable references. --SueHay 04:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Team-BHP was speedied by AQu01rius (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) at 2007-05-22 04:50 UTC; the other articles remain. cab 08:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The following articles have also been speedied. cab 23:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Vitara club of the Philippines by Kurykh (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- First Generation Monte Carlo Club by Khukri (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- PFS Imports by Johnleemk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Pulse Motorsport Developments by Lucasbfr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shrek 4[edit]

Crystalballim Wdon7 00:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I accidentally closed this discussion, as "Shrek4" was giving me a red link, so I assumed the page had been nuked. I didn't realize that there should have been a space between Shrek and 4. Discussion is now re-opened. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystalballism for sure. No verifiable info to be seen. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When I first looked at this article, I didn't see any sources. Now I see five sources, all of which seem reliable enough to me. That's good enough for me to change my vote to keep. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it exists on IMDb and other movie info sites. meshach 01:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but IMDb only lists that it's coming out in 2010. As of right now, there's no more verifiable information than that. Someone's really jumping the gun on this article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 01:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected; there is more verifiable info than that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article [40] indicates that Dreamworks business filings include Shrek 4 in 2010. That indicates to me that their SEC filings include information on the movie. This makes it verifiable information on an expected event. It's also confirmed here [41] which mentions talks with a director. Sure, it may change, it may even be canceled, but even if it were canceled, that'd mean something. FrozenPurpleCube 01:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has some reliable sources, definitely needs an article. Also, this afd is done by a user whose only contributions are to this afd.Shindo9 Hikaru 02:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE this article into Shrek (series). IF and WHEN there is proper WP sources / verifable information about this film to the point where a separate article should exist, then break that section out to a new page. Same thing goes for any "Shrek 5" articles that may be created and "Puss in Boot: Story of an Ogre Killer". And since IMDB is user-edited, we can't use the existence of a film entry as proof of a film's existence. SpikeJones 02:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Users can add comments and reviews to IMDB, but cannot add entries for the movies themselves. If they could they would be having the same problems we have here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually, it is possible to add a new title. IMDB, however, moderates submissions before they appear on the site and seems to do some minimal verification. Still, it is effectively self-published, and equivalent to a press release in terms of reliability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now under WP:Crystal and per previous AFD. Also, could someone please fix the AFD link on the main AFD page, it's red. --Whstchy 02:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been fixed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has reliable sources. --Caldorwards4 02:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE into Shrek (series) as per SpikeJones' recommendation above, until enough information to break it out into an article such as Bond 22 Keep, after looking at new information provided. --Edwin Herdman 06:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's appropriately sourced. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not thrilled about this one, but it seems sourced well enough. It's a successful series, and the computer animation aspect means an unusually long production period before release as well as a fairly early commitment (i.e. once it's begun it's very expensive to cancel). --Dhartung | Talk 21:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep I think this is borderline CRYSTAL, but by the strict definition it isn't.Balloonman 03:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Enthustiatic Keep Are you guys kidding me? There are tons of sites on google which say there is a shrek 4, including http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0892791/ how can we delete this? Whoever deletes it, be careful, because people will just laugh in your face in 2 years when it comes out in the movies. --LtWinters 20:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the mere existence of an IMDB page or a mention in the rumor mill is not enough to warrant a page. A movie article should have sufficient details, such as confirmation it is being worked on, names of somebody involved with the project, or some firm official stance on the direction the project is taking. --Edwin Herdman 21:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have many other confirmed pages about future movie projects, why is this any different User:AKR619
Keep BrenDJ 02:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article, although simple and brief is verified by reliable sources about its development, so it doesn't really violate WP:CRYSTAL.--Kylohk 09:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. There is a persistent and depressing failure of many people to appreciate the difference between predicting the future and reporting on what somebody else has said in the past about the future. Everyking 10:33, 26 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 02:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Hunt[edit]

Contested ProD by an anon whose only edit was removing the ProD. Nonnotable game mod, fails WP:N and WP:NOT, specifically this mod is just not that notable, and the article sounds a little like a game guide. SuperDT 00:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable mod for Unreal, no assertion for notability, no indepedent sources. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 01:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and possibly merge into the main game article (Unreal Tournament). *Cremepuff 222* 01:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability has been established for the subject. Acalamari 01:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~I think the writer means Monster hunter~~.Arnon Chaffin ^{Got a message?} 22:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The mod used to be part of the Unreal Tournament article... whether it is or not, I don't know, as I haven't been to that article in a while. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 01:45, 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 delete per WP:CSD#G7. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heesham[edit]

Originator has removed prod tag and provided some explanation, so forwarding to AfD. Please review the article's talk page for some of the activity and discussion that's already occurred. I'd like to add: if this town actually exists, since there doesn't appear to be any reference or record of it ANYWHERE online, I would ask about its specific location-- for example, how does one get there? What streets pass through it? How does one know when one is there? Even if the place does actually exist, it seems as though it would fail any notability test. (Also please note that, for some unexplained reason, the originator reverted Ssbohio's proper edit to rename the article Heesham, Arizona to conform to Wikipedia naming conventions.) Proofreader J-Man 02:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm assuming good faith on the comments of those who are contesting the prod (including the one person who claims to live there), but the fact that this is returning absolutely zero GHits or census results has me believing that it's truly not a notable town at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - so it once was a town, but isn't anymore, and now is part of another town instead. So what? --Haemo 03:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V outright. Nothing, nada, zilch on Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News Archive. --Dhartung | Talk 05:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is good material that could be referenced elsewhere, but not needing an actual article. DDB 08:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All localities, past and present are notable, especially one that was chartered. Needs sourcing and as an old town, this may not be on the web but that does not mean it can't be found. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 10:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All real localities are entitled to an article by precedent. Are you sure this one is real? Why? --Dhartung | Talk 20:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment No, but not everything can be found on Google. Tag as unreferenced and wait a while to see if can be sourced. If it can't be after a reasonable period, I would then support its deletion. Is there any reason to suspect a hoax? -- Mattinbgn/^talk 21:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete it. I am the creator of it. I don't really care anymore. --LtWinters 23:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of sources. If this town had really existed in the 1930s and 1940s, I would have expected local history buffs in the Tucson area to take notice, not to mention that there would have been governmental records of its incorporation and disincorporation. --Metropolitan90 03:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete because the creator himself wants it to be removed.--Kylohk 15:38, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Kiel[edit]

(auto?)biographical page with no claim to notability. Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 02:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Page makes no assertations of notability, and none of the sources are any good. Fails WP:BIO for certain. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per TPH. It reads like an autobiography or fan page. Yechiel Man 08:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-promotion. Renaissance men need ghits. tomasz. 20:26, 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 speedied. Johnleemk | Talk 08:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Backpack (Short Film)[edit]

Non-notable Youtube student film. No reliable sources found. Masaruemoto 02:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any reliable sources either. Furthermore, the article doesn't even claim any notability, so I would say that it's definitely non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability Feeeshboy 03:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: A7, no assertion of notability, and seems to fall under the scope of "web content" as it was released online. So tagged. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:40, 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. WjBscribe 02:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado Titan[edit]

Non-notable minor character, original research, childish writing Feeeshboy 03:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Definitely non-notable character, definitely original research, definitely a poorly-written article (poorly written or not, it still wouldn't pass). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list of characters from the film, if one exists, per WP:FICT. If not then delete. Otto4711 12:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not notable. Decoratrix 17:57, 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 Keep closed as keep given that besides the nomination there was other recommendations for delete. There is a significant suggestion of merging both or possibly renaming. Its something that should be discussed and decided on the articles talk page. Gnan garra 01:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie cheer[edit]

Contested prod, notability issues. Peta 05:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep get mentioned peripherally quite often in discussions of Australian nationalism. I added a couple of sources; it's hard to find many facts in reliable sources that are actually about the phrase (e.g. how it originated, etc.). cab 08:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. cab 08:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, referenced and it fulfils notability criteria. Recurring dreams 08:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; lots of sources. John Vandenberg 08:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep suitable level of news coverage going back to 2000 - notable and verifiable. Orderinchaos 09:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Has previously been addressed in the Aussie article. Is the title "Aussie cheer" a neologism?--Melburnian 09:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Consider merging content from Aussie to this article? Recurring dreams 09:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, Keep, merge section from Aussie, and move article to Aussie Aussie Aussie Oi Oi Oi--Melburnian 10:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, Merge chant section from Aussie, but perhaps with a better article title than "Aussie Aussie Aussie Oi Oi Oi"!
  Aussie chant? Australian sporting chant? Anything apart from "Aussie cheer". Yuk! Ozzieboy 17:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Oggy Oggy Oggy as a minor variation from the original theme with not enough content to justify an spinout article on its own. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 09:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a stand alone article (needs some rewriting but does meet inclusion under WP:NN--VS ^talk 10:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Oggy Oggy Oggy per Mattinbgn. BTLizard 11:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Agree with Mattinbgn.Assize 13:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Oggy Oggy Oggy per Mattinbgn. Thinly referenced. One article about someone trying to copyright it (which makes little sense in terms of intellectual property law) and another article where it gets a brief mention in the context of Aussie nationalism. Edison 14:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Orderinchaos, Also it is better sourced than Oggy Oggy Oggy and most likely more widely used in modern usage. DXRAW 21:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced article on well-known Australian chant. If it was to be merged, Oggy Oggy Oggy should be merged into this rather than vice versa. Capitalistroadster 02:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed that moving the article to a more appropriaste title, such as Melburnian's suggestion, would be advisable. "Aussie cheer" is pretty generic and meaningless :) Orderinchaos 12:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - the article is verified; and there should be enough for a shortish article on this subject - what about the use of the chant during the Sydney 2000 Olympics, for example? Merging to the English chant article would fail to recognise the distinctly Australian thing that this chant has become. JRG 23:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is estabilished and it is better referenced than Oggy Oggy Oggy which is only referenced to a dictionary (ie a directory listing).Ga rr ie 03:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability established as far as I'm concerned. It's an entirely different thing, with different connotations, than Oggy Oggy Oggy. Lankiveil 23:47, 25 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. John254 15:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free Tibet Campaign[edit]

aside from notability issues, reads like an attack piece Chris 05:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contentious material has been removed and third party sources (BBC and Guardian news reports etc) and category have been added. A glance at the article's 'history' page would have shown the nominator that the material he objected to was a recent edit bordering on vandalism and simple reversion, rather than a move to deletion, might have been more appropriate. Nick mallory 05:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Campaign is well-known as evidenced by BBC articles. Slightly Selassie 08:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Definitely notable (see above). Why the nom didn't tag the article or at least leave a message at the talk page before going to AfD is hard to understand. Malc82 09:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment the reason it is hard for you to understand is that the article did not establish notability when I AfD'd it. Go back in the history, that should clear it up for you. Improvements have been made since. Thanks for coming out. Chris 22:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At the risk of piling on, plenty of notability is demonstrated in the article. Darkspots 12:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously valid article. It does seem to be a vandal magnet, however - possibly consider protecting for a while? BTLizard 13:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I'd endorse semi-protection, given that this is a plain magnet for Sinophilic vandalism. That aside, with over 50,000 Google hits and well-known international fame, I'm likewise bewildered at the lack of fact-checking before AfD. RGTraynor 13:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a bit hard to pick out this group from among the various campaigns to "Free Tibet" but they seem important enough as a group. Certainly doesn't read like an attack page now, exactly what and who was being attacked? The only thing that comes close on the page was some trolling by an IP address. That's solved by the removal of the trolling comments. FrozenPurpleCube 15:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If they don't have a good enough article, it's time for a rewrite, not a deletion.--Gloriamarie 17:25, 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 13:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HUMANICS[edit]

This claims to be a field of scientific study. It appears to be "something made up one day." The supposed founder of this discipline has the same name as the page's originator. It has been speedied before, but this version sounds less like out-and-out nonsense. Deranged bulbasaur 05:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This claims to be a field of scientific study. (This subject shall be of great use for all humans). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.1.109 (talk • contribs) 06:01, May 22, 2007

- Somehow I doubt that. Deranged bulbasaur 06:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, made by a single purpose account. Seems to be a non-notable neologism (or nnn for short). Charlie 06:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, maybe speedy as nocontext. The problem is that the entry is strictly a dicdef of a term that was apparently just made up (perhaps a marketing term?), doesn't provide any information whatsoever of what this discipline is all about, and google doesn't turn u anything about a scientific discipline named humanics. Seems to be little more than a buzzword or a brand name. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google reveals that the term is something like a trade name used by a number of HR or similar organiations. Minimal ghits for "Rajesh Godse", and not clear that even they all all for the same person. BTLizard 10:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "nnn" per Charlie. "the phenomenon of human leaning"?? sure to be an interesting field. tomasz. 20:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Look up the term "Humanics" under Webster Dictionary or even dictionary.com -- \Hu*man"ics\, n. The study of human nature. [R.] --T. W. Collins. It's not a marketing term. Prominent institutions in Higher Education sport this philosophy in their mission statements and course work. It does require much needed cleanup and better citations. It probably could even be merged as a field under Sociology. User:Mpicart 23:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as per above discussion. Pure bunk. Bearian 17:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cleaned up article. Removed scientific references since Humanics is abstract and not easily definable. Put up links with humanics references including definition. Article is in need of more information. 12.32.99.60 12:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Iamunknown 18:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is improved over what it was when it was nominated, but it's not even at stub-quality right now, merely a DicDef. It could be an valid article, but there's no point keeping it in its current form. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 19:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment wasn't this term coined by Isaac Asimov? I think it appears in The Robots of Dawn, Robots and Empire, and newer books of the Foundation Saga. 132.205.44.134 00:56, 26 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. Yannismarou 12:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Himnarcism[edit]

This supposed cult returns an impressive 0 google hits. There's not much else to say. Deranged bulbasaur 06:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable - "It has not spread far yet but is developing" is a good sign something isn't notable yet. Very likely hoax. --Charlene 06:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, possible speedy as there is no assertion of notability. Charlie 07:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated above. Slightly Selassie 08:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another day, another joke religion. The stuff about velvet cushions and gum-tree leaves is the giveaway here. BTLizard 10:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 10:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 10:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, I agree, nonsense. Euryalus 10:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP: I think this article is worth a fair go and deserves to be kept and improved on. 0 google hits means nothing Sam360 10:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does this really need a discussion. Could somebody delete this quickly. Assize 11:04, 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 deletion. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun (1973 TV Series)[edit]

This TV programme does not exist, the page is simply a partially vandalised duplicate of Rainbow (TV series) ChrisTheDude 06:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons stated by ChrisTheDude Slightly Selassie 08:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Stupid joke. tomasz. 20:19, 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 12:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blitzkrieg Marketing[edit]

Every other day somebody comes up with application for some new military metaphor in "Strategic Planning" (c.f. all the adaptations of The Art of War). It's ridiculously corny, but more pertinently there's no indication that this particular concept is notable. See the google search here [42] which just turns up some ventures promoting the concept and some offhand mentions. I recommend a swift Panzer strike on this article. Deranged bulbasaur 07:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exciting Update We're now informed that "The term "Blitzkrieg Marketing" is copyrighted by G.Kourvaras (2007)." Leaving aside the fact that a two word term cannot be copyrighted, it's hard not to notice the similarity of the username of the article's originator to the name of our good friend Mr. Kourvaras. Deranged bulbasaur 07:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KFC claims that the two words "family feast" are a trademark so unfortunately there is a precedent :-( Slightly Selassie 08:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what KFC may claim with respect to trademark, that has nothing to do with copyright whatsoever. Deranged bulbasaur 08:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (unless the author comes up with something more substantial over the next few days). "The term "Blitzkrieg Marketing" is copyrighted by G.Kourvaras (2007)" This suggests the article is little more than spam. Slightly Selassie 08:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By itself "blitzkrieg marketing" comes up with just over 300 ghits, which isn't very much. Link it with "Kourvaras", and that total becomes, er... zero. I don't think the term is in common use and I doubt that it has an agreed meaning among those that do use it. So, non-notable and a neologism. BTLizard 12:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per deranged observations... nice workBalloonman 04:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for things our consultant made up one day. --Dynaflow babble 00:36, 26 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. WjBscribe 02:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astoria - Mini Mart Bus Stop (Oregon Coachways)[edit]

Non-notable bus stop. As per WP:OUTCOMES, this had been discussed before and it was decided then too that bus stops are non-notable. However I have not been able to find that exact AfD precedent, so I have nominated this article. xC | ☎ 07:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to draw attention to this similar page -

Regards,xC | ☎ 08:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. Beno1000 09:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all We've already decided this doesn't fly. No express claims are made as to why these bus stops should be exceptional. Deranged bulbasaur 09:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all If the notability of this rides on WP:LOCAL, it fails. --Charlene 09:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all fails WP:N due to being referenced only to the Amtrak website. If it is not notable enough to have multiple reliable sources create substantial coverage of it, then there does not appear to be sufficient information available from reliable sources to ever create more than a stub, so it does not deserve an article. The Amtrak site listing shows that it exists, but Wikipedia is not a set of stubs on everything that exists in the world, or one could create an article about every phone booth, lamp post and mailbox. Edison 14:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. :All Oregon articles created by MrFish as part of a larger series, perhaps other noms are in order? This member of WikiProject Oregon thanks you. :) Katr67 15:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I note that there are several other non-notable railway stations such as Albany (Amtrak station) and Anniston (Amtrak station). Could we also have a look at such pages, or shall I open a new AfD? I ask since I wonder how notable such stations are, and I was just wondering...xC | ☎ 16:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there are any more bus stations those should be looked at, but I don't think the actual railway stations should be blanket afd'ed. Those need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Most of the Oregon ones have some historical significance. There are a few others that are merely a rail platform and don't include a historic rail station. I think checking in with the WikiProject Trains people would be a good idea. Katr67 17:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is the idea of keeping adding articles for deletion after someone has expressed his opinoin? Procedurally I suggest that the closing admin only count deletion votes for articles listed BEFORE someone "voted." These are late hits. It would be better to get your collection of articles together and THEN list them, or to create a separate AFD. Edison 22:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note The articles I suggested have not been officially added to this afd. I'll list them separately. Katr67 22:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deleting s bus stop is one thing, i think worldwide no one's made an article that meets notability yet, however xC comment re railway stations is like touching the third rail itself. It has been decreed somewhere that railway stations are notable. Pickle 01:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's because a bus stop is usually not much more than a sign on a post, or maybe a storefront at most. A railway station is a major piece of infrastructure, and (since many are old) they often have historic or architectural interest aside from often being one of the largest buildings in a city. --Charlene 04:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Thanks for clearing that up. It was a genuine doubt I had, thank you xC | ☎ 04:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bus stations can be notable: Port Authority Bus Terminal for instance. --NE2 18:15, 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. >Radiant< 10:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vatsal Seth[edit]

not notable NorthernThunder 15:44, 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]
Delete a minor actor with an IMDB page. There are thousands of them, and Wikipedia shouldn't cover them. Yechiel Man 00:40, 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 08:06, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 needs some work though. W.marsh 21:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davos Man[edit]

Incomplete AfD. Template was added very shortly after the article's creation which hasn't been edited since. This is a procedural listing. I abstain. Seed 2.0 17:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment TIME and the BBC have written about it, but only 9390 Google hits, so I don't think it's exactly caught on. -- Mithent 00:08, 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 08:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Based on the quality of the Google hits for "Davos man", I believe Wikipedia should have an article with that title. The current version needs to be improved substantially. Yechiel Man 08:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be some kind of neologism. The article itself is part essay written in an unencyclopedic tone and part dicdef. Also, the constant references to the "elite" are nauseating, but that's not a reason for deletion in itself. Deranged bulbasaur 09:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I suppose. It's a bit obscure but obviously has some currency among those who pay attention to the, um, Davos men. Mangoe 11:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the BBC, we can learn all-important things such as "how to be hip" at the snooty little event in Davos. The term seems to be a way for the attendees of the World Economic Forum to ingratiate themselves with each other through some contrived designation. The fact that it's mentioned in some media stories means it's verifiable and that reliable sources exist, but it doesn't make it notable. Let's not lap at the dregs of the BBC and TIME on this one. Deranged bulbasaur 11:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: This isn't any neologism. I've seen it used in The Economist, and far from recently, and am a bit curious as to the relevance of class war angst in AfD discussions. That being said, the article as it stands sucks, and should only be given so much rope to see if it can be improved beyond dicdef status. Ravenswing 13:51, 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. >Radiant< 10:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chillblast[edit]

Lacks notability by WP:COMPANY. Notability is neither established nor even claimed. The reference cited merely links to a blog entry. Tagged with notability warning since August 06, but without improvement. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject -- B. Wolterding 17:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually see a lot of reviews of their product in a Google search, but I don't see really independent commentary about the company itself. Weak delete unless someone comes up with stronger sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:20, 17 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 08:07, 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 21:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minuto[edit]

Non-notable brand of noodle, the company itself does not even have an article. Read like an ad, too. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 22:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No article at de-wiki, either. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:45, 17 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 08:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonnotable food - especially after you eat it. :) Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Yechiel Man 08:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keepThe article doesn't seem excessively cookbook-like to me. It just describes the product. I don't see where the accusations of advertising come from either, but I may not be seeing the right version for that. Ultimately, this comes down to a determination of prevalence that will likely necessitate consultation of non-english articles. If the claims of the article are accurate as to its entry into the vernacular, it should probably be kept. Deranged bulbasaur 09:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable brand of food. The content itself is hardly unique, most instant noodles are prepared the same way. It definitely hasn't been talked about in culinary magazines as I checked the web.--Kylohk 11:20, 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 21:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internal Affairs (band)[edit]

Originally put up as a PROD but as the PROD has been contested so I am bringing it here for proper debate. It should also be noted that one of the band's musicians Greg Bacon is also subject to an AFD debate. I myself vote Delete, since there are not sufficient non trivial sources for this band for it to meet WP:Music. A1octopus 22:12, 17 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 08:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to satisfy WP:MUSIC (criteria 4 and 6, for example). That of course doesn't make the countless articles on inconsequential bands anything more than clutter, but that's a topic for Wikipedia Talk:Notability (music). Deranged bulbasaur 08:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some reliable sources are provided to back up the claims to notability. Nuttah68 13:24, 28 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. >Radiant< 10:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Working People's Association[edit]

Non-notable organization. I couldn't find any sources describing this particular organization. There was a notable organization of the same name that was involved in the Haymarket Riot, but this is not connected to it. That organization was anarchist while this organization was a modern grouping of communist organizations, until some members left to form the International Association of Working People, or something like that [43]. We should delete this article so an article about the historical group can be written in its place. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:39, 17 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 08:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a non notable organisation. Luckily for the evil running dogs of the capitalist hegemony the article notes the IWWP is on 'hold' at the moment because of internal disputes. Nick mallory 09:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Surprisingly the article does not say whether the Tooting Popular Front is an affiliate. BTLizard 10:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: to the nominator: how did you figure out that the current organization is different from the Haymarket Riot association? Links, please? The older organization is certainly notable; the current organization may or may not be; there's not very much online to be able to tell. At any rate, the article should be reworked to include the historical group. -- phoebe/(talk) 04:24, 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 merge. The information will be avilable in the history following the redirect. - CygnetSaIad 01:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic power safety[edit]

Domestic AC power safety notes was nominated for deletion on 2007-04-02. The result of the discussion was "withdrawn". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domestic AC power safety notes.

A page consisting solely of instructions and advice is irreconcilable with WP:NOT. Rewriting isn't really an option, given the title. Deltabeignet 22:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, the title isn't a problem since the page could easily be moved to another location if the current title was an objection to rewriting. Still, the page is unreferenced, so that might also be a reason to delete. Perhaps a redirect to Domestic AC power plugs and sockets? Or a transwiki? FrozenPurpleCube 22:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. If anyone can actually source this information, merge to appropriate articles. Someguy1221 23:04, 17 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 08:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this information is deemed extremely useful, I suppose it could be transwikied. However, everything from the title to the article itself is irrecoverably non-encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Charlie 11:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Domestic AC power plugs and sockets which already has a section on the safe use of the connectors. What is said in the article seems valid, but it needs to be referenced to electrical safety codes. Giving electrical advice is as problematic as giving medical advice. There are many practices which might seem common sense, but which are unsafe and contrary to code. Edison 14:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A subject that can be covered in an encyclopedic way without merely being a how-to guide. Otherwise, merge with Domestic AC power plugs and sockets. Dragomiloff 00:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Domestic AC power plugs and sockets. It's not merely dangerous to give electrical advice, as mentioned earlier, but in some jurisdictions (such as the UK) it's seriously illegal. It would be highly irresponsible to keep this article. andy 16:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It isn't hard to rewrite the article to not sound like a how-to-guide. They can mention the theories behind why different failures and accidents occur at home, and then state what should be done to prevent it, and so on. Either way, the subject is a valuable one. (It's definitely mentioned in many goverment campaigns.)--Kylohk 14:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WjBscribe 02:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Want a New Duck[edit]

No significance claimed; seems to be here on the basis that Wikipedia is a catalogue of everything. Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The song may be written by a notable artist, but it appears as a permanent stub wiht little detail or reliable sources backing it.--Kylohk 09:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of songs by "Weird Al" Yankovic, even if there's not much content to merge. Probably does not qualify as an album, does not seem to be notable in itself. --B. Wolterding 10:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. It may pass #18 of the proposed Wikipedia:Notability (songs) guideline, having been on the soundtrack for Transformers: The Movie (that depends on whether Transformers: The Movie was "major", and I don't have a clue about that). If not, Merge any info into Dare to be Stupid, the album on which it first appeared. --Charlene 10:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Transformers: The Movie has been advertised for almost a year now... I suspect that it's going to be a fairly major movie at least in certain circles. Thus, I would say keep per 18.Balloonman 04:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as above. We certainly have entries for less notable songs. JJL 14:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, and per the fact that "Weird Al" parodies generally reside in a different sphere than most. Although it didn't chart, it's certainly cited enough to demonstrate its importance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - no evidence that this is any less notable than other songs in Category:"Weird Al" Yankovic songs. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, while wondering what happened to the cover image; was it deleted by the nominating admin? Robert K S 20:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but it may have been removed improperly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. It has been kindly restored. Robert K S 11:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable song by a notable artist. At worst, the article would not be deleted but redirected to the album title, and redirection where the existing content is not seriously violative of policy is grist for editorial discussion, not AfD. Newyorkbrad 21:00, 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 06:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix Partners[edit]

One external source, does not establish notability. "Early stage" <> significant... Guy (Help!) 11:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Bring on the multiple non-trivial references. David Mestel^(Talk) 17:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Easily Delete non-notableBalloonman 04:06, 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. JLaTondre 14:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign for Real-Time[edit]

Fails our guidelines for bands. I ran across it while working on our very large image backlogs. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 06:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. JJL 14:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no real claim or eveidence of notability. If the article is rewritten to bring it into line with WP:BAND I'll reconsider. Nuttah68 13:28, 28 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. John254 14:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chotrul Duchen[edit]

Non-notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxxfy123xxx (talk • contribs) 2007/05/22 01:53:29

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a notable topic for anyone interested in Tibetan culture. Here is a reference from Namgyal Monastery, which has Robert Thurman and Alexander Berzin as adjunct professors. ([44]). I may add more sources later, but by this AfD's token Tibet may be deleted too. Stammer 14:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Here is another online reference among many. The festival is also historically important and is repeatedly referenced in Goldstein's "History of Modern Tibet". Stammer 14:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Notable and Stammer has fine sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:51, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epicity[edit]

While the user asserts that it is a new term, and it very well may be, it is as of now unverifiable. Running On Brains 18:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No google hits used epicity in this manner. Someguy1221 22:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete self-described neologism. Previously speedied by an admin. I asked the creator for some (a?) RS, with this response: "epicity is a brand new word. we are really just using it as shorthand notition in the field right now. when we have sources, i'll add them." --Dweller 13:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - blatant OR/neologism. If this scale gains acceptance, it will first appear in tornado. Only if it gains wide acceptance and general use would its being a seperate article be justified. --EMS | Talk 18:07, 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. - Mailer Diablo 06:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Hoyland[edit]

STRONG DELETE. This character is an infant who only appeared in one episode. Not notable per Wikipedia standards. Kogsquinge 23:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Necessary character infomation, of possible future relevance on the show. Several other similar maintained articles on wikipedia'. 00:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, no actual information in the article apart from where she was born; already mentioned in parent's articles. EliminatorJR ^Talk 19:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Infant. Herostratus 15:30, 27 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 made by User:Zahakiel to Lowercase i prefix. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IProduct[edit]

This article is dumb. Please delete ASAP. -Indolences 14:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In this case I agree with the nomination, not because the article is dumb, but because it is redundant with Lowercase i prefix (see AfD for this article below). I have redirected iProduct to this other, sourced entry. ◄Zahakiel ► 14:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Per User:Zahakiel's redirect, this AfD discussion is no longer valid, since it's of an article that basically no longer exists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:12, 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 12:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Sanches[edit]

Contested speedy deletion. I personally hold no opinion either way about the article at this time. Tabercil 21:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 21:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Judging by the article currently, she doesn't appear to be notable enough. Epbr123 22:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- According to WP:PORNBIO, only Playboy Playmates of the Month are notable. Also, being related to a well-known person does not make someone notable. Epbr123 10:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to the article's talk page, there are people who think she is notable enough. Squamate 04:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Baring all doesn't make you notable. Slightly Selassie 13:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There have been several non-playmates who have appeared in Playboy, Playboy Newsstand Specials, & Playboy Videos. There have also been several sisters of playmates who have appeared in Playboy related material - sisters of Shannon Tweed, Renee Tenison, Christina Leardini, Corinna Harney, & Jenny McCarthy are a few that come to mind. Kim Sanches has not done anything that is unique or notable and thus is not worthy of an encyclopedic bio. Laetnej
Delete Per above. --Whs tc hy 20:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Elrith 00:00, 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. W.marsh 20:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lowercase i prefix[edit]

This article is dumb. Please delete ASAP. -Indolences 15:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article like this one is a good idea, although this one is poorly done. It should be expanded and made more complete. Nathan 21:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, merge somewhere else later: This should probably just be a section on trends in brand names, particularly the widespread adoption of medial capitals. Slightly Selassie 13:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Blatant IDONTLIKEIT nomination. Regarding the entry itself, although the article is a stub (and I have so marked it after providing some sourcing for its content) it is a viable one, and has potential for expansion. Nothing in policy is violated. ◄Zahakiel ► 14:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sourced and notable to me. And a [[weak argument to delete. Carlosguitar 15:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere. Perhaps Apple Inc. advertising. It just seems a bit .. odd, hanging out here on its own, and the title is rather unweildy at best. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
iMerge. Who in their right mind would ever stumble across this article? Clarityfiend 19:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Surprisingly informative article for such a stupid topic. This brings me to another one: IMO the Lowercase e prefix is just as notable. Mukadderat 00:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "This article is dumb" isn't a Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Needs expansion/cleanup, and possibly needs decategorized from Apple now that we have iGoogle, Cisco's iPhone, etc etc. But there's an encyclopedic marketing/product branding article in there somewhere, waiting to get out. As per User:Arkyan I find the title unintuitive, but for the life of me I can't think of a more accurate and succinct page name. --DeLarge 10:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Actually, since Lowercase e prefix is no longer a redlink and now redirects to Internet-related prefixes, I'd be kinda amenable to merging/redirecting there. Maybe. Although Apple Inc. advertising is a decent alternative. Maybe. I'm the soul of decisiveness today... I'd still prefer keeping it where it is though, especially now that User:Zahakiel has improved it. --DeLarge 15:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooo nice find. I'm cool with redirecting there, as it is not pretty much one brand (apple) related, and can be used in many instances. -Indolences 15:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The article starts with common prefix used to refer to products developed by Apple, but then it is undermined by iGoogle and others. It is more like a My prefix (e.g. MySQL), used a few years ago. Since the prefix is now used widely with no connection to Apple, such tone should be removed from the article. If the prefix is notable, it should be merged with other notable i-prefixes as Internet-related prefixes. -- jsimlo^(talk|cont) 22:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Internet-related prefixes. --Lambiam ^Talk 19:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bad faith nomination. - Sikon 10:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Marone[edit]

STRONG DELETE - This character was a stillborn infant and is not notable enough to have its own article. A mention in the Bridget Forrester and Dominick Marone articles would suffice. Kogsquinge 00:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A fictional stillborn infant? This character might merit a sentence in the article on the soap itself or in articles on the major charcters but not an article in its own right. Slightly Selassie 13:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of course Even a redirect to one of the parents seems excessive; who would search for this name? Propaniac 17:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification I'm not deeply invested against a redirect, of course; it just seems unlikely to me that this stillborn infant would be mentioned by name often enough to invoke curiousity. I'm also not sure where the redirect would go, since the name and birth are barely mentioned in either of the parents' articles and I think votes for redirects should specify a redirect target. Propaniac 17:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the main purpose would be to let people know from what context she comes, so the soap, or either of the parents' characters would be fine. David Mestel^(Talk) 21:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: supposing you had seen a passing reference to it, and had no idea what it was? David Mestel^(Talk) 17:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, deserves mention in article on the soap but no more. Purely trivial character. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:29, 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 all, although there was little participation in this AfD the analysis of non-notablity was excellent. This, coupled with the fact the articles remained unchanged during the process, serves to strenghten the deletion decision --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 04:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wide Angle Productions[edit]

Apparently vanity articles that are related to this deletion of a believed vanity bio.

This nomination includes also:

Perhaps Global Revolution is the most likely to be (barely) notable, but there's no evidence (yet) that it was broadcast on a significant TV station, for instance, and given sources for all are extremely weak. Purgatorio 18:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all The "Italian News Article" is about the dog stunt. If that's the only claim to notability, then inclusion should be the least of their concerns. Otherwise, there's a collection of non-notable productions over a ten-year time span. Caknuck 22:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how 'Gunther' is pronounced in Italian but 'Gunther Corporation' would make for a rather awesome bandname. Considering that 'potential for amusement' isn't a generally accepted criterion to establish notability, it's probably not too relevant though. Neither is the fact that their official website is a Blogspot blog but it's a pretty telling sign. Well, so we've got a lot of buzz words (media explosion, revolutionary, groundbreaking, experimental), a few weaselwords, plenty of what looks like self-promotion, an unsubstantiated claim about a PR stunt (the dog thing), a few trivial sources and, aside from that, apparently not a whole lot. The Miami Herald picked up the dog story and so did the BBC's website and a few newspapers. There is a claim about the Guinness Book of World Records (the Karlotta Liebenstein hoax). I'd argue that the dog incident could be notable because of the Miami Herald story (they bought the story and a local Miami TV station exposed it as a hoax, IIRC). The thing is though: that was seven years ago. Notability is generally a permanent thing but I would say that if this was barely notable seven years ago, it's hardly nowadays. It's a garden variety hoax. They didn't invent this type of PR stunt and, in fact, there isn't even a source to back up the claim that they were behind it. The Miami Herald issue isn't mentioned at all and the article only mentions this entire business in passing. Also, I assume that if this was indeed a notable company there would have been something to write about besides this 7 year-old PR stunt. Having said that, it's probably the most notable out of the bunch - not that it manages to actually establish what little notability there might be.
I'm more skeptical about the Global Revolutions article though. I know this is going to sound a bit like WP:IDONTLIKEIT but I'm still not clear on exactly what this experimental show entails, not to mention why it's notable. I really don't see much more than 'it was on TV' (maybe I've just spent too much time with marketing types). Now, I haven't been to Italy in a long time but a claim of 'was broadcast on television' is a little vague. There's a difference between prime time national television and public access at 2:30 am. And Wide Angle Productions isn't much better (after eliminating the false positives). So I would advocate deleting the latter two and keeping (and that's a extremely weak keep) Gunther Corporation, provided proper sources are added. -- Seed 2.0 19:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the only other activities mentioned are those related to James Hughes (whose article was deleted effectively as a vanity article) i.e. Global Revolution. To put this into context, the fact that the title track was a "sensation" can be best weighed against the fact that this was "Most notably during a spectacular music event at Pontedera Football Club" - if you consult U.S. Pontedera 1912 it emerges this is Serie D team with a ground capacity of around 4000. The football club seems to have links with the Gunther Corporation (the Countess Libenstein and Gunther the dog hoax again), but I'm not sure what exactly. Perhaps there is some, limited, justification for keeping Gunther Corporation just as a place to dump information about these stupid dog hoaxes. But for a years-old PR stunt and a more recent occurence at a Serie D football club, I do wonder if there's much point - the whole thing reeks of self-promotion as it is. And the "references" for the whole thing, such as they are, are pretty poor, the company's own "press release" as posted onto google groups, for instance.Purgatorio 05:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 23:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emo (slang)[edit]

Delete -article seems to have major problems with it, badly-sourced, referenced, NPOV; the rapid edit history shows there's no clear consensus over what 'emo' is, or says, or does, is it suitable for Wikipedia?? Berk2 13:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I definitely see your point with emo being difficult to define. Elsebroke 03:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be a wealth of references to mainstream newspaper articles that confirm that this a real youth subculture. Articles needs improvement (like nearly every Wikipedia article). Slightly Selassie 13:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An article on emo is certainly appropriate here and this is very from being bad enough to throw overboard. BTLizard 13:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Slightly Selassie. Is "slang" the best description? "Subculture" gets it right. JJL 14:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourced article whose independent existence from Emo (music) is justified on the Emo disambig. page. ◄Zahakiel ► 14:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sourced and notable, of course needs improvement. Carlosguitar 15:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is adequately sourced, obviously notable, passes in clusion criteria. It may be a candidate for cleanup, but this is not Articles for Cleanup ... Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensively referenced, adequate sourcing. Unfortunateyl this will be another vandal magnet. Keep it on your watch list! —Gaff ^ταλκ 16:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just needs to be a better article.---Gloriamarie 17:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know if I could do anything on this article, seeing as it's definitely not an area of expertise for me, but maybe a semi-protection is in order. I will watch it and help remove vandalism. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because it is a vandalism hotspot, maybe it should be more extensively protected. Maybe if enough people watch the article, we can prevent a great deal of NPOV, vandalism, and it could help make a general consensus. J-stan 18:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even the Daily Mail talks about "emos" now, it's just a gash article. Fix up and watch closely. tomasz. 20:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's still an awful article in a number of ways, but it satisfied WP:N and WP:V. I don't, like, know why people, you know, are so mean. --Dhartung | Talk 20:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A rename to Emo subculture (see also: punk subculture) would also be an improvement. --Dhartung | Talk 07:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Definitely agree w/this. tomasz. 14:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs serious cleanup but satisfies WP:Not --St.daniel ^Talk 20:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Emo is a widespread subculture/slang term and deserves Wikipedia's attention. Elsebroke 02:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion won't really make this article more useful to you, gentle reader . —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-05-23 08:40Z
Keep Very well-known term. The article could be better, for sure. But, deletion? No. Cowicide 12:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, as per WP:SNOW. --Ashenai 12:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Despairing 13:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this deleted you might as well delete punk, teddy boy, mod.... Adambisset 13:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Improve the article; don't delete it. JonathanFreed 14:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you're gonna delete emo, then what about chav? Punk? Goth? It just needs improvement. Nukleoptra 17:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NPOV is not a reason in itself to delete an article. --Philip Laurence 21:20, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Power Analytics[edit]

Nom - neologism added for marketing purposes (SPAM). Rklawton 13:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Save - New... but not Spam, and not created for commercial purposes. Recently recognized by the technical staff of a) 7x24 Exchange and 2) the Critical Power Coalition, as one of the most important new technological developments for preserving the maintainability of electrical power grids, and keeping mission-critical operations (hospitals, transportation, etc.) functioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrneumann (talk • contribs)
- Comment - the above was added by the article's author and the author of EDSA Micro Corporation. This editor's contributions revolve solely around promoting these two articles. Rklawton 00:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:SPAM refers. Pedro | Chat 13:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertisement. BTLizard 13:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probably A Yahoo search shows a handful of references to Power Analytics as written: it may or may not be a significant product in its field. In similar forms, it also appears to be a psychotherapy technique and an SAP module. Slightly Selassie 13:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also: EDSA Micro Corporation Rklawton 18:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ad. Elrith 00:42, 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reseda Regent Robotics[edit]

Lacks any sort of references to establish notability; no claims of notability besides going to the world championships, and it doesn't state whether they came in 1st or 500th. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 13:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is basically a group autobiography made up in school, isn't it? BTLizard 13:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and no sources. Only Google hits on "Reseda Regent Robotics" is Wikipedia and a clone. I couldn't even find mention on the high schools homepage which is the only external link. After some surfing I finally found "Reseda Squad" on a list [45] of participating teams in the socalled world championships where they came 92th according to the article. PrimeHunter 15:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable bio Corpx 19:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Written in a melodramatic style which is unencyclopaedic (and could be fixed except:) and serves only to highlight the lack of notability of the subject. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 20:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, you may also want to see Robodox. Dismas|^(talk) 21:58, 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 20:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renee Alway[edit]

prod removed by User:Goliza without discussion or edit summary. The subject of this article is a losing reality television show contestant who has not distinguished themselves since the competition. Just another struggling young model in a crowded field. Mikeblas 13:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has appeared in Seventeen and Italian Vogue. Goliza 16:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Finalist in a highly-publicized competition. Propaniac 17:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Mikeblas-- non-notable. --Gloriamarie 17:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing distinguished. Mukadderat 00:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Goliza Zaque 24 03:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Bopash4 16:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a winner. Like those who have preceded her, unless she does something else worthy of note, she will be forgotten before the year is out, let alone after 5 years. 20 hits on Google news, all of which are trivial mentions. Do something to add to that one-line bio, or delete it when there's more out there on her. Ohconfucius 14:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Modeling career outside of her appearances on Americas Next Top Model plus non-trivial third party coverage more than satisfy WP:BIO in my opinion. Yamaguchi先生 07:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See the models' article from Canada's Next Top Model, Cycle 1, they are not as famous as ANTM's model, but still keep.Nrxd 08:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I can't figure out how CNTM is relevant. What is your point? -- Mikeblas 15:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why not? CNTM is also created by Tyra Banks. ANTM is more popular than the other NTM, so why ANTM's models' article can't keep? And she is notable after the show and believe that she will have a good career because shw will be both actress and model. And she has appeared in Seventeen and Italian Vogue. Nrxd 16:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Notability is about the subject themselves, not someone involved with the show that the subject may have briefly been on before losing the contest featured on the show. -- Mikeblas 17:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable Top Model contestant and has appeared in a famous fashion magazine. Pang9175 17:14, 28 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. AKRadecki 21:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Galkina[edit]

Prod removed by User:Acne Wash without summary or discussion. The subject of this article is a losing reality television show contestant. The contestant has done nothing to distinguish herself in her field, and is not notable. She is just another inexperienced, struggling model in a very crowded, competitive field. Mikeblas 13:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Special correspondent for Tyra Banks show, on a reality show, continues to model--slightly notable. JJL 14:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that there are no references for these claims in the article. -- Mikeblas 18:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Nonnotable. `'mikka 16:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Finalist in a highly-publicized competition. Propaniac 17:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--Gloriamarie 17:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Mildly relevant due to her status Corpx 19:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if references can be added which establish her notability (I suspect that they can). Greenshed 21:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Finalist in highly publicized reality series, correspondent for the Tyra Banks Show...That's two shows. She's young, and gaining notability. Acne_Wash 21:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. She's young. See her in 2 years. Mukadderat 00:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete "correspondent for the Tyra Banks Show" is not an ongoing job she has, but a one-time prize awarded as part of the ANTM show — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo LeFou (talk • contribs)
- Tyra Banks said that the winner of the correspondent challenge would be a correspondent "More than once." Therefore, it IS an ongoing job.-Acne_Wash
- We don't know if it is or not. "More than once" could mean two or three times only, which is not ongoing. -- Mikeblas 11:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep runner-up on Top Model. Has a future in the business. She's already doing things and being a correspondant on the Tyra Banks Show is just another reason to have the article. Zaque 24 03:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No way to tell if she has a future or not, as the future hasn't happened yet and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Mikeblas 11:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Zaque 24. A notable contestant. Bopash4 16:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like to point out last season's runner-up's AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melrose Bickerstaff). The result was delete, and was then created into a protected redirect. I'm neutral on Natasha, so I won't vote myself.--theblueflamingo^Squawk 22:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may also be relevant to note that Melrose's article was created and AFD'd at the beginning of her season, well before it was known that she would be the runner-up, as opposed to this case where the season is already completed. Also, the only voter who actually said to protect the redirect also said, "Protect until the show is at least 9 or 10 weeks in, when they will be whittled down to the last 3." This and the other ANTM article up for deletion are the two losers from the final three. Propaniac 23:05, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kafkanistan[edit]

Delete promotion of a nonnotable art/tourism project `'mikka 16:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was once created by user:kafkanistan. No it looks like this guy reemerged as user:Politicalart. `'mikka 16:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note to the author of the project: I find this mockery with the suffering country disgusting. `'mikka 16:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mikka, to be fair, I think the project uses absurdist humor to make points about the constrained reporting Westerners receive from the country due to the war footing. It is in fact far from mockery.[46] --Dhartung | Talk 07:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I use the expression "I find", didn't I? I have a right to abhor the humor invented by Borat, but I didn't put his article for deletion. Neither I listed it among the reasons for deletion here. Just give some slack for an old person to grubmle a bit :-) `'mikka 01:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Dhartung I think it has nothing to do with mockery. Stairsnotsteps. late for this entry though as the article is deleted...

Speedy Delete. Stupid joke. Stammer 17:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I wouldn't go quite that far, but in any case there's no evidence for notability. David Mestel^(Talk) 17:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources, and it reads like an advertising attempt. Charlie 20:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete advertising without serious independent references. Mukadderat 00:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not one result on Google News Archive, no reliable independent sources to demonstrate notability. Alas, somewhat interesting. --Dhartung | Talk 07:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Aminullah 10:13, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sabir Ali Chaudhry[edit]

Contested WP:PROD. Unsourced biography, no assertion of notability. Tim! 17:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, no assertion of notability, contested Prod means the tags might not survive, but it can run here at AfD in the meantime. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD A7, a completely non-notable bio. --Cyrus Andiron 19:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy del. per above. "His name was mentioned in a textile book of inter-national level,as the second best textile engineer of Pakistan". oof. tomasz. 20:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Notabality not established--St.daniel ^Talk 20:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: found this through CAT:CSD patrol and declined to speedy. There is a clear assertion of notability: "His name was mentioned in a textile book of inter-national level, as the second best textile engineer of Pakistan", so I was quite surprised to see the above unanimity. Deletion may be appropriate, but through this process.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I thought about that, but decided that mentioned in some book or other as the second best didn't really make grade as a claim of notability. YMMV, obviously. EliminatorJR ^Talk 09:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable Bio G1 gg y ! 23:47, 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. Saying "keep" because there are "20 or so" citations and not actually providing any is not a valid argument to keep. If they can be found, then the article can always be recreated. Neil (►) 13:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Activated Ministries[edit]

Found while patrolling canidates for deletion - the given reason was yet another COG offshoot. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 21:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is a complete article on Children of God. Their missionary organization does not warrant its own article. Joie de Vivre 00:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a subset organization of a larger organization, does not merit an article. --Dhartung | Talk 07:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Widely reported in reputable sources. I'll find and add a bunch, (let's say, 20 or so citations?) and expand the article when/if the AFD closes. Smee 07:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - This is perhpas only a stub (and should be marked so). However, it is useful that the idenitity of the organisation should be identified, so that peoiple may easily know who they are dealing with. I would have hoped that something brief could be added to it, highlighting the controversial nature of COG and successors. If the decision is to delete, then Redirect to Family International. Peterkingiron 22:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (CSD G12, blatant copyright violation). —Anas ^talk? 11:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Beta Rho[edit]

A fraternity. No sources. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was created a couple of days ago. I helped wikify it but I did not find any evidence of it. Samwisep86 01:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not one result for sigma.beta.rho site:ph, which is surprising. Filipinos take their fraternities very seriously (it is said that presidential elections and coups d'etat are not between parties but fraternities) and not one result on any Philippine news site or CV is not one bit promising. Fails WP:V. Incidentally, there is a US frat by the same name that could occupy the title. --Dhartung | Talk 07:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless notability can be established. This just just one of over a hundred student organizations in the University of the Philippines, and for all I care, I haven't even heard of this one, nor am I aware of anyone notable from this group. --- Tito Pao 01:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Please note that the article is a verbatim copy of [47] and thus eligible for speedy deletion. I placed a "db-copyvio" on top of the article. --Mbimmler 10:12, 26 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 with List of Samurai Shodown characters. Note that it couldn't then be deleted, as that would violate GFDL. Neil (►) 13:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Samurai shodown animals[edit]

Found while patrolling candidates for speedy deletion. The given reason was: This is an indiscriminate list which can easily be incorporated in the main Samurai Shodown article.. This is not a valid speedy reason. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 22:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm the one who nominated it for speedy. Perhaps lack of notability would have been better criteria for speedy deletion. Nevertheless, this article deserves to be deleted. It is an indiscriminate list which could easily be incorporated into the main article, and there has been no move that I can see to make this a fork from the main. Fails WP:NOTE and WP:NOT#INFO. Realkyhick 22:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Samurai Shodown characters. And then delete as no one is ever going search for that term, the one reason I think merge and delete should be a valid outcome of AFD...Someguy1221 00:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Someguy1221. JuJube 18:35, 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. —Ocatecir ^Talk 20:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silke Fritzen[edit]

The claim to notability is that she's an 'internate phenomenon'. Well, Google disagrees [48].--Doc^g 22:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In 10 years time, (maybe sooner) they'll have forgotten this "minor" poll stacking. Canuckle 23:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources demonstrating this was of any consequence outside the forum. --Dhartung | Talk 07:23, 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. It still looks like a speedy deletion candidate to me though, so someone who cares about the subject really should do something about the lack of notability and sources in the article. - Bobet 10:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whyville[edit]

This article was speedy deleted due to no claims of notability and no independent references. It was taken to DRV, where the deletion was upheld, but the article was recreated anyway. I put a speedy delete tag on it as a recreation of a previously deleted article, but User:Aecis claims that it can't be re-speedied because it's never been through AfD, even though it has already been upheld at DRV. So do we really need to go round and round this process three times before this thing can die? Corvus cornix 22:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:CSD#G4 only applies to recreation of content deleted via XfD discussions. This article has never gone through AfD, so G4 doesn't apply. If this AfD is closed as delete and the article is recreated afterwards, then G4 would apply. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment: the deletion review didn't uphold the deletion, it didn't speak out on the deletion or on the article. The request was closed as "no arguments for undeletion, no information" were given. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 16. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a bureaurcacy. Corvus cornix 22:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Listen, if it was previously deleted per A7, A7 might still apply. You may tag the article for that. As I said on your talk page, I'm not certain enough either way to decide on that, I will leave that decision to another admin. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So I put an A7 on it and an admin comes along and deletes. The article gets recreated again, somebody else puts an A7 on it and it gets deleted again. There's nothing to stop it from getting recreated ad nauseum. Corvus cornix 23:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Except for page protection, like I've just done on Jamie Gilder. As I said, the article may be speediable for several reasons. But G4 is not one of them. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I may start a discussion on the merits of the site...The quality of the article as it stands is atrocious. However - and I very much regret saying this - Whyville appears to be a notable site (even if I would tell my kids to run, run away). USA Today mention it [49] alongside Facebook and the NYTimes News Service lumps it in with Webkinz [50]. There's millions in venture capital and Caltech brains behind it, sadly. Keep following a clean-up Canuckle 23:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion: I wanted to say Corvus cornix did a good thing in suggesting some news articles as potential sources on the article's Talk page. Do you think the author or other editors will be willing and able to overhaul the content to improve its quality? Canuckle 17:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure I want to dig through [51] yet, but there's enough possible content that I'm willing to say it's worth doing. The current state of the article is poor, but I can believe there's potential for further expansion. If somebody wants to take it up, I'd be willing to say "Keep, but check back in a few months" FrozenPurpleCube 23:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep per canuckle... it needs help... but it isn't so bad that it needs to be deleted.Balloonman 04:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No recommendation at the moment... right now, there appear to be some sources on the talk page and above which may indicate why this site is notable. However, 95%+ of the article does nothing to that end; indeed, it is mostly unsourced "game guide" type information about what the site is/does, but nothing about the why and how per WP:WEB. Excising that information would barely leave a substub, so unless something can be added to expound upon said notability by then (I will look into it myself and try), it might be best to start from scratch. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Highly notable site; an early entrant in the online virtual world for kids arena and a precursor to sites like NeoPets. I have read about it in the paper several times. Try a news search at Google. Here's one I read recently in the NYT: [52]. See also [53], [54], [55]. This is quite notable and should be kept. JJL 12:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Very notable site, over 2,000,000 members, and more than 1,200 new members per day. got 1,000,000 more members in the year 2006!!! USADude 21:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- HI USADude. As the creator of the article, do you think that its quality can be improved? Some concerns were raised above that much of the current content is lacking in relevancy. Given that Whyville is aimed at children, do we have to hold such articles to higher standards than normal? Canuckle 23:03, 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 keep. Neil (►) 13:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linden Porco[edit]

Not notable, I PRODded but the PROD was removed. Corvus cornix 23:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep. However sad it is, actors are notable by definition, since they are in the eyes of many public. Not to say that he is dwarf actor, which adds some notability. Mukadderat 00:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actors are not notable by definition. We have long had examples of people with well-referenced imdb lists who have been deleted because none of their roles were notable. Corvus cornix 02:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete wp:bio calls for "With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." This guy clearly hasn't had significant roles in notable films, tv, stage, etc.Balloonman 03:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (probably speedily, but I'm never a fan of doing this myself). Nothing's "notable by definition", and certainly not someone who seems - although I may be reading the article wrongly - to have a grand total of one role as a body double in a film. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we in fact have a definition of notable and actors are not notable by default under our definition of Wikipedia notability. A body double I just can't see making it on that basis alone. At least Verne Troyer actually does his own acting. --Dhartung | Talk 07:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless we get sources.--Owl 2 12:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources would only prove that he exists, not that he's notable. I don't think anybody is disagreeing that he exists. Corvus cornix 17:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Linden Porco is specifically mentioned by Seattle Post-Intelligencer here, and by PopMatters here for his role in Little Man (film), which somehow means he is not insignificant. There is also an article written entirely about him by The Hamilton Spectator. Fairly notable. I have added some references. PeaceNT 08:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The PopMatters source only mentions him once, so it's not non-trivial. I'm not entirely convinced that the Post-Intelligencer one is either, although it's much less trivial than I'd originally suspected. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His name is mentioned three times in the reference from PopMatters, and there is one whole paragraph about him. Linden is "in nearly 100 percent of the film" → he plays a major part in a film production, should meet WP:BIO, I think :) This is a good stub. PeaceNT 16:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we looking at the same source? The PopMatters one contains one mention of Porco's name ("...shoot the movie with, a 2’6” body double, a nine-year-old boy named Linden Porco."). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the same source. That is the first time. Here is the second: "Born with cartilage-hair hypoplasia, a form of dwarfism that stunts growth, but allows for proportional development, Linden is an absolute dynamo of enthusiasm and comic verve. Both on set and off, he comes across like a natural. Never having acted before, he basically learns all the lines and delivers them in full in the scenes as they are acted out, and is responsible for almost all of the “Calvin” character’s “acting”. His is the real body and head (digitally removed, in the end—the head, that is) that we are seeing, his is the natural comic timing and physical comedy talents. So then, if he’s in nearly 100 percent of the film, why is his name nowhere to be found on the box credits?..."

and the third:"And then think of what a much more fascinating film this would have been if somehow they rewrote the entire story for Linden—having a nine year old in cahoots with diamond thieves and gangsters,..."

PeaceNT 02:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's bizarre. How I missed those mentions I'll never know. Clearly my next step is to find someone who'll teach me to read again. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PeaceNT, I believe the links cited satisfy our requirements for non-trivial sources. Yamaguchi先生 04:41, 28 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.