Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 23 May 25 >

Purge server cache

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nintendocore (third nomination)

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

The result was Keep. WaltonAssistance! 19:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asama Onsen[edit]

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

Contested Prod. No claim of notability is made here and there are no reliable sources. For what its worth, this has been orphaned since June '06 Geozapf 23:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. The place is notable as per a quick google search that returns about 1400 hits. It seems to be listed in a lot of travel guides/tourist guides. I haven't found a full article or something similar about it, but it seems to be well known and has a descriptive stub in a lot of places that aren't necessarily directly affiliated, eg. [1] and [2]. I'm not sure how to properly structure a notability claim for the article though and it being an orphan should be fixed. -Cquan (don't yell at me...) 00:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 10:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - opened 1300 years ago; 227,000 google hits for the Japanese name (many of them for travel-related sites). For forty years, there was a railroad line that ran there [3] but it closed in 1964. Not much chance of finding anything online about that, but, the fact is that it has been notable for quite some time. Neier 10:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Well if it opened 1300 years ago, show some of its notability throughout history for any length of time during those 1300 years. If a person can't, this looks like advertisement. If this were a similar cultural phenomenon in America that doesn't exist in Japan, let's say a local chain of 4 Italian pizzerias in Wichita, KS, we would default on deletion. It needs to be shown to be notable, or chuck it. -Kmaguir1 15:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that a complete train line being built to a place more or less puts it on the far side of the bell-curve. See below for more; and, I'm sorry, but I don't follow the pizza chain analogy at all. Neier 12:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's long history makes it notable. Just because the history isn't included in the article yet doesn't mean it should be deleted. --Oakshade 03:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For what it's worth, my electronic dictionary has an encylopedia built in. Asama Onsen has an entry (only about 65,600 entries in the encyclopedia, according to the home page). Based on this, it is reasonable to think that other print encyclopedias also have articles about Asama Onsen. If anyone knows how to cite a pocket computer, let me know. The pocket-dictionary article is brief, but, does not seem to contradict any of the current text at Asama Onsen. If I ever get to a libray, I could probably get real page numbers. Neier 12:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Following your example I checked my own electronic dictionary (a Canon Wordtank IDF 4000), and sure enough, it's in there. My dictionary has an electronic version of the Kojien as the default Japanese-Japanese dictionary, and judging from the link to your brand, so does yours. So we don't realy need to cite the electronic dictionary, we could cite the Kojien. TomorrowTime 13:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually looking at ja:マイペディア, which is copyright by Hitachi Systems and Services. I don't know if it is from a hard-copy book or not. The Kojien entry I have does not have much info; but マイペディア has the registered temperature (hotter than what our article says), history, and not much else; but, if they went to the trouble to include it, it is probably notable enough for Wikipedia. Neier 13:46, 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 already Speedy deleted as an attack page. Newyorkbrad 23:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Steinert[edit]

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

This appears to be simply a person griping about the man. No point, really. San Diablo 23:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - The {{db-attack}} tag was invented for just such an eventuality. In fact, I'll slap the tag on the article right now, since I can't see a reason not to. --Aim Here 23:38, 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 that this is "Articles for deletion", not "Articles for merging". Mergers are an editorial decision and do not require an AfD discussion. No consensus for deletion. Sandstein 20:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skythrust[edit]

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

Contested prod. Fictional aircraft that played a relatively minor role in a single episode of a TV show. While I grew up on Thunderbirds and would love to see it get better coverage than the somewhat patch coverage Wikipedia gives it, I really don't see that a separate article for each fictional element is necessary - this would serve far better as a paragraph in the existing almost empty shell article on the episode — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:20, 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 speedy delete. -- RHaworth 02:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Girl Who Believed in Fairies[edit]

The Girl Who Believed in Fairies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An unencyclopedic article for a self-published book that fails WP:BK. Much of the text is lifted from the description of the book at lulu.com. The article's creator, Tarbra (talk · contribs), indicates that she is the author of The Girl Who Believed in Fairies. A single puropse account, Tarbra (talk · contribs) has contributed to this article, Linda Corby and Dick Francis (whom, she asserts, has infringed upon her copyright) . The article Linda Corby, a creation of the author, was successfully nominated for deletion last month. Victoriagirl 22:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as CSD G11 --Whsitchy 23:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Clearly for self-publication and promotion - linked to Lulu and written in a rather spammy tone. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:56, 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. Sr13 23:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Light (administrator)[edit]

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

(contested PROD) I don't believe the chairman of a local cricket club fulfills the guidelines at WP:BIO. The article mentions that Mr. Light is related to some well-known people, but that does not make him notable. Joyous! | Talk 22:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. HeirloomGardener 01:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NN. —dustmite 02:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that Gloucestershire County Cricket Club play in the fully professional County Championship. the major cricket competition in the UK. I'm not sure if that makes him notable but it does mean that he is more likely to be notable that the chairman of a merely local cricket club. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 04:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I think. Alternatively Merge with Gloucestershire County Cricket Club. County Cricket Clubs are (I believe) still membership clubs, unlike in some sports where they are owned by a small group of shareholders. I supect this means that the chairmanship changes frequently, in which case the chairman would be NN and the article should be merged. The hisotry section in the GCCC article is weak and should be marked as a section stub. Peterkingiron 23:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is nothing claimed that equals automatic notability so we need independent reliable sources to establish Mr Light's notability. As of this moment this is lacking from the article and there are no obvious sources. Nuttah68 13:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources -- Whpq 16:13, 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. Sr13 23:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of extreme sports[edit]

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

An unattributed list with only point of view of some editors. People think that some activity are too "extreme" and add into list. See also: Talk:Extreme_sport#List_of_Extreme_Sports and Talk:Extreme_sport#List_of_extreme_sports_removal. Carlosguitar 22:02, 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. Sr13 09:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rave - Dancing to a Different Beat[edit]

Rave - Dancing to a Different Beat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is about a non notable movie. Delete TheRingess (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NF. No awards, no significant coverage. —dustmite 02:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources - IMDB's rating is based on 6 votes. As an indie film, there doesn't appear to be any coverage. -- Whpq 16:15, 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. WaltonAssistance! 19:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summerset at Frick Park[edit]

Summerset at Frick Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

seems like an ad to me Postcard Cathy 21:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No assertion of notability; this could be any other housing development in the country. —dustmite 02:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable neighborhood. Is the subject of multiple non-trivial published works by reliable sources. [4] [5] [6] --Oakshade 03:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - references are for two articles that are puff pieces that usually fill local papers "Homes" or "Real Estate" sections. The remaining article isn't about the development per se, but a dispute of bus routes in the development. -- Whpq 16:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a POV judgement on the independent published works and quite a non-objectivity charge at both the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, not to mention the credited reporters. There is nothing trivial about the published works and the sources are reliable. --Oakshade 16:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think whether or not the sources are reliable is in dispute. The nature of the coverage is. I don't know about your neck of the woods, but just about every new housing development where I live gets some kind of coverage by local media. You'll note that the first source you provide reads essentially as an advert, mostly outlining the accomodations of the units. And, as Whpq says, the second source does not concern the developemtn per se. —dustmite 21:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually Whpq was refferring to the 3rd source, the one that's entitled Will the bus stop here? Summerset residents don't want service. Regarding that 3rd article, I think the article about the neighborhood and an issue its having with the public transit service itself demonstrates the neighborhood inherently notable. Going back tot he first two articles, in my neck fo the woods, Los Angeles, where we have a gazillion new developments every week, no, the Los Angeles Times does not send their reporters out to write non-trivial published works about them unless there's a good reason to do so (size, distinctiveness, etc.). But that these two Pittsburgh newspapers did demonstrates notability of the subject they are covering. And I very much dissagree that the first article looks "like a advert" as it's a very thurough article about the history with the Pittsburgh Urban Redevelopment Authority, financing and architetual style. The bottom line is, these are third part souces that have written non-trivial published works about the topic. --Oakshade 21:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • With respect to the real estate section article, I think we disagree on the definition of "trivial". And I don't think we are likely to convince each other one way or the other, but we have alid our cards on the table and the closing admin can weigh the arguments. With respect to the third article, the occupants are obviously involved int he dispute and as such the development is mentioned, but the article isn't about the development itself. If a Pittsburgh pizza parlor ended up in a dispute over on-street parking that was reported in the local paper, would that support notability for the pizza parlor? I would say not, and this is essentially the same typwe of situation. -- Whpq 12:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:CORP makes very clear its definition of trivial coverage: "Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories." The coverage about this development/neighborhood is not any of those things and not even close. You seem to dissagree and that's okay. As for the pizza parlor example, the topic isn't a single business, but an entire neighborhood that previously had non-trivial published works about it and the fictitious pizza parlor has not. --Oakshade 17:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 00:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zedsketch[edit]

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

This band is more than 15 years old; one of it's founders is in more than one band; the biggest honor it has received is their song is played before the Ottawa Senators game. Doesn't sound like a notable group to me. Postcard Cathy 21:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No assertion of notability outside of local area. Apparently only 1 CD, and that will be self-published. HeirloomGardener 01:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not one of the seven listed references meets the standards of WP:ATT. Two are from Myspace, three are from blogs, one is from an Ottawa Senators page that doesn't even mention them, and one is from a newspaper article that is now offline. The result is a total failure to establish notability. YechielMan 03:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think I've seen an article that makes less effort to meet WP:BAND. Nuttah68 13:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - all indications from the article are that he band has limited local coverage due the Ottawa Senators. This may be a big break for them, but for now, no notability and insufficient independent reliable sources. -- Whpq 16:29, 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 keep. AKRadecki 17:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe[edit]

Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not quite spammy enough for a speedy delete, IMO, it still reads rathe like a corporate flyer. More importantly, there are no no-trivial independant citations to establsih notability. DES (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per my nom unlesss notablity celarly established. DES (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Obviously as I created the article I am all for keeping. Not spam. Not an add. We have articles that metion them and they have a pretty significant presence. They OWN two companies that are intrigal to the OPM. I'd say yeah it needs expansion but deletion come on. It's existed for all of 5 minutes give it a chance to develop. AND NO I do not work for them nor am I invested in them either. Side note comparable to Carlyle Group in size and investment. M-BMor 21:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as it seems like it may be notable. Google search turns up numerous news articles. HeirloomGardener 22:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sure, needs a rewrite/expansion as a stub but certainly notable enough (after having a look at some of the google hits.) Tagged with cleanup.Mmoneypenny 22:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources for notability
  1. http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2007/04/16/welsh-carson-gets-passing-grade-on-ameripath/
  2. http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2007/may/16/dallas-based-transfirst-sold-welsh-carson-anderson/
  3. http://www.altassets.net/news/arc/2007/nz10117.php
  4. http://biz.yahoo.com/t/66/334.html
  5. http://www.nashvillepost.com/news/2007/1/8/dallas_united_surgical_partners_agrees_to_welsh_carson_buyout_
  6. http://www.vcaonline.com/news/news.asp?ID=2007051411 M-BMor 07:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Too spammy. -Kmaguir1 15:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a poor quality stub, but managing a $3.5bn investment fund looks notable to me. The autrhor needs to expand the article to say more of what the (his?) firm has done and show its natability. Adding external links, even by the dozen fails to do that. WP is an encyclopaedia, not a link farm. Peterkingiron 23:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but I strongly disagree with the author's statement, "It's existed for all of 5 minutes give it a chance to develop." It saves everyone a lot of time if you develop an article like this on your hard drive, and don't create it on Wikipedia until the text includes enough indicia of notability to survive AfD. No one is picking on you -- people monitor the creation of new articles and routinely nominate them for deletion within minutes if they don't appear to meet our criteria. JamesMLane t c 15:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Your advice about writing an article is not as easy as you think: if you write an article and then copy and past it in, you get accused of copyright violation. If you write and save an introduction, you can find that some interfering admin deletes it before you have a chance to write and save the rest. This can mean that you have spent an hour writing an article and find that the first bit has disappeared while you are doing so, with the result that you loose your work completely. Both these have happeend to me. The answer appears to be to make the article "under construction", which should warn off busybodies. Similarly you can lose your work (unless you are very careful) if you automatically become logged out while working, or if your Internet conection drops. Peterkingiron 22:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The notability is sketchily proved, but if the article is expanded, it is a keeper. Stellatomailing 18:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep but cleanup - not very likely to be recreated, but is referenced elsewhere. Cleanup that shiznit. (Heck, put it on my talk page and I might get to it myself if it passes AFD) Guroadrunner 23:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup Per Guroadrunner. It is notable and verifiable. Article style needs work but is not unsalvagable. The fact that it is "too spammy" is reason to keep and cleanup, not take the lazy road and delete. —Gaff ταλκ 20:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Needs clean-up and expansion. Bradybd 07:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete G1/A7. Natalie 08:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean conlin[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Mr. Conlin appears to be a minor actor. While his film roles may grow in the future, I don't see anything here that would satisfy any of the suggested guidelines at WP:BIO. Joyous! | Talk 21:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree, it fails the biography guidelines. It's also promotional in tone and the few facts would be very difficult to verify.Delete TheRingess (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. (Even google has trouble except for his own homepage.) Mmoneypenny 22:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy kill A7 anyone? --Whsitchy 22:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Not notable, no proper assertion/sources given, so tagged. -Cquan (don't yell at me...) 00:30, 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. Sr13 00:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miori Honoki[edit]

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

Article appears to be a hoax-- completely unsourced, and I could find no info at all on the actress. Dekkappai 18:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note: Mention of this actress was added to two other articles: here and here. All unsourced, and all of which I could find no information at all. Dekkappai 21:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Guinnog 20:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. The achievements are fairly far out, not completely impossible, but unlikely, and the movie titles have English language names, making it unlikely that the only reason we aren't finding more information is that we aren't entering the right Japanese characters. By the way, if is a hoax, then that's someone else's real picture in that article, and it seems to be professional quality, meaning that it is possibly available on the web. If anyone finds it somewhere captioned with a different name, put a link here, and I'll speedily close this as a personal attack on that person. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But she's made "many other AV movie's to be found on the shelves of seedy Shibuya sex shop's" -- Not "shelve's"? Thi's article look's like junk to me. Delete a's no'n-notabl'e or whateve'r. -- Hoary 03:26, 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 userfy and delete. The page is already in LaughingVulcan's sandbox. Sr13 00:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-pastors[edit]

Ex-pastors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is an essay rather than a Wikipedia article and almost certainly breaches WP:OR. The article does not have a world-wide view and would require a complete rewrite to bring up to Wikipedia standards.] Mattinbgn/ talk 21:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 21:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an Encyclopedia not a psychological journal. Doc13mets 21:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It does look like WP:OR. HeirloomGardener 21:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR and non-encyclopedic. DES (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikify and Keep and possibly Rename or Redirect. Userfy as below. I'm not sure why this qualifies as WP:OR. The article is virtually unsourced in the article itself, but there are a list of 48 references, many of which do or appear to back up the article's text. There is nothing in the article that appears earth-shockingly incorrect (though factually unreferenced and unsourced,) and I speak as one who has had professional experience with the subject. User:Ron Cameron has offered to Wikify and clean up the Australian bias of the article, and I believe there should be some time to do so.
I'd ask the nominator to cite either here or on the article's talk page exactly which parts of the article are considered original research, as the facts are that ex-pastors do exist, some congregations do experience conflict and turmoil over a pastor's exit, and some former clergy do experience problems transitioning out of clerical life. LaughingVulcan Laugh With Me / Logical Entries 01:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article, while referencing sources, does so by drawing a number of sources together to create a document that advocates methods of resolving problems with ex-pastors, in a manner more like a research paper than an encyclopaedic article. It is more than a summary of existing knowledge and thus in my opinion breaches WP:OR. Citing references alone does not mean it is not WP:OR, see WP:SYNTH for more information. The article as a whole is original research, not the individual components. The factual accuracy or otherwise of the information is irrelevant to the discussion and I am sure it is a problem, the same as ex-soldiers, ex-athletes, ex-politicians, ex-schoolteachers and ex-bus drivers. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 01:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do see what you mean about the tone being more of research paper than encyclopedia, and there are WP:SYNTH elements in the article as it exists. I still believe that there is merit in the article (and that there are elements which could be used either as a standalone article or elements integrated into existing articles.) Though I do note (with tongue planted firmly in cheek) that I wonder if the passengers of Bus #9 end up wondering if public transportation still exists when a particular driver quits. ;) Thanks for the quick and illuminating reply. I'm going to see if a quick rewrite is possible, or change my opinion. LaughingVulcan Laugh With Me / Logical Entries 03:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Reading back, my bus driver comment does sound a little facetious and I apologise. I will also add that like Kesh, I am not opposed to an article on the subject. Perhaps the article as it exists could be moved to the creating editor's userspace and worked on there. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 03:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I contacted both Darren Cronshaw (talk · contribs) and Ron Cameron (talk · contribs) on their Talk pages. I also cut-and-pasted the article text to a sandbox in my userspace. Should neither of the above be interested in further edits to the article, I'll work on it in my userspace. Given the current state of the article, I wouldn't move it unless the creator feels differently (also, the article had only the creation edit at last check.) If the author or any other party would rather take it, that's fine by me.
        • And I did take the bus driver example facetiously and with much humor. No apology necessary from here. LaughingVulcan Laugh With Me / Logical Entries 23:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Userfy per LaughingVulcan. The entire page is original research and written as an essay. While the topic could be a good Wikipedia article, it would require completely scrapping this page and starting over from scratch. Some of the sources could be very useful in creating an encyclopedic article, but as it stands this page would have to be torn down and started over completely. -- Kesh 02:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per LaughingVulcan's comments above, I would support moving this to User space to be rewritten. -- Kesh 02:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a well-written piece but it constitutes original research. It also violates WP:NOT in that it appears to be advice to churches on how to keep their pastors from becoming ex-pastors (although why they would find this article, under this title, is not clear). A paragraph or so in clergy could cover the important points.--Dhartung | Talk 05:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and delete from mainspace - Actually a very good essay (I'm familiar with the topic) but totally belongs in the contributor's userspace, not in mainspace. Note that I am opposed to its *removal* per se. Orderinchaos 13:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per Mattinbgn and Orderinchaos. There is not much OR in this; its just not written in an encyclopedic manner. Hopefully Darren Cronshaw (talk · contribs) is still with us. John Vandenberg 14:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify. This OR essay does not belong in mainspace. Lankiveil 02:29, 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 Merge to Progressive Conservative Party candidates, 2003 Manitoba provincial election. In accord with the GFDL a merge result means that the article is kept, in the sense that its history is preserved, but should stay hidden behind a redirect, or perhaps a stub with links. DES (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wyatt McIntyre[edit]

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

This person's claims to notability appear to be (1) having been employed by some notable people, (2) having lost two local and two provincial elections, and (3) having self-published a novel. I do not believe that this satisfies the criteria at WP:BIO, and my google search did not reveal sources that would be helpful in establishing notability. FisherQueen (Talk) 21:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this is how you contribute to this debate. I got home from a meeting tonight with an e-mail from someone who sent me a message off my webpage that the wikipedia article on me was up for deletion. I came on to see what they were talking about and when I saw there was a debate I wanted to offer my two cents. Can I vote for deletion of all references to me on this thing? I have to imagine this is some sort of joke because the simple truth is that the argument that I am not notable is absolutely right. I mean truth is I haven't made a national headline since I was 16 or 17 and even now I can't remember if it was because of the youth rights push or the Joe Clark leadership. I haven't been in a newspaper for the better part of 4 years and even then it wasn't for anything grand. I haven't hada historical, political or theological article published publically for at least that long either. Truth is that even when I was getting attention it wasn't that great, I was doing it for a cause and anything I say to defend this entry would be self agrandizing considering their are people out there who deserve attention more than I. More than that I don't want to be known as the guy who ran and lost four times or who spent $10 on a campaign, it's embarassing. I would be comfortable with any and all references of me on wikipedia being gone. If people are that fascinated by me, which I sincerely believe they are not, they can go to my webpage. I did try to remove all the information from this once, by the way, hoping that would mean it would be deleted but someone restored it. - Wyatt McIntyre wyattmcintyre 21:45, 24 May 2007 (AST)

There's an established practice of including short biographical entries for political candidates on "list pages", but this needn't be anything more than the basic information that people can find in newspapers and related sources. I think the best option here is a stub bio entry on one such page, with the current biography compressed to a redirect. CJCurrie 01:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I am going to defer this to you folks who know this stuff better than I but I am going to say that I am not a candidate and haven't been for some time now. At anyrate I will not lose any sleep if this bio is taken down. Like it leaves out almost anything actually halfway decent my name was attached to and fccuses on stuff I would rather not be known for. PS - I remember the last time I was in the paper, it was as a co-orgnizer for the pro-Iraq rally in Winnipeg. wjtmcintyre 10:51, 24 May 2007 AST

I like I can probably just compress this to a redirect, per a number of precedents. CJCurrie 01:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete without redirecting. Insufficient notability, per nom. A redirect is inappropriate here because the person is known for multiple things, and was a candidate in multiple elections. Kla'quot 15:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC) Merge per discussion below. Kla'quot 02:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. I don't understand how it would be anappropriate, since that is precisely what we do with these types of articles on Wikipedia. Please see the dozens of articles that profile candidates not otherwise notable for their own articles. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merging implies redirecting. McIntyre has been a candidate in elections in Alberta and in Manitoba, so how would you choose which page to redirect to? Kla'quot 00:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The accepted practice in situations like this is to redirect the page to the most recent federal or provincial election the candidate has contested. A short biographical stub can then be constructed, along with a chart showing the candidate's electoral history.
Ah, this makes sense. Thanks for explaining. Kla'quot 02:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this matter can be resolved to the satisfaction (more or less) of all parties. Once I've written a biographical sketch on the list page, I'll contact W.M. for feedback. This doesn't imply that he (or any other candidate) should have veto power over the material in their entry, but reasonable objections can always be taken into consideration. CJCurrie 01:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per all above. GreenJoe 04:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per all above. Will take some work to make the merge, but sounds like CJCurrie is interested in taking on the project. —Gaff ταλκ 20:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Alberta

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

The result was DELETE (given that there are a clear indication that the general subject is worthy *and* that this could be a good starting point for it, I'll userfy the page at User:Eyedubya\Asylum Seeker Welcome Centre. See also: User talk:Eyedubya#Asylum Seeker Welcome Centre) - Nabla 22:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asylum Seeker Welcome Centre[edit]

Asylum Seeker Welcome Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't believe the organisation meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. The only reference provided is a press release. As there are a series of redlinks for similar organisations in the article, I am listing it here to seek community consensus. Mattinbgn/ talk 21:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Two more references have been added: one from the State Parliament record (Hansard) of an item about the ASWC, the other a detailed listing at Vicnet, a major web-based resource for community services in Victoria (which I propose is a 'reliable source'). The press release referred to by Mattinbgn is a Ministerial press release from the Victorian State Government, i.e. it is a third-party, reliable source, devoted to the subject of the article, it is not a vanity publication by the subject of the article. Also, while there are redlinks in the article for similar organisations, this is because those organisations are yet to be covered, and ought to be. Anyone else interested in assisting with this area of interest, please contribute! Thanks. Eyedubya 23:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To clarify, the redlinks are not a problem in the context of this article. I raised them as an issue in this AfD as it may be useful to determine now if organisations of this type are notable or not prior to the creation of the redlinked articles. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 23:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From the page and the links, these are a group of very similar organizations, and I find it highly likely that there might be a common sponsorship, which would then be the appropriate title of a merged article about them all.DGG 00:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Some of them may be have common sponsorhsip/auspice/funding sources, but not all of them do. In fact, this org (ASWC) is a bit of an outsider I get the impression (what with sectarianism and anti-church feelings in many parts of the community sector). blah blah. Eyedubya 07:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The only news reports on this centre are in local papers. [7]. Capitalistroadster 03:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the references. That's 3 'local' papers across different metropolitan municipalities, two adjacent to each other, one a very long way away from the other two, but all up, these papers serve a total of about 450,000 people in major inner and middle-ring suburbs of Melbourne, and are not local rags serving parochial interests (see who the owners of these papers are - this has already been dealt with in the discussion about notability and the same 'local' newspapers wrt the recent AfD discussion for Brunswick South Primary School. Indeed, some of the newspapers have long been noted on the WP article on Brunswick. Eyedubya 05:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy; at present, the article doesnt establish notability. If the Hansard recorded significant mentions of the organisation post the opening, I would be more inclined to consider it notable. I suggest creating a new article like Australian immigration services, to augment Immigration to Australia and Mandatory detention in Australia. John Vandenberg 15:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re:Hansard: Despite the apparent date on this record (1991), the actual comment by G. Romanes must have been made after the opening, because Romanes wasn't a MHR then, she was a member of the former Brunswick City Council, while the ASWC co-ordinator referred to (M. Gibson) was working elsewhere. Thus, this Hansard entry must have been made after the opening of the ASWC. I agree, this article could be subsumed within one about 'Australian Migration and settlement services' or 'Australian Asylum Seeker Services', if such an article existed. I can't see the point of userfication as this might discourage other editors from either improving this article or moving it into a more 'generic' topic.Eyedubya 00:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The Hansard says "The Brunswick-based Asylum Seeker Welcome Centre was opened two weeks ago by the Minister...", which is typical self-serving note taking of a Ministers activities .. it speaks little for the centre; if its services were noted in the Hansard over a year after opening, I would be more willing to accept it is notable. Organisations that assist or campaign for Asylum Seeker are not rare: why is this one more important than the rest?
    Having an article on ASWC doesn't say its more important than any of the other organisations that campaign for Asylum Seekers, it just happens to be one of the few articles about organisations that do this kind of work. If the logic you are suggesting was applied to say, popular music, there'd hardly be any articles at all because (say) in the opinion of (say) classical music lovers, 'it all sounds the same, so what makes any of these myriad bands any more important than the rest?'. Interestingly, the plight of displaced people is something that popular music artists like to associate themselves with from time to time, but who takes up more space on WP? I'd have thought that all organisations that do this kind of thing are worthy of a mention on WP, yet there is a theme in this debate that is about establishing whether any of these kinds of organisations are sufficiently notable for a mention on WP. Eyedubya 13:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you dont like the Userfication option, then my opinion is this article should be deleted, as I dont believe this article demonstrates notability. I doubt other editors will find this article, as it is an orphan, and will likely remain so because the meta-topic of "Australian asylum/immigration services" does not exist. Having only one Australian organisation in Wikipedia, esp. without a broader article, pushes this organisation up in the search results, usually to the disadvantage of similarly named orgs. John Vandenberg 01:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks again for another source to add to those I'm aware of that will be used to build some kind of article or other on WP on this important and notable topic, whatever its title ends up being. Thanks for your valuable assistance.Eyedubya 03:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Do I think this place exists? Yes. Does it do valuable work? Probably. Is it notable enough for inclusion? I don't think so. Lankiveil 02:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Do we know that place exists? Yes, we have several sources of evidence for its existence. Does it do valuable work? Yes, we have several sources of evidence stating the value of its work. Is it notable enough for inclusion? Well, are the criteria for notability what one person happens to value, or the range of values expressed by the evidence provided? On the evidence so far provided, notability established. The question is whether the article should be expanded to deal with a category of like organisations, and I agree with this idea wholeheartedly Eyedubya 03:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The guidelines on notability for organisations is WP:ORG. The reliable sources on the article are trivial mentions, and the google news archive clippings dont look terribly useful. So far, only the first sentence of the article that is about this org.; the rest is about other similar organisations or generic information about this type of organisation. If you userfy it, you can reintroduce the article about this organisation when your draft is in better shape. John Vandenberg 04:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have had cause to read the WP guidelines on notability a few times, and I have noted each time that one of the central tenets is also the one which is not defined within those guidelines, nor is it linked to a definition - i.e. 'trivial'. The only sensible definition I have had so far was from User:Sarah, saying that a trivial mention is one where a source cites the subject of the WP article, but only in passing, and only as a way of instanciating a generic phenomenon or type of organization, and that the particular subject mentioned in so passing could to all intents and purposes have been another organisation of the same kind. OK, I can accept that in some situations this is a 'trivial' mention. But I disagree that the sources cited in this case meet those criteria - the ASWC is not one of very many organizations of its kind, it is one of a very small number of organisations doing this kind of work. Furthermore, some might say it is actually the only one (in Melbourne) to offer its particular combination of services, and in such a high-profile, 'high-street' location. On this point, I note that the WP:ORG guidelines state that care needs to be taken not to prejudice small organisations in favour of large ones who are in the media spotlight. This organization is a case in point, and I am concerned that the line of thinking so far pursued by editors proposing deletion is supportive of this bias. I don't see why this article needs to be hived off onto my userpage to be worked on, given the number of other articles on WP that are less developed, have little or no referencing and are about topics that are at least as 'trivial' as how a society or a community organises itself to meet its commitments to human rights.Eyedubya 07:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also FYI, I have made a few edits elsewhere that link this article to others - eg. Migrant Resource Centre, Immigration to Australia.Eyedubya 08:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not seem to meet WP:ORG. MichelleG 04:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain why it does not seem to meet WP:ORG?. Surely, mere assertions like this can't count for anything! This organisation has been the subject of several secondary sources. Its client base is statewide (Victoria, Australia), it is not a 'local service' - asylum seekers are widely dispersed. Eyedubya 07:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, lets go through the "references", as they currently stand.
      1. "Recognition of value of work by Moreland Council, 2003", a transcript featuring a throwaway mention by a local council. Does not indicate notability.
      2. "Asylum Seeker Centre, Sydney", does not even refer to this organisation, which is in Melbourne, a city hundreds of kilometres away.
      3. "Ministerial media release about the opening of the Asylum Seeker Welcome Centre 24/9/02", probably the best of the lot, even if it is just a media release. Media releases are not typically taken as reliable sources, or evidence of notability.
      4. "ASWC item in Victorian Parliamentary Hansard (scroll down to highlighted title)", brief mention in state parliament.
      5. "Listing at Vicnet", entry in what appears to be a directory.
      6. "Image of ASWC sign on Sydney Road, Brunswick by Michael Blamey", a picture of a sign. Enough said.
    • As said before, while I'm sure the work that's done is valuable, it's stretching it to say that this meets WP:ORG or WP:Notability, in my opinion. Lankiveil 12:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete None of the references are about the subject - except the last two, which only supply verification not notability. Get the submission which got the minister to open the place, that will be about the centre - the hansard entry is "why did the minister claim travelling allowances on the XXth of Month?"Garrie 02:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - All of the references are "about the subject", especially the first two, which are stating what it is ASWC does and what value this has - how else can notability be defined without using the word itself? While the latter two provide verification.Eyedubya 12:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (closing note 2nd keep by same user - Nabla 22:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment Let's go through the references again, as they stand, since Lankivell seems to be suffering from a bad case of POV and cynicism:
      1. "Recognition of value of work by Moreland Council, 2003" - the entire item focuses on the work of the ASWC and its history in order to justify waiving Council fees for the use of the Town Hall. This is not a 'throwaway line', this relates to a decision about the use of public assets and records that none other than Amnesty International were involved in the decision to establish the ASWC.
      2. "Asylum Seeker Centre, Sydney" - is at the end of a sentence stating that it is the only org in Sydney that is similar to ASWC - its clear that this reference is providing contextual information about the actual availability of services in general.
      3. "ASWC item in Victorian Parliamentary Hansard (scroll down to highlighted title)". The item is entirely about ASWC. It may not be very long, but it is more than a passing or brief mention, it is the focus of that particular entry.
      4. "Ministerial media release about the opening of the Asylum Seeker Welcome Centre 24/9/02" - whether this is taken as evidence of notability or not seems to be a POV issue on the value of Government media releases wrt any other form of press coverage. However, it does focus on the org, and its of reasonable length. In any event, it has to be asked if a Government media release is not evidence of notability, then why not? Cynicism about politicians isn't an acceptable response.
      5. "Listing at Vicnet" - indeed, this is a directory, but it is a directory on a website that is major networking and information source for the community sector in Victoria, used by a very large number of community services agencies to conduct their business across the state.
      6. "Image of ASWC sign on Sydney Road, Brunswick by Michael Blamey" - the point is, a third party has seen fit to photograph this sign, of all of the several thousands of signs in Sydney Road, and put it on their blog.

Its getting to the point where the prejudices of some editors are clouding their reason.Eyedubya 12:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This one only just gets over the bar. It's been extensively covered in local newspapers (which are, if I'm not mistaken, News Ltd owned), has received notice in state parliament, has been the subject of two independent reports, and has been referenced in HREOC papers. It's a tricky one, but I prefer to err on the side of "keep" on this one, and sort out the quality of the article thereafter. Orderinchaos 16:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or create a generic article on these types of centres. I agree with Lankiveil that notability is not yet established. There are not enough sources referenced in the article to establish notability. This is not to say it is not notable, only that it is not established by the article yet. If the newspapers are relied upon, they should be included and worked into the article. The Moreland Council document is a primary document and is not independent of the centre anyway as they helped set up the centre. A mention is parliament doesn't make you notable either (although multiple mentions might). The other choice is to create a generic article listing these centres in Melbourne, Victoria or Australia, and merging that information into that article. Change the title of the page to "Victorian Refugee Welcome Centres" or something similar, and include some more information on the other centres mentioned. Assize 13:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per Lankiveil's concise argument. Not up to WP:ORG. —Gaff ταλκ 20:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would like to vote keep because its a worthy cause. However, to address some issues on the references: many of these are not about the topic, but mentions of the topic in a directory (this does not indicate notability); several of the references are from court documents eg [8] or similar items (such as a photograph of the place on somebody's blog). This verifies existence, but that is not the same as notability and is not reason to include it in an encyclopedia. Maybe there are some good references that I am missing buried in the heap of other sources, but right now I am not seeing them. —Gaff ταλκ 21:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was non-admin closure as keep. Nomination withdrawn, no votes for delete. Someguy1221 06:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tajima's D[edit]

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

No context, but apparently something about genetics. Either WP:OR or the synopsis of some non-notable paper by a non-notable researcher, Fumio Tajima. Possible WP:COI. Contested PROD. Sandstein 20:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn, see below. Sandstein 04:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response from the author:
Tajima's D is statistical test used in genetics. There are a number of statistical tests (genetic and other) with wikipedia articles, such as the Transmission disequilibrium test. Tajima's D is mentioned in the wikipedia page for Linkage disequilibrium. It is the oldest and most commonly used test of a hypothesis proposed by Motoo Kimura, the neutral theory of molecular evolution, both listed in Wikipedia. Thus this article on Tajima's D fills a gap in wikipedia.

Non-notable paper? Tajima's original paper has 1580 citations! [9]

Non-notable researcher? Fumio Tajima published over 480 articles. [10]

Why does Sandstein consider this Original Research? It is an attemtp to describe and explain in layman's terms a very complicated, frequently used and poorly understood mathematical concept. Is that not one of the uses of Wikipedia?

Why does Sandstein consider this article a conflict of interest? I am not an author of the references, nor am I a developer of the software/websites mentioned. I am a graduate student at the University of California, San Diego, learning statistical genetics. Tajima's D is a fundamental concept in this field mentioned in almost every course, textbook and software application I have encountered during my study of the subject . Every professor I have asked to explain Tajima's D has referred me to Wikipedia and were surprised to find NOTHING.

An alternative/extension would be to have a wikipedia page discussing all the available statistical tests of neutral molecular evolution, including Tajima's D, Fu & Li's F, Fay & Wu's H
Jlrflores 22:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep I wish the nominator had taken a couple of seconds with our old friend Google to find out a bit more about this well-known (in genetics) test. Cetainly not OR and the idea of COI seems far-fetched. Mmoneypenny 22:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. Per our friends above, looks like we should keep this. How about a couple sentences of introduction, though? This is a general encyclopedia. Herostratus 23:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jlrflores. Relatively common statistical test in its field. —dustmite 02:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks I'm working on a revision/introduction — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlrflores (talk • contribs)
  • Withdrawn. You're completely right, I should have googled it first, and tagged the article as "no context" second. Sorry. Still, Jlrflores, please understand that this is a general interest encyclopedia, and laymen should at least be able to understand in general terms what the subject of an article is about and why it is notable. Unfortunately, we receive a lot of worthless articles by cranks writing up their pet fringe theory, and to a layman such as myself, your article looked suspiciously similar to a submission of this kind. Again, I apologise for the somewhat rough reception of your first article, and would like to thank you for your efforts to contribute to Wikipedia. Sandstein 04:58, 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 deleted. <Insert cliché about a million socks crying out in pain and being suddenly silenced.> Sandstein 20:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Day of the Jedi[edit]

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

The result was speedy delete Per A3. —— Eagle101Need help? 05:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hannah Montana music videos[edit]

List of Hannah Montana music videos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is an unlinked collection of youtube links. Even if it was linked, which yes I did remove, it's a spammy list for youtube. Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:51, 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. Sr13 23:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ob gyn boards[edit]

Ob gyn boards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Prod tag removed. Pagrashtak 20:49, 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 substantial, non-trivial, independant and reliable media coverage, no notability, but a heck of a lot of WP:ILIKEIT. Daniel 08:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Arrigo[edit]

{{Afdanons}}

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

I am not sure that being Australia's 55th most popular blogger meets WP:BIO Mattinbgn/ talk 20:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 20:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing Admin before deciding on the merits of any comments please be aware of this notice, which requests Keep "votes", providing both instructions on how to edit and what to say. Gnangarra 11:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further this notice is also ask for keep "votes" and it provides a direct link here. Gnangarra 13:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another one - this article talking about "rallying the troops", and assuming rather bad faith on our part suggesting "noisy locals shouldn't shape Wikipedia". WP:CANVASS is a clear issue on this AfD, sadly. Orderinchaos 23:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I know Frank, but that’s not the reason why I am commenting. I love the fact that when one of the best known IT personalities from Australia gets a Wikipedia page, that its people from the US who want it removed. Frank's main blog is the quintessential source of Microsoft information in Australia, if any Australian Blogger or IT Worker deserves inclusion. Perhaps he can stay if he posts more about Star Trek. If you delete this, please delete all of the stuff relating that Australians find boring. My name is Kieran Jacobsen, kjacobsen.net if you want to look me up and use that as an excuse not to listen to my view point. Kjacobsen 22:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Franks history with MS, his consistant blogging and worldwide reputation make him worthy of inclusion. He might only rank 55 in Aus but he's get a worldwide and IMO more value to the community than articles on Klingon (which he probably speaks!) 71.231.3.74 20:44, 27 May 2007
  • Delete. I don't know either, but 55th doesn't seem high enough for me. Maybe if he was in the top 50... Sorry Frank, so close... Herostratus 20:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mention on a list of blogs doesn't constitute notability. HeirloomGardener 21:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find anything on this person. Could be vanity. Doc13mets 21:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found Frank on the front page of the AFR last week. I saw him keynote several high profile events in the Tech industry over the past few years. To me, it seems he is quite notable. Not to mention that he's been an advisor to both Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer.Delicategenius 08:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC) — User:Delicategenius (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. A Google News Archive search indicates some notability although more for his work for Microsoft t. [11]. Capitalistroadster 03:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just read an article in AFR this week where he discusses the role of hiring for Microsoft. Interesting internal perspective.Davidlem
    Davidlem (talk · contribs) is probably David Lemphers, a "Developer Evangelist" @ Microsoft[12]. John Vandenberg 02:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are these articles in AFR about the subject or about Microsoft? Being mentioned in an article, even a national daily like the Australian Financial Review does not necessarily meet the non-trivial criteria required for a source asserting notability. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 05:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've seen Frank at non-IT conferences talking non-Microsoft topics; Podcasts, TV and other media. Australian IT/media industry knows Frank, equally for his time at ninemsn nickhodge
    nickhodge (talk · contribs) is a Microsoft "Developer Evangelist" @ Sydney. John Vandenberg 02:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I came from a complete non Microsoft background and even I knew of Frank through mainstream meadia. In fact his Meego itself is considered his own unique brand. scbarnes
    scbarnes (talk · contribs) is Scott Barnes, "Developer Evangelist" @ Microsoft. John Vandenberg 02:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete due to WP:COI and shilling.Weak delete; mentions in news relating to Microsoft are not sufficient for a bio. news not relating to Microsoft is about other people named Frank Arrigo. I havent yet see any personal achievements of note. John Vandenberg 15:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This information benefits no one. It's total promotion of a person. Vanity in the extreme. Some techie in Australia--yea, we're all real interested. "I've seen him at conferences"; that's a great standard for wikipedia. -Kmaguir1 15:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears in news but not in his own right, as far as I can see. Orderinchaos 19:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Most of the keeps are part of his Microsoft team if you look at his blog! Def Vanity in the extreme. He is a avid blogger but thats about it -huyral96
  • Delete, 55th? Not good enough, son. Bonus delete points for attempting to flood this discussion with keep votes from your mates/employees. Lankiveil 02:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity entry. People who are involved in information technology, or are bloggers, can seem to satisfy notability criteria if search hits are taken as a measure of notability. Recurring dreams 03:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Way, way too much shilling, way too many spas, plus strong WP:COI problems. Not much else to say. KrakatoaKatie 08:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Frank is Australia's Scoble. We may have a small population but we deserve our own expert du jour. Delete Frank, Delete Scoble's page. Unless wikipedia is US centric? Laurel Papworth 21:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The post at this location by the above voter is interesting. Please note too that most of the Delete voters are Australian in origin so it's not a WP:CSB issue. Orderinchaos 02:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep 211.28.231.145
  • Keep Frank is a public IT personality that has made a big impact over the last sixteen years during his time at Microsoft.edhooper
  • Comment It is significant that people have rallied here to defend the entry. Don't be deterred by other wikipedians who think that highlighting a connection to Frank negates the importance of your feedback. Delicategenius 12:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. The law has to be enforced. Obviously the existence of this article is a big issue for Wikipedia. Thanks to the editors from Wikipedia police that prevent us from getting this information accidentally. Now I know how to get famous: Have an article on Wikipedia about you and initiate a deletion. -SESchreiber 16:35, 27 May 2007 (GMT)
  • Keep I agree with the comment that Wikipedia should not be US centric, and the Scoble of Oz should be kept. Newtronic 18:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This reminds me of the disccusion for deletion of the Meathead (Nine Inch Nails fan personality) article (which apparently has been deleted because i can't find it). Just because someone is not notable to EVERYONE or even a majority of everyone, does not mean the person is not notable. In the technology field, Frank is well-known. It would be useful to me (and therefore I have to assume useful to others as well) to have a place to come and look at some more biographical information on this person. Isn't that the whole purpose of wikipedia? A central repository for information that is useful? I wish wikipedia had MORE entries like this, not fewer. Tlmii 20:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I forgot to say that I think that this sort of heavy-handed technique by the "powers that be" is one of the (many) reasons so many people are frustrated or distrustful of Wikipedia and its content.Tlmii 20:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the contrary (and with no disrespect whatsoever to your views), I personally believe that our rules regarding notability, verifiability etc are the only way we can gain the respect of the wider community. Otherwise, the public comes away with an impression that we are a glorified Myspace, directory of useful links or a soapbox/blog site. We are trying to build an encyclopaedia. Note that notability is not in the eye of the beholder, it relates to independent coverage and sourcing. Orderinchaos 22:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can appreciate that point of view, however, from my perspective, "trying to build an encyclopedia" and "including lesser-known personalities that would still be useful to your users" do not need to be mutually exclusive paths for Wikipedia to take. I will note that I do think the article is lacking both in substance and organization, however I think that should make this a candiate for fixing, not deletion (I apologize, I do not yet know the correct wiki terminology). Reflecting on your comment about "a glorified Myspace," it makes me wonder about the goals of Wikipedia. Are the goals to be popular? Or to be useful? Or both? It seems that your statement implies Wikipedia should exclude useful information in order to maintain a particular position in people's minds. That doesn't sound quite what I would expect.Tlmii 01:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:BIO. Having numerous blogs does not make one notable. Also, Wikipedia is not going to list everyone who's ever contributed to an IT conference! -- MightyWarrior 20:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Fails to meet WP:N and WP:V (a "known geek personality in Australia" - known by whom? how does one define geek?). There are very few blogs which would qualify under the "independent secondary sources of which one is a subject" criterion in Australia, most of those who do (John Quiggin, Tim Blair etc) qualify for other reasons. The amount of canvassing going on to save this stubbish article is of concern to me. Zivko85 23:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the references are all about blogging. The article needs two non-trivial sources about Arrigo.Garrie 02:23, 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. Sr13 09:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Newsletters[edit]

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

Delete as not a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article. The list could go on forever — what is the standard for inclusion? At least in List of newspapers there is an assumed notability in that a newspaper takes quite a bit of funding and effort to put together every week, and (presumably) is representative of its community. Can we say the same about just anything that calls itself a "newsletter"? ... discospinster talk 20:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless some suitable criteria can be established for inclusion in this list. HeirloomGardener 20:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment LPagliaro 21:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)What I am ultimately trying to accomplish is created a separate wikipedia site for each of the newsletters and have them all linked on the "List of Newsletters" site. This is exactly what is done for the newspapers. The list of newspapers can go on forever as well but that is not tagged for deletion. I'm not sure why there can't be a list of newsletters. What is the difference? Other newsletters can go in and add their titles as well (as long as they are notable). Isn't that the point? In addition, I plan on creating separate wikipedia pages for all of these newsletters. You guys tagged this too soon. You didn't give me a chance. These are all notable companies that are well known in the industry. They are owned by Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC and that is noted on the page. It is even linked to the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC wikipedia site.[reply]
  • Speedy Delete WP:CSD#A3 and WP:NOT#DIR--Whsitchy 22:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Advice I think you would do best to continue with the existing Euromoney Institutional Investor PL, which can accommodate them all. There is no way they will individually be thought important enough for an article, and it is not clear what makes them distinctive as a group from the many other publications also listed there.

Note Please keep the title available for a real list of newsletters if we ever do one--though even here the term has various meanings. DGG 02:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment LPagliaro Can someone please tell me what the problem is exactly so I can fix it? I am trying to mimic the List of Newspapers site but apparently that's not okay. Please clarify. Thank you.
  • Comment I think the term "newsletter" is too wide of a category by itself, and ends up under WP:NOT#DIR. For example, many churches send out newsletters. Should those be included? What about newsletters from various clubs, etc.? Even "notable" newsletters end up being very loosely related. A financial newsletter has nothing in common with a newsletter on model railroading, for example. (Personally, I'm not sure that lists of newspapers or lists of magazines should be included in Wikipedia, either, but their existence or non-existence is largely irrelevant to this discussion.) HeirloomGardener 14:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete newsletter is too wide a category. JJL 03:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is much too wide a category and cannot be allowed to survive. Almost every academic society that I can think of has a 'newsletter' to contain ephemeral information to members. Similarly every stockbroker's tipsheet could be called a newsletter. Circular prayer letters from missionaries are similarly newsletters. If this list is allowed to survive it will attract long lists of different kinds of newsletter, and will become an utter muddle. Alternatively the article needs a title that defines its subject matter much more tightly. Peterkingiron 22:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as far to vague a list, which the author appears to be turning into a linkfarm at the moment. Nuttah68 14:08, 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 keep. John254 15:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heim theory[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Heim theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The material here presented does not constitute a topic of research in Physics as can be confirmed by a simple search over research database. For instance, SLAC-SPIRES database http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/ shows that the paper by Mr. Heim was not peer-reviewed and have produced no other published paper on the subject by scientists. This shows that the scientific community do not consider the work of Mr. Heim to be enough relevant to science. In addition, this material is an extremely spectulative and controversial one and goes in the opposite line of present accepted published scientific research and results.

This text was given as the reason for a proposed deletion by User:201.43.76.101
This nomination was improperly included in the page for the old AFD. The error was corrected by Dhartung (talk · contribs), who has no opinion. --Dhartung | Talk 17:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though the topic is itself OR, it's notable OR, and its article can be written from a critical perspective. Cmprince 20:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's no Wikipedia policy against having an article on a speculative development in science. Notable? yes, widely discussed, any trivial search will show that. Sources? Yes, both the original Heim material and criticisms are easy to find sources for. Article balanced? Could use some more healthy skepticism, but I don't think anyone is keeping that out, and AFD would be the wrong solution for that anyways (AFD is not a substitute for a cleanup tag, etc). Georgewilliamherbert 21:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis that the theory has been talked about by others, scientists or not.DGG 02:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are sources for the text referenced in this article. Mr. Heim's work is certainly unconventional, but this wikipedia article was a clear and cogent tretease on this particular subject for my personal enightenment. Why would you want to deprive the next person who searches for Heim theory of this? Is wikipedia running out of space? "Enough relevant for science"? Who made you the spokeperson for the scientific community? How do you know 'they' would approve deleting ideas just because they are "speculative and controversial"? Digizen 04:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Unbelievable that this should be up for deletion - it resoundingly defeated a previous attempt. How is such effrontery allowed? Get this unsightly tag off a.s.a.p. since Heim theory is in the ascendant: the Tajmar experiemnts have given it provisional experimental verification; a refereed review is in preparation and will be published in 2008; some top particle physicists are reading through the theory with great interest at the moment. I could go on and on. From the Wikipedia policy on deletion: Renominations: As with deletion discussions, a certain amount of time should pass between repeated requests for deletion review, and these requests should be carefully considered in light of policy. Renominations that lack new arguments or new evidence are likely to be closed quickly" There are no new arguments since the defeated deletion campaign in Sept 2006, so I propose that this disgraceful breech of etiquette be scrapped forthwith. --hughey 06:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable subject matter, paper winner of a recent Aeronautics prize. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 07:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Heim theory has been published already in peer reviewed scientific journal "Zeitschrift für Naturforschung" in 1977. See that snippet from the article:
 *Burkhard Heim: 
Vorschlag eines Weges einer einheitlichen Beschreibung der Elementarteilchen
(Suggestion of a way of a unified
 description of the elementary particles), 
Zeitschrift für Naturforschung (Max Planck Society), 1977, Vol.
 32a, pp. 233-243.
  • Of course the article has many problems, starting with the fact that there is no way to decide whether today proponents' publication about Heim Theory even matches Heim's own (note the confusion about the number of dimensions to use). Then there was the ugly sideshow trying to fake official support by the University of Innsbruck. But unfortunately we don't delete articles we being non-encyclopedic. So let this article persist and just help fighting infections of other articles with Heim Theory claims. --Pjacobi 09:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has many advantages - many people heard of Heim e.g. from the New Scientist article and went there as it was referenced in NS itself!!!! They often then expressed satisfaction at the info and links in the article as an intro. And that is rubbish about 'confusion about the number of dimensions' as Heim very early on derived 12 as the maximum number of dimensions. Though he started with 6, i.e. 2 of the basic 4 sub-spaces, in his final years Droscher convinced him that the extension to 8 (3 sub-spaces) or even the full 12 dimensions was consistent with the original. Only Heim died before he himself could publish on the 8-dim version, as he had intended. And though critics are quick to pounce on the outdated reference to Droscher's Innsbruck University affiliation, they conveniently ignore Hauser's illustrious career [14]or the fact that several academics at Free Uni Berlin, Cern etc. are in the Heim-theory group or associated with it (private communication Von Ludwiger 2007). --hughey 12:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed] --Pjacobi 12:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hdeasy, please don't remove my contents. When asked for references for your bold claims, you suggested the URL http://public.fh-wolfenbuettel.de/~haeuser/ -- but contrary to the appearance of page and URL, this is not a page of the Fachhochschule Wolfenbüttel. They only provide free webspace for personal homepages of their staff. The note on the site reads: Mit dem Public-Web-Service bietet das Rechenzentrum allen eingetragenen Benutzerinnen und Benutzern die Möglichkeit für die Einrichtung einer eigenen Homepage.
The article needs a {{fiction}} or {{in-universe}} warning.
Pjacobi 11:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. for the above reasons. this nomination for deletion is absurd. Whateley23 01:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with and wish to second the reasons stated by the above posters. Tajmar's experiments offers apparent verification, theory is highly notable and is founded on and in established scientific facts, as formulated by, among others, Albert Einstein. Heim theory is not a "pseudoscience" as is (for instance) astrology or numerology. Korv McHund 21:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read our deletion policy before commenting on deletion nominations. Most of your reasoning is entirely irrelevant; we have many good articles on pseudoscientific topics, for example. Notability does not mean what you think it means here. --Philosophus T 18:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid you have misunderstood my reason for mentioning "pseudoscience" together with Heim Theory. My purpose for doing so was not to indicate that Wikipedia does not (or should not) have an ample amount of good articles on pseudoscientific topics, but to show to the person nominating the Heim Theory article for deletion that the theory does in itself not fall under the criteria for "pseudoscience", as is initially alleged by him (see the talk page for Heim Theory). I certainly have no qualms about including articles concerning well-known pseudoscientific theories in Wikipedia for informative purposes. Korv McHund 19:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deletion is an innapropriate method of improving an article, imho DDB 01:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is notable, as the media sources show. What is needed here is heavy rewriting of the article to conform with policy, which does not permit the article to be written from the view that Heim Theory is serious science. See the talk page for more information. --Philosophus T 18:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find the efforts to delete this article an attack against anything that might challenge the status quo of physics more than a sincere effort to expand recorded knowledge. There seems to be a vendetta against this theory even though those opposed to it probably have not spent much time actively studying it. Comments such as "no way to decide whether today proponents' publication about Heim Theory even matches Heim's own (note the confusion about the number of dimensions to use)" shows that any of the refernced material was not actually read. Should we throw out all of "the big bang" theory because it had been modified to "the inflationay big bang". Add to this recent experimental research "the Tajmar experiments" into some of the areas addressed by Heim Theory, along with referenced works, and new publications (for peer review) are coming soon. These should more than warrant keeping the article, along with the immediately removing the "up for deletion" tag. DEK46656 18:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user has only two edits, and the first is in a discussion about deletion on the article's talk page. To the user, please don't comment on these things before you understand Wikipedia policy. Most of what you say is entirely irrelevant. Also, be aware that using multiple accounts on Wikipedia to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint will result in indefinite banning (WP:SOCK), and that votes by users without any other edits will most likely be discounted, or will be assumed to be illegitimate. You should read WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOR, WP:DELETE, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:ARB/PS before joining this discussion. --Philosophus T 18:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'comment This is the second allegation I've read about sock puppetry and this issue [1] I don't condone such activity, but neither do I condone bullying. I think it best if editors stick to the article in question, and make their issue known with admin, rather than make public denunciations imho. DDB 20:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm simply following the usual method of notification to the closing admin of an new SPA and possible sockpuppet !voting on an AfD. Take a look at DEK46656's contributions... --Philosophus T 22:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The fact that this theory is not mainstream is completely irrelevant to its existence on Wikipedia. It is a notable theory, there has been at least one peer-reviewed publication and a conference award. It's a legitimate, rigorously formulated, and falsifiable scientific theory. Is it true? Who knows--it will probably turn out to be false, like most other proposed theories. But this is not our concern here on Wikipedia--we're concerned about notability, verifiable sources and NPOV, and the article as it stands meets these criteria. Heck, this is more than Astrology has going for it. The topic generates considerable interest, especially in connection with the recent ESA/Tajmar experiments. The article is well written and free of bias. There is no reason for deletion. I would also like to point out that the deletion proposal was made by an anon IP user, for whom this nomination and related wrangling are the only edits ever; and that all the votes so far have been keeps. This hardly even merits evaluation. Freederick 10:19, 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.

References[edit]

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

The result was delete. Sr13 09:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sevan "Apollo" Aydinian[edit]

Sevan "Apollo" Aydinian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparent conflict of interest and questionable notability HeirloomGardener 20:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I tried to verify claims of notability in article, but could not do so. Google hits for Sevan Aydinian link to self-promotion or directories, none which are reliable sources to verify any of the information in the article. There also appears to be a conflict of interest with the editor being a "Just a long time fan and friend" per the author's talk page {see User talk:Apolloxtcy). Wildthing61476 20:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this non-notable long-winded autobiography. No refs, and nothing he claims can be verified. Bongwarrior 20:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! Apollo is a legend in the poetry world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Primericared (talk • contribs) 00:55, 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. Sean William @ 16:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trumbull Simmons[edit]

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

Strong delete - Being the adviser to a college newspaper does not mean he deserves his own entry

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

The result was delete. Daniel 08:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Lukas[edit]

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

Non-notable reality television contestant. Was tagged for speedy but removed by administrator so here it is. Mattinbgn/ talk 20:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 20:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not CSD A7, but it's not notable either. I know opinions differ on the notability of reality TV contestants, but my opinion is to delete unless they either win the whole thing or are notable for some other reason. YechielMan 04:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Don't Delete) I'd like to read arguments for deletion made using the context of the program to justify deletion. It's difficult to believe anyone in favor of deletion watches the show, which hasn't ended. We already know she will do no worse than third place on a show (the Australian version) notorious for leading to successful careers even for those who are elminated early. Lukas has done much more than that; she's excelled. We've heard time and again of her flair and expertise for modeling from the show's mentor, judges, and guest photographers. It seems highly unlikely she won't have a successful career whether she places in first, second, or third place. She's already proven a memorable and talented contestant with a promising future. Strangepalefighter 16:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; none of the other current contestants have articles: Australia's Next Top Model, Cycle 3. The winners of the previous "cycles" dont have articles: Australia's Next Top Model. John Vandenberg 00:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What's verifiable about her? She's a contestant on AusNTM. As noted above, contestants on a reality show are not generally notable. Nothing else is verifiable from an independent reliable source. Based on that, an assertion of notability is made (can't speedily delete) but does not meet WP:BIO guidelines (can delete via AfD). Once she's done something besides the reality show, for which there are reliable sources—or once she wins it and garners widespread media coverage—then I'm open to recreating the article. For now, though, delete for lack of anything verifiable to meet the WP:BIO criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, failed "talent" show contestant. not notable. Lankiveil 02:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete nn. JJL 03:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, also per arguments above. Orderinchaos 14:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Don't Delete) The other constestants dont have pages because no one could be bothered doing one for them,.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Samfim (talk • contribs) 12:31, 27 May 2007
  • Delete NTM makes one source. Find another, about Lukas not the show she is on. Garrie 02:19, 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 Keep per WP:SNOW. But if anyone tries to create Complete list of prime numbers be sure to warn us. Newyorkbrad 23:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of prime numbers[edit]

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

I fail to see the reason why we need a huge list of prime numbers. Totally unencyclopedic. The first few primes of each type are already listed in the relevant articles, and a huge list like this one is unnecessary. —METS501 (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. I like having this list of the prime types. I think this is an excellent organizational tool, and I find it very encyclopedic. I wouldn't mind the removal of some of the primes under each type, since they are available on each type's article. Doctormatt 20:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I lean towards keep. The collection is not indiscriminant. It is sorted according to the various types of primes, so I side with Doctormatt on this one. I'm neutral about eliminating the lists under each type. It might possibly be useful for cross-referencing, or something like that. Silly rabbit 20:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Presumably you meant "indiscriminate". Michael Hardy 23:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Weak keep I would not call it "indiscriminate" because IT HAS TO BE PRIME to be on the list. It bothers me a little that, while I know primes are a valid subject in math, there are no references in this article to sources satisfying WP:A and likewise there are no sources in most of the articles about various quaint types of primes classified according to cute terminology someone dreamed up one day in school. Some of the subclassifications could be put up for AFD if they are O.R. rather than the product of scholarly analysis by mathematicians, computer scientists or cryptographers. References tend to be to other Wikipedia articles or to some website like Planetmath.org, which apparently anyone can edit anonymously, likw Wikipedia, hence not a reliable source. Prime numbers in general are obviously notable (hey, more than 1 million Google hits, mentioned in every low level math book) so it seems appropriate and encyclopedic to list some examples. Edison 20:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rabbit, good cross-referencing list for the prime related article. The initial 1000 primes is the only thing that seems indiscriminate to me.--Cronholm144 20:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For previous deletion discussion, see Talk:List of prime numbers. I expect the lists can be sourced to OEIS (but should probably go, with sourcing, on the separate articles for each type of prime instead of here). There's a difference between those entries of the form "primes in sequence X" (with no significant mathematical study relating to the intersection of the primes with that sequence, though "primes" and "sequence X" are individually notable) and those entries where there has been actual study of primes with the given property or of the given form. (OEIS now discourages submission of the former because it's too easy for people to make up such definitions, but there are an awful lot already in the database that wouldn't be notable here.) I think there are enough notable entries which have been genuinely studied to make a worthwhile list (possibly renamed to list of prime number topics or similar to reflect that it's a list of important types of primes rather than just a list of primes). Joseph Myers 21:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Doctormatt explained, excellent organizational tool. Contains summaries of definitions, and links to articles on many types of primes. If there is anything unencyclopedic about it, it's the criteria for listing so many primes of each type , but clearly, it could not be a reason for deleting the article! The first section may be moved out to a separate article. Arcfrk 21:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No, I don't think the first section should be split out; I'd rather delete the first section from the article. WP articles are not supposed to be tables of numbers; those go at Wikibooks or somewhere. For each of the other sections, five or so examples should be sufficient as well (an exception might be if, say, only seven or so are known; then there might be a reasonable case for listing all seven). But this is all cleanup, not AfD. --Trovatore 21:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just a quick glance for me was enough to see that this is utterly encyclopedic content, indeed much better than many lists on Wikipedia (which is not to say that it could not be improved!). Geometry guy 21:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was quite happy to click on this page and learn some stuff about primes I didn't know before. Very useful and, I think one could argue, encyclopedic as well. VectorPosse 21:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I might also mention that a change of title and some editing could help. If we called this "Types of primes" or something like that, and then listed some examples of each (rather than huge tables), that would perhaps change the way this debate is being framed. VectorPosse 22:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Gives a great overview of 72 types of primes we have articles or article sections about. All 72 are wikilinked. Sources belong in the linked articles and are usually there. Some of the prime lists could be shorter but that is easy to change and no reason to delete. The deletion discussion on Talk:List of prime numbers is from early 2004 where it was only one huge list of prime numbers with no types. PrimeHunter 23:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and refocus, wikipedia is not for reference data, such as mere lists of numbers, but should instead describe what these types of primes are, instead of merely listing them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This seems to be a clear case for a quick closure (speedy keep or withdrawal of nomination?). Lets not waste more time on this one! Geometry guy 23:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, perhaps reorganize The page presents a superficial appearance of just being a bunch of numerical tables; that seems to be why it got nominated for deletion. It should be reorganized so that it superficially looks like what it really is. Michael Hardy 23:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:SNOWBALL is probably appropriate. There are some even some notable prime numbers missing from this article (like the largest discovered one that you'll find in the latest Guinness Book of Records or whatever)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bjelleklang. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking of Latin American cities[edit]

Ranking of Latin American cities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Found while patrolling candidates for speedy deletion. The given reason was: outdatable and non-notable enough list. This is not a valid speedy reason. As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. —— Eagle101Need help? 14:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, if not for the reasons given before, it's definitely a copyvio. Tagging as such. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 16:17, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Ray[edit]

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

Found while patrolling canidates for speedy deletion. The given reason was: VANDALISM - Poorly Maintained Artical, unwanted. Speedy concern: Poorly Maintained Artical, unwanted. (Please note it was tagged by an anon IP, and there is some interesting history in recent days). —— Eagle101Need help? 21:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no evidence of substantial external coverage, article has been edited by subject a fair bit. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - national presenter on both TV & Radio. - fchd 20:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep the chap is a presenter on BBC Asian Network [15] with numerous ghits. He is dubbed "one of the network's leading presenters" here [16]. Mmoneypenny 20:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There seems to be some small time notability here, just straddles the line. The prod was by another user which I didn't analyze, but a CSD by an anon IP I tend to think of as bad faith - I have no time to look closer right this second though. Eagle did the right thing and brought it here accordingly, so good on him. I'll look closer to see what's up. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong/speedy keep. The AfD was put up by an anon user with no other information than that this was a "poorly maintained artical" [sic]. I suspect bad faith on the part of the anon, but I can't figure out if this was to prove a point. Other notes: Another user had prodded the article (rightfully), it was de-prodded (rightfully there), re-speedied (see the nom) and de-speedied by Eagle 101. Notability concerns remain, but as per my comment above, Adil seems to straddle the line, so I'd like to let the article stand. If there's COI as Guy points out, that'll probably work itself out. At any rate, the whole point of this AfD seems to have been procedural, but I honestly see no need for there to be an AFD here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. National radio & TV presenter. Still presenting the Adil Ray Show on BBC Asian Network which is a UK national BBC Radio Station and on things like Desi DNA which is a regular programme on BBC2 which is one of the UK's main national TV channels. As for vandalism, if vandalism was a reason for deleting articles then that would be the end of the ones on Tony Blair and George Bush and other such people. As for being edited by the subject, it has been edited by someone using his name - I have no idea whether it was the subject or not. Indeed if someone is notable, I don't see it would be any different from anyone else provided they provided sources of information in the same way as other people and didn't include an opinion.--Lord of the Isles 00:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep If there are COI or maintenance concerns about the article then they should be discussed on its talk page. Here we are only interested in whether or not the subject is notable, and since he is unquestionably a presenter on national television and radio in the UK, that is a foregone conclusion. A1octopus 15:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject meets WP:BIO as a notable British radio and television presenter. Yamaguchi先生 07:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Why are pages like this have to be deleted when you got articles on Railway Stations on every single station in the UK :S. Plus Adil is one of the main faces of the BBC Asian Network and also appears in BBC shows such as Heaven & Earth, Desi DNA. User:Adz2227 17:55, 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 close as duplicate nomination, original nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bastard Squad. Likely created in error. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bastard Squad[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bastard Squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Possibly hoax, definitely 'Boring' Mannafredo 15:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only information I'm able to find for Bastard Squad is on a punk band out of Melbourne. Looking back in the history at the very first edit (i.e., creation) today, it looks like it is just some amateur film shot ten years ago on a zero budget with a limited distribution to friends and family. Good endeavor, but the film is not notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY CLOSE, the AfD for this is also found here and has more !votes. This one is called "Bastard Squid". --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:59, 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 keep because afd was used in an edit conflict. + snowball keep. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing B-29 Superfortress Survivors[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Boeing B-29 Superfortress Survivors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrislk02 (talk • contribs) 2007/05/24 15:52:25

  • Keep — Satisfactory article, and nominator couldn't even bother to give a justification for the deletion. (I also checked the article history.) — RJH (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article is well-referenced and provides historical context for the remaining aircraft. This is much more than an indiscriminate collection of information. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - What actually happened here is long and confuysing. Look at the orignial versions in the edit history. I

oringially nomianted the original version for deletion. The discussion yeilded a compromise which is currently implemented. The articles original creator was angry with the changes and re-nominated for deletion. He nomination was faulty so I helped him, however he failed to provide a reason.

  • Keep in its current state. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no need to delete --rogerd 19:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This is not a legitimate AfD; this was posted to AfD because of a disagreement over content and style after the resolution of the previous AfD. The issues should be resolved by the editors at the talk page. --Kevin Murray 20:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article's lead is a bit ambiguous, seems like it's about the plane itself and the page should probably be moved so that survivors is spelled with no capital, I don't think it's a proper noun here. IvoShandor 21:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yeah, and Keep per points above. IvoShandor 21:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Speedy Keep: What are we discussing anyway? Is this just a "throw it against the wall" nomination? A second nomination should be more specific, so we don't cover the same ground again. This AfD never should have been opened, and it should be closed immediately. Dhaluza 22:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: This AfD is great waste of time which could be used for improving this article, referencing etc. Piotr Mikołajski 08:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C33 (building)[edit]

C33_(building) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Delete. Notability unasserted, looks non-notable. MadMaxDog 12:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, and if prostitution is illegal in Germany, that's unsourced defamatory material. If anyone can find sources for this buliding's notability, then consider my vote reversed. Abeg92contribs 19:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As with almost every other country in Europe, legal and always has been. I agree there's nothing to indicate this is any more notable than any other brothel, though — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article did not assert why it is an important landmark in that town, so no assertion of notability. It may qualify for a speedy under CSD A7.--Kylohk 10:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at the moment because it is unsourced and hence notability is not proven. However, the web contains multiple sites mentioning (at least) the brothel C33 in Böblingen, mainly in German. If someone produces some reliable sources from this I will reconsider. Nuttah68 14:32, 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. W.marsh 13:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cipherium Systems[edit]

Cipherium Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Cipherium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirect)

Looks like an advertising page. Products are described in fuzzy marketing language. No hard facts about them or the company itself (revenue/staff numbers, founding date...) High on a tree 04:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, borderline A7 candidate (fails to assert notability). Zetawoof(ζ) 23:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The company has been mentioned in a R.O.C. government website. That alone could be considered notable. The link is here.--Kylohk 09:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article does not offer a claim to notability anf there are no sources. The R.O.C. government website mentioned above reads as a rather spammy puff piece and fails as an independent reliable source. Nuttah68 14:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to fail WP:CORP for lack of any independent coverage in reliable sources. Any coverage I did find appeared to be company press releases.--Kubigula (talk) 23:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Mee[edit]

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

The result was speedy keep as recommended by Dhartung. I see no reason to delete this. Non-admin closure. YechielMan 04:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Sinks[edit]

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

I added some information.. enough where I think it doesn't need to be deleted... --Napnet 00:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I can't imagine what the nom's rationale for thinking this unsuitable might have been, even in its unexpanded form. Topic is entirely encyclopedic. Deor 16:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pretty clearly notable. Abeg92contribs 19:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and speedy close. Nominator did not offer a rationale for deletion (due to not completing the three AFD steps). --Dhartung | Talk 21:18, 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 11:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Obelisks[edit]

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

Basically just a conspiracy theory with no indication of notability or reliable sources Makerowner 02:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No evidence this theory is discussed in detail by anyone but nuts. Someguy1221 09:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No assertion of notability. --EMS | Talk 18:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks reliable independent sources. Edison 20:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete woof woof! (I like the use of the word "alleged", makes it more scientific somehow). andy 22:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. complete balls, not even a good conspiracy theory. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Drivel. If alien artifacts had been found on the moon why weren't the Americans (and Russians) immediately launching a dozen expeditions to examine them? Nick mallory 01:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Are you honestly asking that question, Nick? You know the government would never tell us about their communication with aliens on their supersecret lunar obelisk bases. It is our mission as Wikipedia to publish these completely unreferenced theories so the public can be properly informed. Someguy1221 05:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I could be a government stooge working on behalf of the alien conspiracy to make sure their secret is not exposed to the public gaze. In that case I'd be revealing my true identity here to hide in plain sight as a cunning double bluff...or something. Nick mallory 06:28, 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 excommunicate. Krimpet (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of future journeys of Pope Benedict XVI[edit]

List of future journeys of Pope Benedict XVI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A list of rumored and proposed Papal visits, as well as purported invitations for him to visit. Fails WP:CRYSTAL, unsourced info about potential future events. Wikipedia is not the Pope's personal travel agency. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 17:57, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cymbalta Music[edit]

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

Page about music used in ad campaign for prescription drug Cymbalta. Only real info is links to ad campaign page, thus violating WP:NOT Blueboy96 19:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 13:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heartland Campground[edit]

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

A non notable campground. A simple search on a search engine reveals no reliable secondary sources. The only mention is on a directory list and its official website. Does not meet WP:N. Kylohk 20:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete The content may be worth an article, but without sources to corroborate the information, it cannot be included in the encyclopedia. YechielMan 04:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This reference, part of a site about the history of Birmingham, Iowa, talks about the history of the campground. I'm still not totally sure that this article qualifies as something to keep based on its history, because there isn't a lot of material to suggest that the camp influenced the development of the town or vice versa. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yep, a town's history will mention many of its facilities, but is it notable enough? If it is, then each library of all towns in the world would have its own article. So, unless some famous celebrity or something has stayed there, or any widely reported incidents have happened there, I'd still think it's not notable.--Kylohk 10:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, good point. Also, the camp's own web site doesn't mention much about their history except for the fact that they had a lot of visitors coming by horse and buggy in the early days. I couldn't find much more about this camp when I did a search, so I'm persuaded to go with delete on this one. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.--Kathy A. 22:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly nn. Eluchil404 20:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Andrew_pmk | Talk 04:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy DELETE as attack, BLP violation, and per WP:NOT -Docg 23:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Connor McCreaddie[edit]

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

Article on obese 8-year-old boy. I'm not sure that there is much notability to be gained by the combination of extremely fat and extremely young. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is nothing notable here. Children are threatened for removal and actually removed from homes everyday because their parents don't take proper care of them. Because of the current rise in childhood obesity, cases like this are getting more attention, but Connor is not notable. --Crunch 23:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - created and edited in good faith, I am sure, but in effect, basically an attack page against a little boy. Newyorkbrad 00:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In agreement with the above. Sadly, I don't know why he would be more notable than other obese children. Acalamari 02:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tragic as the case may be, the article shows subject has attracted coverage from reliable sources on at least two dates. If I understand the ITV1 credit to the photograph correctly, there may also be television coverage. 80.168.23.201 15:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is established by reliable sources, and the case received significant news coverage in the UK, both for the boy's extreme weight (a weight of 218lbs, or 15st 8lbs, is almost unheard of for a British 8-year-old), and his mother's conflict with social services over his eating habits. To put it crudely, this isn't just any old fat kid. AdorableRuffian 20:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this particular individual distinguished himself from the run-of-the-mill obese child and generated world-wide press coverage -- Whpq 16:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This particular individual is an eight-year-old child. Did he mean to distinguish himself and generate world-wide press coverage, or was such infamy an unfortunate side effect of sensational media coverage meant to promote a poster boy for a perceived public health threat? Is his story even a footnote to the childhood obesity article? There is this mass delusion on Wikipedia that media coverage translates into insta-notability, a delusion that is uncomfortably close to Andy Warhol's concept of fifteen minutes of fame. Are guests of The Jerry Springer Show also notable in their own right? After all, that program is internationally syndicated! ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:52, 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 11:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs influenced by the 1983 film Scarface[edit]

List of songs influenced by the 1983 film Scarface (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. The films on this list have nothing in common with one another beyond having one of several possible suggested links to the film. The list is somewhat indiscriminate in that it lumps these several possible connections together and calling the film an "influence" on the songs in the absence of independent reliable sources that the songs were "influenced" by the film as opposed to, say, the songwriter just thought it sounded cool to use a hook or a sample, it's original research. Otto4711 19:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Almost impossible to reference. Malc82 23:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - more like "list of songs which somehow mention something related to Scarface in someway". --Haemo 01:53, 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 on the band article, delete on the articels about individual songs. DES (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Was A Cub Scout[edit]

I Was A Cub Scout (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Apparently trivial band (not quite qualifying for A7 because of that "Top 10 single of 2006" claim). A grand total of three singles, the most successful reached a chart position of #116 and sold 800 copies. While they notch up a relatively respectable 735 Ghits on UK Google the hits appear to consist entirely of blogs, myspace pages and gig guides with not a single mention in a major publication (music or otherwise). — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

We Were Made To Love (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pink Squares (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I Hate Nightclubs (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • No opinion on the songs, but weak keep the band (though the article needs a rewrite). Big feature in Drowned in Sound] here; a writeup by The Guardian; coverage by the BBC; and a show review in Neu Magazine. Weak because they're not quite there in terms of album releases, but it seems like there's enough outside coverage to push them over the line. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the songs because hitting the hundreds in the UK charts doesn't make them notable, and besides one can find all one needs to know about them on the band's page. Weak Keep the band's page as they just about make WP:Band on the basis of the references above. A1octopus 23:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the song articles as clearly trivial. I have no strong opinion on the band. Eluchil404 20:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep the band, as they're becoming more and more popular in the neu-rave scene—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.100.85.189 (talk • contribs).— 81.100.85.189 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Weak Keep for the band, cleanup desperately needed. Strong Delete the songs. Stellatomailing 15:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:V. Googleable sources are mostly in English and all from self-published Ufologist websites, about as far from WP:RS as one can get. Sandstein 20:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haselbach encounter[edit]

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

I doubt that UFO websites should be considered reliable sources (although they may be acceptable for secondary sourcing, e.g. as references) and therefore I think that this article fails WP:V. I looked for non-ufological references to this event (e.g. newspaper articles), but I couldn't find anything. Stammer 18:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - if references are a problem just put {{Unreferencedarticle}} instead of the deletion request (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 19:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The problem is that the article describes an event from the pre-computer era. Resourcing is difficult and will take time, unless there are any Wikipedians who really want to plough through old German newspapers... Totnesmartin 20:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yours is a circular argument. It assumes that such sources exist. My point is that, once you regard UFO sites as unreliable, this article is built on nothing. Should Wikipedia act as a mirror for UFO sites? I doubt it. Stammer 20:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the circular argument? And why are UFO sites unreliable per se? Granted, many are awful, but so are many music, travel and football sites. Totnesmartin 21:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have to believe that "one of the best known UFO-landing reports from Germany" wouldn't be difficult to source. Someguy1221 21:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless reputable sources are found. Nick mallory 01:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this event is notable in Europe, but Wikipedia's policies on non English language sources (plus the inability of many Americans to read them) can make it a little tricky to source this as well as it should be sources (There are those out there who would simply delete any German language sources outright regardless of their reliability). As for UFO websites being unreliable, that doesn't really come into play unless an extraordinary claim was made that required scientific validity to be established, which this page does not make. Treat it as an urban legend - Report on what is said to have happened and what is believed, which UFO sites can be relied upon to do. For anybody who doesn't know, the first source listed don that page is from a branch of Mufon, a notable UFO reporting group who can be relied upon to print accurate representations of "encounters as they are reported", even if they cannot be quoted a source for science topics. - perfectblue 15:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually there is no article about this "event" in German Wikipedia. Stammer 07:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Public belief in UFOs is higher in the US than in Germany. It goes without saying that there would be more UFO related entries here. perfectblue 17:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's their problem. How does it apply here? de.wikipedia has 590,000 articles, we have 1.8 million, so there are many things we're ahead of them on. Totnesmartin 14:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "problem" here is that there is no source. Nothing. I am not sure that it puts us ahead of the Germans. An unsourced article is hardly better than no article. Stammer 17:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources here,[17]

Flying saucers in East germany (near top of page)quarter of the way down though it mostly seems to lead back to a CIA analysis of a Greek newspaper report. Not much to go on. Totnesmartin 20:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I guess one may add a note stating that, though the "event" is supposed to have taken place in Germany, the article's source is a site devoted to paranormal phenomena quoting an article in a Greek newspaper allegedly found in declassfied CIA files. This sets new standards for WP:V. Stammer 04:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:D Totnesmartin 08:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS is a sliding scale. The more important the claim, the stronger the source must be, and vice versa. We're talking about people seeing lights in the sky, this is hardly WP:BLP or Redflag, you could source it from a tabloid or an episode of Coast to Coast, so long as you didn't make scientific claims. Treat as an urban legend if nothing else - perfectblue 18:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was throw into the sarlacc pit. Krimpet (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Flaws: the Return of the Ginge[edit]

Star Flaws: the Return of the Ginge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A £15 homemade film, the most notable thing about which is that we have to waste time discussing its deletion on AfD, since no WP:CSD covers it (G11, possibly?) Sandstein 17:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC) — (Oh, contested PROD. Sandstein 17:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  • Speedy A7 delete. No assertion of notability. --Fang Aili talk 18:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but unfortunately WP:CSD#A7 only applies to "people, groups, companies and websites". This is a film. Mind you, I'm all for expanding the scope of CSD, but... Sandstein 18:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't split hairs that way. I've made films with my friends too, and they're not notable. Cheers, Fang Aili talk 19:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt per CSD A7 and G11. --Finngall talk 18:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as utterly unnotable, unsourced and unsourceable. Cheers to Sandstein for sticking to due process. Stammer 19:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'KEEP' the only reason anyone has come up with to delete it is that it's "unnotable". Unnotable is a very broad term, ie. what may be unnotable to some people may be very notable to others. You have very little right to deny other people the right to be "notable." Star Flaws is widely reguarded as the best film to have come out of St Andrews. 'KEEP' Jonnyshearer 19:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)— Jonnyshearer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment I also suggest reading What Wikipedia is not. Notability is not a right, and Wikipedia is for those subjects which already are notable, not for those who are trying to become notable. --Finngall talk 20:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'KEEP' so if Star Flaws & Star Flaws 2 become "notable" then can I write about it? in the meantime you way as well 'keep' it, it's not hurting anyone. if anything having it's a benefit. Jonnyshearer 20:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep star flaws. i personally feel 'star flaws' is just the beginnning of greater things, who is to claim whether something is unnotable if it has not been given a chance to grow andd expand. keep star flaws. keep star flaws. st.andrews best. 86.149.136.231 19:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)roisin connolly. — 86.149.136.231 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. Utterly non-notable, by pretty much any standard. ... discospinster talk 20:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'KEEP' Having made many a film myself, I say this is kept because without it these people may fall into a deep depression, start doing drugs and random strangers for cash. Do you really want that? DO YOU?.....I didn't think so. — FCVDave (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:55, May 24, 2007 (UTC).

Well, it would appear that your decision to try and delete the Star Flaws article has kicked up quite a fuss. Some would say that this proves it's "notablity" and therefore it's right to an article on Wikipedia. Jonnyshearer 21:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:SNOW (per WP:NOTE, WP:NFT, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BOLLOCKS) - Tiswas(t) 21:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia should not be used as a tool for self promotion.Doc13mets 21:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an "amateur film production" with no cited independant reliable sources to attest any degre of notability or wide spread interst. DES (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I concur, Wikipedia should not be used as a tool for self promotion. However, what is being promoted is not, as suggested, a 'self' but rather an exceptionally low budget film: call it an 'entity'. Regrettably I am not possessed of an encyclopaedic knowledge of the rules governing Wikipedia, and from what I see further up this page this entity falls into a black hole somewhat. Nevertheless, my decision to support the 'Keep' side of the argument can be justified thus: this entity was not created with the desire to make a profit, therefore the promotion of such an entity cannot be an abuse of Wikipedia in order to make financial gain. Moreover, it is questionable whether or not the article was created with the express desire to 'promote' (although I'm sure everyone will recognise that inevitably the outcome could be construed as such: this is undoubtedly the case with many articles on bands, products etc) and if it was not designed to promote then it is surely a valid contribution to this site. The value of the contribution can be scrutinised, and I can see that the relevance of the article is largely localised (although not entirely). In conclusion, I would lend my support to the 'Keep' argument, but with the admission that it is perhaps frivolous in some respects. Would, I wonder, the situation be greatly different if someone other that one of those involved in the film had made the article? Would that prove the lack of 'self promotion'? Notability is a rather woolly word. Small things can be notable in their own ways. Just an observation. yours, Lieutenant Crab User: Lieutenant Crab (UTC)
  • Delete, no evidence of notability. Watch out for the socks! Arkyan &#149; (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. First time in my life that I feel some empathy for screw-due-process deletionists. Boys, behave! Stammer 22:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Unfortunately, I'm now also regretting that I didn't just hit "delete" as A7 instead of having this very worthwile discussion with the author and his sock-/meatpuppets. Sandstein 05:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - okay, deep breath. This article was literally made up at school one day. It has zero reliable sources to either support, or even assert notability. It had a budget of 15 pounds, featured no notable directors, or actors, and no Google Hits. Even the term "Star Flaws + Ginge" gets only 3 Google hits. It fails every conceivable notability guidelines. However, a number of editors have bafflingly decided to try and keep this article. I will summarize their arguments below:
  1. "Wikipedia should expand notability to keep it" - This argument admits that it does not meet standards; the correct place to argue this is at WP:NOTE, not here - this is not a valid argument for inclusion; it is an argument about policy, which should be argued on policy pages.
  2. "It has 1500 views and a good rating on an internet site. It is becoming popular" - first of all, 1500 views is not very many; literally thousands of Youtube videos fall into this category. Secondly future notability does not become present notability. This is not a valid argument for inclusion; it is contrary to notability guidelines.
  3. "Notability is subject, and some people think this is notable. You should keep this." - This argument ignores the fact that this is the exactly reason we have notability guidelines. It is an invalid argument for retaining this article, because it totally ignores the very principle of why we have notability guidelines.
  4. "These might become notable, so you should keep then in the meantime, since they aren't causing any harm." - This argument admits they are not notable. In addition, it is a classic "no harm" argument - which is invalid - coupled with a "future notability implies current notability". Present notability is not related to possible future notability.
  5. "Trying to delete this article shows that it's notable, since people are discussing it here" - This article is nonsense, on its face. If a thousand people tell you that something is not important, the fact that they are talking about does not mean it's important.
  6. "This article is not promotional in nature, therefore it should be kept" - So what? The crux of the argument is notability, not self-promotion. Even non-promotional articles must meet notability guidelines to be included. This argument is also invalid.
  • There you have it - my views on why it should be deleted, and why all of the arguments for inclusion presented so far are invalid. Remember - Wikipedia is not a vote. --Haemo 01:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Haemo, who seems to have summarized things neatly. As an additional comment, this article was Speedily Deleted twice per the deletion logs under WP:CSD#A7; deletes and creates all occurred same day as the AfD opening, so read into it what you will. -- GJD 12:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many of you are using the argument that wikipedia is not based on a vote, and you would be right. However, this does not give you the right to disregard the many people who have expressed their opinions. You cannot just ignore them because they dont know the terminology or perhaps are not capable of writing as fluently and convincingly as you, or perhaps purely because they disagree with what you believe. The spirit of Wiki is surely that everybody and anybody can have an input to it, regardless of their prior knowlege or background. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.180.177 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - The vote argument relates to writing keep multiple times. - Tiswas(t) 13:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As opposed to writing "Delete" multiple times?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.180.177 (talk)
  • In general, it relates to both. In this instance, considering the preponderance of single purpose accounts, it relates to writing keep. - Tiswas(t) 13:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think thats massively unfair that because you want to have it deleted, you can say that it refers to one thing rather than another "Do as i say, not as i do"?...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.180.177 (talk)
  • Comment Assuming that you are not being entirely disingenuous, I'll reiterate. Editors have reminded you that this is not a vote, as you appear to be under the misapprehension that multiple, unsupported keep comments will have any effect on the overall decision, which will be base on consensus, policy and established guidelines. - Tiswas(t) 12:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's because they have multiple reliable sources and won multiple notable awards. --Haemo 13:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete obviously non-notable. I can't even find any Google hits for it or the "production company" that distributes it, let alone any reliable sources. Hut 8.5 13:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Something with a cult following is notable only if some reliable source writes and article or reference about it. For more information, see WP:NFT.--Kylohk 16:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - absolutely zero reliable sources -- Whpq 16:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources provided, no obvious sources available. Nuttah68 18:32, 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 11:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xscape The Game[edit]

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

Prod removed. Unsourced article about a non-notable first release of first game from new company. Article was created by one of the games designers. ~ BigrTex 17:15, 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 keep, based on content of discussion. AKRadecki 17:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stencil jumping[edit]

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

The article is on a mathematical algorithm with applications (asserted) in computational fluid dynamics. This looks a lot like either original research or it is promotion for an algorithm that is not notable. Google search doesn't turn up anything on the topic. This was a disputed prod. Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 17:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Questionable. Looks like uncited OR and may even be a form of advertising for the software company. We can keep the article only if credible references can be found. — Loadmaster 17:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't notice this before, but it looks like the "software company" in question is, in fact, NASA. - makomk 22:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even without refs, if it's a known (proven) algorithm, I have no problem for it to be a WP article. Provided that it is not presented like OR, of course. — Loadmaster 22:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ok I couldn't find those...I'm a little off today. Well, I'm willing to go keep if the article gets cleaned up (needs tone work). -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 17:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, that could be fun. It's a fairly technical area that I know nothing about, and the rest of Wikipedia is less than informative on the matter. [18] page 128 has a brief description of it, but I'm not sure how closely it matches the more non-technical description here. (By the way, it's kind of weird - a new user added the same article here and at CFD Online at about the same time.) - makomk 22:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No one can blame you for nominating an article whose only source was another Wiki ;-) Someguy1221 06:49, 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, per WP:SYN and WP:NOT#INFO. Sean William @ 16:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

AfDs for this article:
Timeline of pronouncements of a critical period for the U.S. occupation of Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a procedural nomination. I closed the previous AfD as a Delete, but per the request of User at Work I have restored the article and reopened this AfD to gauge fuller consensus. I have no opinion. WaltonAssistance! 16:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per UaW & others last time. I seem to detect POV in some of the objections raised then. Johnbod 17:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per WP:NOT#INFO, under #9 (weakly fits to me). --Whsitchy 17:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it is kept, rename please. --Whsitchy 17:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the reasons mentioned before. Actually, now that it's a "timeline", instead of a "list", with that oh-so-helpful "end date" column (as if the phrase "the next six months" has ever meant the next six months, exactly), it's even more obviously non-encyclopedic. Korny O'Near 18:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does "the next six months" mean, then? Would the article be improved by not having the end date column? --User At Work 16:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this was synthesis when it was part of Friedman (unit), and it remains rather synthetic. I can see some ways this could be made more acceptable, but ultimately I just don't think this is a Wikipedia-suitable topic. --Dhartung | Talk 21:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per concerns above and the previous AfD. Fails WP#NOT as well as WP:SYN. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons it was deleted first time around! Nick mallory 01:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons it was deleted the first time. Carlossuarez46 17:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename and expand. An article on Iraq War projections could report the facts on who has said what when about the future of the war. To select out the "critical period" quotations, however, is POV, because the only reason for the selection is to point out that many supporters of the war are unwilling to face reality. A more general article, reporting on all projections made about the war, wouldn't be subject to that objection. JamesMLane t c 16:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can see that working, though it's not the case that "the only reason for the selection is to point out that many supporters of the war are unwilling to face reality". Many of the people whose quotations are on that list, such as Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, John Warner, and Joe Biden, changed their stance on the occupation after their stated critical period passed; if someone wanted, they could use this article to point out that many supporters of the war are willing to "face reality", whatever that means. There are many reasons for the existence of the list, and many ways a reader could use the list to improve their understanding of the war. The thing to recognize about the article is that it is not an original concept to focus on just these quotations. It's a phenomenon identified and researched by FAIR and the Washington Post, among others, not originated on Wikipedia. --User At Work 16:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete for the reasons it was deleted in the first place. Risker 05:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename As said before, the original synthesis complaint seems inaccurate; several outside sources have already compiled similar lists, which are being used as sources for the article. Perhaps the quotations should be merged into Occupation of Iraq timeline, which also contains many quotations, but that would defeat the purpose of having all the related quotations in a single entry. Is the problem the tabular format? Is it the continuing problem of what Wikipedia should be calling the Iraq occupation? There should be a way to resolve the concerns of other users. The content itself is certainly relevant, interesting, and above all useful to understanding the general topic. My primary motivation in adding contributions to Wikipedia is whether the information provides information that allows for greater understanding and knowledge; I've tried very hard to do that with Jack Abramoff, another topic with vast amounts of information that benefits from multiple organizing mechanisms. --User At Work 16:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De'Andre Adams[edit]

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

I've argued for notability of deceased college athletes in cases where the player has significant national coverage, but I'm afraid even I think this person doesn't qualify. With apologies and sadness for all concerned, WP:NOT a memorial, and I believe this person fails WP:BIO. Delete, pending other opinions. Xoloz 16:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, agree with Xoloz, obviously sad for this young man's family but wikipedia is not a memorial.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If two points a game for a minor college program is notable, then what is the point of having 'league leaders'?R Young {yakłtalk} 19:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as well, albeint very begrudgingly. Knowing him and having the personal connection it makes me harder to say it, but I've got to agree with most of what has been said. If the article can come up with more to the page than a list of accomplishments at Winthrop and a description of death then maybe it can stay, but unless that happens I don't see it being here for very long. Theichibun 14:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no a memorial -- Whpq 16:55, 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. W.marsh 17:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Lunan[edit]

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

An article on a businessman and author who fails WP:BIO. Lunan's book, The Baker's Son, is self-published. The creation of Jjcabbage, a single purpose user. Victoriagirl 16:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a self-published book. I have a copy. It's published by the Scrooge Guide. All other info is relaible and accurate. Do Not Delete BThomer 20:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC) — BThomer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment The full record at Library and Archives Canada, the link to which I provided as part of the nomination, clearly indicates the publisher as the Lunan Corporation. Whether the other information is reliable or not is irrelevant; the nomination is based on the arguement that the subject fails WP:BIO. Victoriagirl 23:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This rather odd comment above does not take into account the fact that a corporation is a separate person under the law. If indeed the Lunan Corporation is the publisher then it is proof it is not self-published. You could also consider other Canadian authors like Leonard G. Lee who was published by Taunton Press but only because his Company Lee Valley Tools Ltd. bought most of the print run. In this case his Sharpening book would also be considered self-published. Perhaps Victoriagirl should go sniffing around there for some fun. BThomer 23:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll disregard the fact that BThomer originally claimed the Scrooge Guide to be the publisher and get to the heart of the matter. Rob Lunan is the President of the Lunan Corporation, a firm involved in "custom manufacturing and product sourcing". Despite this, in his blog Lunan lists "publishing" as the industry in which he is involved. As there seems to be some objection to my use of the description "self-published", I will revise my statement: Rob Lunan's The Baker's Son, is the only book published by the Lunan Corporation, a firm which he heads.
Concerning BThomer's final comment. As s/he is new to Wikipedia, I suggest the following as reading material: WP:CIV. Victoriagirl 02:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Hey! I just saw this attack on my article. What gives? I'm legit and so is all the info in this article. I like to make sure Canadian authors are known. This looks like a fabricated attack from a bunch of friends! Jjcabbage 0:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment As the user who nominated this article for deletion, I'll begin by stating that this was in no way intended as an attack. Frankly, User:Jjcabbage, I do not understand this perception. I add that neither I, nor any other contributor to this process has ever questioned your legitimacy. The nomination for deletion is based exclusively on what I perceive to be the failure of the subject to meet WP:BIO. As yet, no one has argued otherwise.
Recognizing that you created Rob Lunan - and that it is the only article to which you have contributed - you may wish to read Wikipedia's policy ownership of articles. While I can appreciate that you may think of the entry as "my article", I belongs to no one.
Finally, I can assure you that my nomination is not part of a "fabricated attack". Contrary to your insinuation, I do not know those who have voted in support of my nomination. In the interests of civility, I ask you to retract your remarks. Victoriagirl 02:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - Now this is an interesting thread! I vote to keep the article. I took a look around the web and he is real and has been published in a number of magazines as well. He has more than one book on Amazon. I use Wikipedia to find people who are doing real things. I don't just want to use it to find a bunch of dead people...who cares? And I certainly want to find people more interesting than people like us who lurk around Wikipedia! Anyway Victoriagirl seems to know an awful big bunch of things about Lunan. Maybe she is an ex with a grudge? AlamoGirl 09:34, 29 May 2007— Alamogirl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment In fact, Lunan has only one book, The Baker's Son, listed on Amazon.ca. its Canadian site. Amazon.com lists downloads of two magazine articles, along with The Baker's Son. Again, no other books are listed.
As Alamogirl appears to be familiar with this thread and Wikipedia in general, she is no doubt also aware of the policy concerning civility. I ask her to retract her offensive comment. Victoriagirl 15:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just updated the article's bibliography with more entries that should stop all this nonsense. Do all you people not have something better to do with your time? Jjcabbage 14:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although not a vote, you should not mark your opition for keeping more than once. I've struck it out. If you want to add a comment, you can prefix it with the word comment to distinguish it as I have done here. -- Whpq 15:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the addition of a couple of magazine articles and a diary with some gardening tips doesn't really establish notability or add any reliable sources. -- Whpq 15:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I share the above opinion concerning the additions of the magazine articles and the diary, and add that Library and Archives Canada, Amazon.ca, Amazon.com, and Chapters.Indigo.ca do not list Lunan as the author of A Gardener's Journal: a ten year chronicle of your garden. Indeed, a "A Gardener's Journal: a ten year chronicle of your garden" + lunan google search yields not a single hit. Victoriagirl 16:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Looks like a war going on here! Why are you offenders trying to knock this guy off? You must be his competition!! Maybe you should spend your time getting your own house in order! Right! Get back to work you slackers! Go do some charity work and say some prayers you sinners! Bubbaflubba 15:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)— Bubbaflubba (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Do Not Delete I say keep it. This is corporate sleeze where a competitor is trying to knock out a notable source. If Wikipedia is to survive then the jealous can't be allowed to take the place of the truth. Maydon 15:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC) — Maydon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • NOW HEAR THIS DELETE THIS ARTICLE IMMEDIATELY OR RISK BEING SUED BY OUR CORPORATION. WE NEVER GAVE AUTHORIZATION TO POST MY PERSONAL FAMILY INFORMATION ON WIKIPEDIA. IN ADDITION THIS ARTICLE HAS ERRORS. WE DO NOT USE WIKIPEDIA BECAUSE IT IS COMMONLY FILLED WITH MIS-INFORMATION. DELETE IMMEDIATELY. ROB LUNAN LUNAN CORPORATION. RobLunan 11:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)— RobLunan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete as failing the notability criteria in WP:BIO. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO. - Aagtbdfoua 01:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow delete I think the point has been made. Whsitchy 03:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Night Fox[edit]

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

Unsourced speculative article on a subject who may or not be living. Has been reduced to a stub form from [19], but I still feel this is insufficient. Was tagged for prod, but the tag was removed by 70.248.119.184 (talk · contribs). Cheers, Afluent Rider 16:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment - I would rather see this page remain as a stub. There was a lot of information in the original article before it was repeatedly blanked, and I can understand the concerns that would lie behind blanking it - but it would be nice to see if this article can be sourced! AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone manages to find a source for this (which I think is unlikely to happen). - makomk 17:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete Totally unsourced and likely hoax as well. I can find no evidence of a David Renard assassin. Based on a Google/Amazon search: French teacher, actor, author, government official: Yes, assassin: No. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced and quite probably unsourceable; looking back at the previous information, there's a lot of "may have," "could" and "uncertain" splashed around. Chances are, the CIA's not going to blab about trying to whack one of its own assassins, either. (And no, no relation.) Tony Fox (arf!) 19:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced hoax. An earlier version of the article claimed he was a long-term contract operative of the American Central Intelligence Agency. From the mid-1970s to the early 1980s, he was known to have been the CIA's contractor of choice for deniable "executive action" assignments. Under Executive Order 11905, President Ford prohibited the use of assassination by all US intelligence agencies, a ban that continued under Carter, Reagan, and Bush. That means that he shouldn't have been assassinating anyone for the CIA during that period, and the CIA shouldn't have been trying to assassinate him in 1990. More broadly, this fails WP:V; I haven't found a single result from a non-Wikipedia page, nor in Google Books or Google News Archive. This is mildly entertaining wikifiction. --Dhartung | Talk 05:27, 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 11:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Girls, Guns & Glory[edit]

Girls, Guns & Glory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I suspect the band fails Wikipedia's notability criteria. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I suspect you are right. --Dynaflow babble 16:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slightly stronger than weak delete - they do seem to be getting some commentary in Boston, and I saw a mention of a new music award nomination in Phoenix, but there's not a lot of coverage of them elsewhere at this point. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inadequate notability per WP:Music as yet. May become notable in future but keeping the article on that basis would be crystalballery. A1octopus 13:24, 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. Orderinchaos 20:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bastard Squad[edit]

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

Possibly hoax, definitely 'Boring' Mannafredo 15:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google turns up squat for this "film". Unsourced and as the nom said, more than likely a hoax. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not-notable. I don't think it's a hoax, but the only reference is here, where the writer/director said "I have no comment. It was crap. Not in an ironic post-post modern way. Just crap. I was 17 I think. Can we move on?" Hut 8.5 17:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 20:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only information I'm able to find for Bastard Squad is on a punk band out of Melbourne. Looking back in the history at the very first edit (i.e., creation) today, it looks like it is just some amateur film shot ten years ago on a zero budget with a limited distribution to friends and family. Good endeavor, but the film is not notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, "produced on a budget of $0 and originally distributed only to friends and family of the cast and crew." John Vandenberg 12:34, 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 per WP:CSD#A7 and possible hoax Orderinchaos 19:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Torr[edit]

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

Is not notable and is not mentioned on All Saints page. Mannafredo 15:27, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ida Carmelitta[edit]

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

I'm also nominating the following similar articles for deletion

Sarathambal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ilayathambi Tharsini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Krishanti Kumaraswamy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Murugesapillai Koneswary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


None of these articles, mostly worked on by the same user, meet notability guidelines. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. Rightly or wrongly, we cannot have articles about every single rape / murder victim in the world. While attempts have been made to portray these as significant murders (note that most of the text is strikingly similar i.e.

  • "Ida Carmelitta... was a minority Sri Lankan Tamil woman... and became a cause célèbre of the Sri Lankan civil war."
  • "Sarathambal... was a minority Sri Lankan Tamil woman... and became an internationally known incident of the Sri Lankan civil war"
  • "Krishanti Kumaraswamy... was a minority Tamil girl ... who was a cause celebre of the Sri Lanka civil war"
  • "Ilayathamby Tharsini... was a minority Sri Lankan Tamil woman... and who became a cause celebre of the Sri Lankan civil war"),

the lack of any significant media coverage of the incidents apart from the initial crime reports, plus the lack of unique Google hits (25 ghits [20], 113 ghits[21], 69 ghits[22], 133 ghits [23] and 24 ghits[24] respectively - most of them Wiki mirrors) suggests that all five articles fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines. snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 15:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The so called same user as alluded above is me and I have tried to cite as to why these cases are WP:Notable. The AFD was done while I was on Wiki break by the above user who has a history of conflict with me for the last one year and he/she is in conflict mediation in at least 2 articles currently that involves me. I am really glad that these articles have bben nominated for AFD as it gives the wiki community a chance to look at them and decide for good whether these articles are worthy of keep or delete. I would request the closing admin to keep an eye on for cabal activity and look at the reasons for delete or keep only from neutral uninvolved editors and the reasons provided as opposed to simple math. Thanks Taprobanus 21:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete on the Koneswary article, Keep on all the rest. Far from "most of the text" being "strikingly similar," only the introductory paragraph is. The articles themselves (with the exception of the Koneswary article) are fairly comprehensive and fully satisfy WP:V through many references to reliable sources. The relative lack of Google hits for incidents in Sri Lanka is understandable, but when I'm seeing refs to the BBC, Human Rights Watch, the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, the Sunday Observer, UNESCO and the US State Department, there are no valid grounds for deletion.  RGTraynor  15:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went through Ilayathambi Tharsini and found the Asian Centre for Human Rights ref[25] which is covering the 3/4 of the article was based on a www.tamilnet.com ref.[26] tamilnet.com is classified by the Sri Lanakan editors as an UnRS due to its heavy POV pushing towards the LTTE rebel group. So Traynor still you think Ilayathambi Tharsini article is satisfying you with WP:V and WP:RS :-) ??? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 16:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes. While recognizing that the Sri Lankan-Tamil civil war is a longstanding and viciously contested dispute, I decline to take notice of pissing matches between the various factions as to which source is supposedly discredited by its alleged adherence to one side or another. Fox TV is commonly presumed to be a biased mouthpiece for right-wing ideologues, but I don't think you'd get very far claiming it doesn't qualify as a reliable source on that count.  RGTraynor  17:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪, you fail to mention that (nearly) all the parts of the article referring to the Asian Centre for Human Rights also refer to another source, University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna), which at its website levels extremely harsh criticism at the LTTE, and which seriously questions whether the crime was committed by Navy personnel at all. In other words, much of the basic information is supported by a source that is decidedly not pro-LTTE, and the article as a whole is not as biasedly sourced as you are trying to make it seem. (The paragraph of the article containing postmortem information was not supported by the UTHR document, so I removed the reference to the UTHR document from that paragraph. All other paragraphs referring to the ACHR also refer to the UTHR.) --Bwiki 03:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Most of the articles are well written and sourced and with multiple independent sources they meet WP:BIO. I also note that the nominator has not informed the original authors of the articles about this mass AfD, which I think is a breach of courtesy. Please note in the interests of full disclosure that the nominator was recently a party in this RfM [27] and also this RfM Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Sri Lankan Civil War where at least one of the article authors was also a party. While I think it's admirable that you are going through a dispute resolution process and I don't know the history and if/whether you have had a conflict with the original author - this AfD doesn't look very good right now. One last WP:SOAP point (my soapbox not yours), the more appropriate coverage Wikipedia has of important non-English speaking, non-white, non-First world topics - the better for the project. Paxse 19:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. There's an eyeopener. Alright, I have a modest proposal: if you're a Sinhalese or Tamil supporter, consider backing away from this AfD, and let those of us who aren't up to our necks in civil war-related RfMs decide on the merits, using policy grounds?  RGTraynor  19:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, RGTraynor. By the same token you should abstain from partecipating in any U.S. related AfD, right? Or you have no opinion on what is going on around you? Stammer 19:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I certainly do have opinions on politics, yes, and in some cases strong ones. They have never yet led me to edit warring to the degree that a RfM was necessary, never mind multiple RfMs. The concept of recusing oneself where a clear conflict of interest exists is a strong issue on Wikipedia. On that basis, yes, you are absolutely right: were I in multiple RfMs on a particular issue, I would definitely refrain from filing AfDs on that issue to avoid questions of bad faith. If an article needs to go badly enough, someone else will nominate it.  RGTraynor  20:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, thanks for your polite reply. However, I object to your patronizing editors based on your perceptions of their allegiances. We are all equal here and the input of every one of us should be evaluated on its merit alone. If we start telling each other to back away from debates based on our perceptions of each other's prejudices, we'll hardly have a civilised debate. As for me, I welcome any opinion here, as long as it's expressed in a civilised way. Stammer 21:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm basing nothing on "perception" or "prejudices;" were I to do so, my remarks would be a great deal more pointed. I'm basing them on the fact that some editors have been involved in multiple RfMs on this topic, making for an obvious conflict of interest when they seek to delete a slew of related articles.  RGTraynor  17:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A little more information. The original creator of all these articles is the same editor - who recently posted on her/his user page that they were taking a wikibreak - the timing of this AfD begins to look worse. There is also a second AfD on a related topic by the same nominator going on here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism in Sri Lanka (Second nomination). Paxse 19:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Both of you seem to have missed the reason of this AFD. I did not dispute whether or not the the incidents took place or whether the articles are verifiable. The reason for this AFD is that all the individuals fail WP:N. Apologies for seeming crude here, but simply becoming a rape victim does not make one notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. In this case, none of these individuals are notable for any other reason. Most crime victims will have a multitude of items of news coverage of them, but that does not make them notable. With these articles, practically all the sources provided, be they the BBC or whatever, simply report on the incident taking place, and not on the actual background of the victims. Go through the articles and you will find almost no personal information on the subjects of the articles (birth dates, family information etc)
And RGTraynor, you seem to have mistaken my point about the here. I did not mean the articles themselves were identical. I meant the attempts to establish notability for each of the individuals are almost identical. And like I said, other than been a victim of a crime, there is no other attempt in any of the articles to establish any other form of notability for the subject.
My point is, while the incidents themselves may be covered in an article like Human Rights in Sri Lanka, the subjects of these articles do not, like I said, satisfy notability criteria to have their own article. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 19:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. The nominator stated above that the articles should be deleted, not per WP:V, but per WP:N. While it is true that none of the victims are notable by virtue of anything besides their being victims of human-rights abuses, it can be argued that the eponymous human-rights abuse cases are notable in themselves. (And it seems reasonable for articles about individual cases, as opposed to massacres, to simply have the same name as the individual in question, e.g. Ida Carmelitta rather than 1999 Ida Carmelitta rape and murder case in Sri Lanka or some similarly awkward title.)
What, then, makes an individual human-rights abuse case notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia? There probably isn't any strong precedence or editorial consensus, but I managed to find Category:Victims_of_human_rights_abuses, which includes the following cases among others:
People allegedly raped and murdered by military personnel:
People allegedly murdered by authorities:
None of these people are notable for their achievements or any other circumstances not related to their murder. The latter two cases seem to be notable primarily because of their being recorded and urged by human-rights organisations, and yet they are included. For the record, I don't think Wikipedia should contain an article on every extrajudicial killing, forced disappearance or prisoner of conscience recorded by HRW and AI, but the well-researched articles on the five Sri Lankan cases demonstrate that there have been reports by (branches of) the United States Department of State, UN, UNHCHR, UNESCO, CNN, AI, HRW et al. In one of the cases an inquiry was even ordered by then-president Chandrika Kumaratunga. Doesn't all that make the cases notable enough?
--Bwiki 01:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. - All of these bios have multiple sources. - Share Bear 09:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep all. Certainly being gang raped doesn't make one wikipedia material because of personal privacy issues, but being used for political reasons because of that gang-rape, surely that can be. Everything seems well-linked. -Kmaguir1 15:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 17:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All per User:Paxse and WP:SNOW. Taprobanus 19:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I concur with other users to keep these articles. Victims of crimes are just as notable as the crime themself. Maybe not to the magnitude of Kitty Genovese, but they are important nonetheless.--Ozgod 02:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As to that, the Genovese incident never was cited as provocation in a war.  RGTraynor  06:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Lots of sources. If these people are not notable then the crime them selves are. Thus these articles are notable and should be kept. Also remember that there is a media blackout in Srilanka specially in the begining of the civil war... This contributes to the fact that there is not much media coverage. Secondly google hits do not matter. There are enough sources on this articles such that they can and should stay. These article are well written with a NPOV stance and are very worth their article. Watchdogb 04:03, 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. W.marsh 13:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio R. Ochoa[edit]

Claudio R. Ochoa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

no references to indicate subject is notable or even exists --Bwiki 15:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed rationale/research:

The article is about someone who is allegedly the grandson of Fabio Ochoa Restrepo and the (estranged) nephew of the Ochoa brothers. There is no indication that the subject of this article ever had anything to do with their activities (if he exists at all), so I don't see how he could possibly meet Wikipedia's general notability criteria. More specifically, he doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria regarding the notability of persons.

As it stands, the article is also in breach of Wikipedia's verifiability policy. The external link provided in the article does not contain anything about a daughter/sister who severed ties with the Ochoa familiy (as suggested in the article), nor about anybody called Claudio. A Google search for the phrase "Claudio Restrepo Ochoa" (include quotation marks to get those three words only in that specific order) returns no hits at all, and a search for "Claudio R. Ochoa" returns only links to Wikipedia, Wikipedia mirrors, a "Fundrace" website entry on a Washington, DC law student, and a Spanish-language scientific paper on maize by an agricultural engineer by that name.

--Bwiki 15:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete: per G7, no assertion of notability.  Ravenswing  15:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as A7 no notability asserted. Simply being related to notable people is not enough in the absense of independent coverage. Eluchil404 20:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 identified below this is spam, created by a banned user while banned, practically a non-article anyway, and the only Keep advocate is a banned spammer. No more time need be wasted on this crap. Guy (Help!) 11:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Student-First Accreditation[edit]

Student-First Accreditation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Linda Christas and its subsidiary organizations have been trying to worm their way onto Wikipedia for quite some time now. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda christas, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Christas International School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret E. Swanson Scholarship, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Governor's Opportunity Scholarship, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Association of Schools and Colleges and Talk:Margaret Spellings. This article lists a long string of sources, but... They're all either "Letters to the editor" or "Guest Commentaries" sent to small newspapers scattered here and there. The language is very consistent with the sockpuppet language style present in the previous Linda Christas articles and AFDs. I think it's a fair assumption that the newspaper pieces represent further, off Wikipedia sockpuppetry and therefore are not reliable sources. This is not a notable organization. It exists solely to provide cover for Linda Christas' online tutoring program. - Richfife 15:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, fails WP:ORG, WP:V. Like nom, I went through all of those alleged links, and they're all letters to the editor to small town weekly paper websites. This also fails WP:COI, as this is the sole Wikipedia activity of the creator, User:SarahThompson, the same name credited on most of the letters to the editor cited. One wonders if she is really, as she claims in those letters, a retired schoolteacher with terminal cancer.  RGTraynor  15:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as spamvanadvercruft. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is true not only of the creator, but of all users who have edited the article until it was nominated for deletion, that their edits to this article are their sole contributions to Wikipedia. And "they" give themselves away as sockpuppets by all making the same mistake of including ~~~~ in their edit summaries in an awkward attempt to "sign" them. --Bwiki 18:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; one must, I suppose, admire the LC folks for their persistence, if for little else... Robertissimo 19:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for spotting this article and pointing it out, by the way. - Richfife 03:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. The link from the LC homepage that led me to the article has now been pulled. Remarkable coincidence? Robertissimo 03:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom. Same topic has been deleted numerous times, no reason to keep it on for another week. Malc82 23:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As an administrator serving in a major public school district, I don't see how Wikipedia can be complete regarding educational theory without this entry.

However, that said, this is your publication, and if there are users who are offended by this information for some reason, then have at it. It is a rare publication that allows users such freedom. A caution though. In a discussion with Senator Goedde of Idaho yesterday regarding Student-First Accreditation, I referred to Wikipedia. The Senator was very emphatic in his view that Wikipedia is not a reliable reference source. I was surprised by Senator Goedde's firm opinion regarding Wikipedia's reputation for arbitrary inclusions and exclusions. Deleting material such as this entry would simply confirm the Senator's view in my mind.--Dr. Bob Moore 00:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you guys serious As usual you guys don't have a clue in terms of what you are doing. Linda Christas has offices all over the world, and they encourage students, teachers, administrators, friends, etc who wish to speak publicly about Linda Chrsitas to send messages through their Central Desk. As a result, many if not most of the postings on Wikipedia would look to be from the same virtual source. I think you guys are tripping over your own cynicism. It won't hurt Linda Christas, but you sure as heck don't look very smart out there. I suppose when a publication like this allows folks off their meds a bit of power, this is what happens. I think I will use Britannica.

Comment. Please, Dr. Moore, assume good faith that the following is not a personal attack, but: are we to believe then, that it is the LC Central Desk (formerly referred to, if memory serves, as the LC Help Desk) that adds the identical tone and phrasing in the writing (including the distinctively idiosyncratic spelling and word choice), the apparently insatiable need to namedrop obscure notables (Efrem Zimbalist, Jr.? An Idaho state legislator?), and the equally apparent inability to review basic WP policies and guidelines on sourcing to understand that what is needed here is some - any, almost, at this point - indication from a reliable source that any of this actually exists outside the LindaChristasverse? Robertissimo 08:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to grant good faith intentions to anyone who would call Dr. Paul Davies an obscure notable. All of the people listed on the Linda Christas web site www.lindachristas.org, both their honorary chairs as well as their Advisory Committee, have certainly made their mark in the world. Dr. Davies of course has worked with people like Stephen Hawking, is an internationally respected author, and has won the Templeton Prize (bigger than the Nobel), and Efrem Zimbalist Jr. is a Pulitzer Winner. Why anyone would suggest that these kinds of people are obscure notables is a mystery, and all have lent their names to Student-First Accreditation. We won't mention Pat Boone here (I just did) because Wikipedia has done a marvelous job of emphasizing some really slanderous and false rumors regarding Mr. Boone. Regarding the question of style, there are two or three editors at the Central Desk who will massage material (with the permission of the original authors) so that the intentions of the authors are clear. Therefore, I suppose that some of the material being edited in that way would show some stylistic similarities. At any rate, people of WikipediaLand, you will do what you will do. In this kind of discussion, Linda Christas could resurrect F.D.R. or Shakespeare as testimony for the quality of their political science or English programs respectively and the editors here would find a way to challenge. No company, school or entity is going to be able to publicly show images of notables without their specific (written) permission. That the commentators here will not accept the material presented using a modicum of common sense is unfortunate, but not unexpected. I second Dr. Moore's opinion above. I am glad to see that there is an outlet for this kind of verbiage that is relatively harmless. My vote is to keep the Student-First Accreditation listing. It belongs in any publication that wishes to be thought of as an "up to the minute" reference.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Bob Moore (talk • contribs)

  • Comment. Your endorsement of Dr. Moore's position might have more weight if you weren't, well, Dr. Moore yourself. Or is it that pesky Central Desk again? 08:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Thanks to Dr. Moore for overturning even the slightest doubt that this article and everything written in its defense is written in bad-faith, well aware that it violates WP guidelines. Malc82 12:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Efrem Zimbalist Jr., according to his article, is an actor and producer. The Pulitzer was the Pulitzer for Music for a 1950 musical he produced. How does producing a musical for which someone else writes very good music make him an expert on this topic? Dr. Davies' Templeton Prize for "trying various ways for discoveries and breakthroughs to expand human perceptions of divinity and to help in the acceleration of divine creativity" is a pretty obscure award that no one except some evangelicals would call "bigger than the Nobel", although he at least seems to be notable. Malc82 12:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply Linda Christas apparently spams notable people all over attempting to get them to endorse them no questions asked. During one of the previous AFD's I tracked an endorser (Alison Jiear) down outside of Wikipedia and explained to her the situation. She had only been spoken to very briefly (a couple of minutes) and barely remembered endorsing them at all. When she tried to speak to Christas directly to find out more, all hell broke loose. Here's her take on it after Ronald Bernard went on a rampage about me poisoning her mind or alienation of affection or something: [[28]]. - Richfife 15:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • after this AfD, permanently block all IP addresses/blocks involved in the spamming - There. Consider that an addition to my previous vote above. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 11:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Christascruft. That "Sarah Thompson" must be really busy, considering how many small town newspapers she spammed with the same letter to the editor. And how ironic that the other supporter for Student-First Accreditation, Leone Parette, also happens to live in Sacramento, just like Sarah "Sally" Thompson. Corvus cornix 16:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and by the way, Linda Christas' address appears to be in Sacramento. How coincidental:


Linda Christas
1731 37th Street
Sacramento, California, 95816
Phone: 916-798-1304
Fax: 916-736-3359

Corvus cornix 16:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly is there no end to this. Sally Thompson, Leone Parette, and Claudette Manet are all in Sacramento being treated on an outpatient basis by the Mercy Hospital Cancer Center. They were invited to the Linda Christas facility BECAUSE they have been supportive of Student-First. Why in the world would your editors jump to the conclusions they do without asking anyone who knows. How rude. Just an example of smart people having too much faith in their own intelligence without bothering to ask anyone or TRUST anyone with first hand experience.

'PLEASE DELETE this entry. Wikipedia really doesn't deserve to be dignified with anything accurate.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Bob Moore (talk • contribs)
You still haven't told us what school district you are associated with and what your doctorate is. Please point to a website with your CV on it so we can determine for ourselves your credentials. Corvus cornix 18:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's pretty hard to trust someone who posted an unsigned comment to "second" his own one, especially if the topic defended is one of the most obvious cases of sockpuppetry I've ever seen. Malc82 18:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, given that Moore's been indef blocked for sockpuppetry, I don't think we'll be hearing more blowhard "defenses" from him.  RGTraynor  07:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ah, but we might well hear from Sarah, Leone, or Claudette... Say what you will, LC does have a way with character names. Of them all, Ethel Strom was possibly the most vociferous; Opal Chan played upon one's heartstrings; and George Stanton had a marvelous harrumphy-Colonel Blimp style that was memorable. Robertissimo 09:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is funny. All of the "Student-First Accreditation: Recent Print Mentions" are letters to the editor and "guest columns" by Sarah, Leone, Claudette and Linda's Dean. Corvus cornix 18:54, 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. Even if the IMDB is taken as reliable evidence that this will be made, there is not enough in the article to establish its notability before it is made. And the consensus here is clear. DES (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1906 (film)[edit]

1906 (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL - article is based entirely on rumors based on fan sites - no reliable confirmation or sources from Disney/Pixar/Bird. Recently added "references" only mention rumor, and one source only references the other source. If the film does come to be, then by all means I'm for recreation, but for now, this is clearly WAY too early to have a page based on a rumor posted on a fan site. Delete MikeWazowski 15:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral: IMDB seems to feel that this movie is going to be released this year, but doesn't have much info beyond that.  Ravenswing  15:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI IMDB is not an edited, reliable source. You submit data and they pretty much take your word for it until they hear differently. Kind of like some other site I can think of... - Richfife 16:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Movies can only be added to IMDB by paid IMDB staff with information provided by production companies. Users can add comments, ratings, and reviews ONLY. If ist listed at IMDB its in some stage of production above their deminimus. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Since when? New films are moderated by IMBD staff to weed out the blatant hoaxes and attack pages, but anyone can add a new title (although they submit submissions by SPAs without a legitimate edit history to extra scrutiny before they let their additions go live) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crystal ball, with recreation if and only if the producer/director, cast, and specific release date can be verified through the use of reliable sources independant of the organisation or people directly related to the production of the film. -- saberwyn 22:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - information provided in reliable blog Upcomingpixar.com, which provides a link to a video to confirm the information in its May 22 entry. When the IESB visited Pixar a few months back, we confirmed with Bird that his next movie would indeed be live action but it would not be John Carter, it’s 1906, based on the novel written by James Dalessandro about the San Francisco quake. He told us he was currently in negotiations. We were asked not to report on the news at that time and to hold the story for a little while. We did, but since we are going on a three months, we figure it’s safe to report now. IESB is a reliable media outlet, not a fan site, so reliable and sourced. 91.163.168.156 15:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)— 91.163.168.156 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - "reliable" is a subjective term, but according to WP:RSEX, blogs don't fit that standard, especially an unaffiliated fan blog like UpcomingPixar. TheRealFennShysa 18:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - So the blog is not right. And what about IESB and the video interview of John Lasseter in it ? 193.56.37.1 08:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I consider IMDB to be reliable but the article doesn't even source the studio. Postcard Cathy 02:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Bradybd 07:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to List of Internet phenomena or Media involvement in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina Note that a Merge result is a special, limited form of keep due to GFDL concerns. DES (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lootie[edit]

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

Contested prod. Prod reason was "Not notable". Tag was removed by an anon but replaced by the original prodder, and subsequently deleted. This is procedural, I am neutral. Mangojuicetalk 15:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with List of Internet phenomena and Redirect. Fails WP:V, WP:BIO. Plainly there's no biographical information for an unidentified photograph. The "sources" are Myspace pages, blogs, games, along with a single piece from an academic website and one from a white supremacist site. This is scanty information worth reflecting on the List, if that much.  RGTraynor  15:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, we can't really libel a guy we don't even know the name of, and it is WP:Verifiable... the article contends the AP took a picture of a guy with a hamper full of Heinekens and some in his pocket too. (it's a pretty funny picture too, the guy has a big grin on his face) and contends the picture became the subject of an Internet meme. That's all the article says. Both those statements are sourced and verifiable. -N 16:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just want to clarify: which sources are the ones you like? Mangojuicetalk 16:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of them currently leave a good taste in my mouth. The original AP picture is probably not linkable to anymore. I'll have a look for better sources. -N 16:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Snopes, which is usually good on sourcing, doesn't even have links to anything. This means the only "reliable sources" on this topic are the picture itself (which was deleted for being a press photo), some professor using his university webspace as a blog (I have not yet evaluated the professor himself, for example if it were Isaac Asimov writing the essay it would be a good source no matter where it was published) and a previously deleted link from the article about David Duke's rantings on the subject. I agree, not enough to warrant a biography. It looks more like a dictionary definition right now, more worthy of urban dictionary. Weak keep or merge. -N 16:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or, if we absolutely must, merge; crap off teh internets, no inherent notability, no substantial independent coverage and Photoshopping does not actually fix that. Guy (Help!) 18:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Media involvement in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, interesting phenomenon in media coverage, not something that needs its own article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Night Gyr - well put. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. non-notable, little verification, news spike cruft. Marskell 11:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge as above. Definitely not a subject for an individual article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge unless reliable sources are found that prove to be verifiable. --SunStar Net talk 19:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having reviewed things, there are no reliable sources on this subject at all. If there were, I doubt it would be worth an entry anyway: people photoshop lots of images into other images: THAT is notable, but these individual images are not. Mangojuicetalk 02:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of internet phenomenon. Insufficient sourcing or other evidence of notability to justify a separate article. The snopes source and the professor's article both focus on the image as a photoshopped internet phenomenon more than as any real critique of the media coverage of Katrina. So, I think a brief mention on the phenomenon list is a better merge.--Kubigula (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 about deletion on notability grounds, but speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 for the press-release tone. This means all non-involved editors are free to write a new, neutral article about this company. Sandstein 20:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everest Capital[edit]

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

Advertising. User repeatedly deleted speedy deletion tag Danielgrad 14:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Don't let all those links fool you: this is a very small, non-notable hedge fund, about which no neutral editor would even THINK of trying to write an article. UnitedStatesian 14:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore If you work in the hedge fund business, you know that Everest Capital is a notable hedge fund. The company has been in business for 18 years -- for that fact alone it is "notable." Everest manages more than $2 billion and has been investing in emerging markets since 1990 -- I don't know any other firm that's been in that business for so long. Its founder -- Marko Dimitrijević -- is on the board of the Stanford Business School (if you think it's hard to get into that school, forget about being voted onto its advisory board...) Dimitrijević has been interviewed widely and has chapters written about him in two respected, top-selling hedge fund books, "Investing with the Hedge Fund Giants" and "Inside the House of Money." His chapter in the second book, written by Steve Drobny, an internationally known expert on hedge fund investing, is posted as a link. Neither of those authors would have wasted their time to write a chapter on Dimitrijević and his firm if he weren't "notable." The entry also includes links to interviews of Dimitrijević in the mainstream and specialized business press, Financial Times, Reuters, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madridchico (talk • contribs) 16:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)— Madridchico (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
(above comment added by article creator) –Danielgrad 16:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable hedge fund, reads like an advertisement. Mmoneypenny 16:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Financial Times article is certainly a RS, and the others, including the book chapter, though not sufficient by themselves, add to the background. The 75 graduates the Stanford Business Schools selects is a fairly distinction selection from its thousands. DGG 02:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A mention by Forbes is enough to assure notability. The ad like content can be fixed by a comprehensive rewrite.--Kylohk 16:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The Forbes article is a reveiew of the Drobny book. Are you really saying that every firm that has ever been mentioned in Forbes is notable enough for WP? UnitedStatesian 01:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-Notable. Madridchico looks like the owner of the fund. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stellatomailing (talk • contribs) 17:02, 28 May 2007
  • Delete as per notability criteria. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (appears to meet WP:BIO, and nomination withdrawn). Orderinchaos 05:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Goldsack[edit]

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

Delete. "1 Game, 0 Goals"... is that notable enough? Aditionally the article has no third-party sources (only the own team's website). It weakly meet some of WP:BIO criteria. Rjgodoy 14:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. I still think the article is unencyclopedic, but I would rather not to utter any comment about it. Rjgodoy 21:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He has played for a team at the highest level of his sport {being the AFL). I'd say that satisfies WP:BIO. Wildthing61476 14:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The criteria your refer are not absolute, indeed "meeting one or more of them does not guarantee that a subject should be included" (from WP:BIO). Rjgodoy 15:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Doing a little more looking into this, the 1 game he has played was his first ever in the AFL. He is in his first year in the AFL as well, hence only the 1 game. Wildthing61476 19:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. So, in your opinion, he is notable because he will be notable? Rjgodoy 22:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment He's notable because he IS notable per consensus for athletes from every sport, he IS notable. There are other athletes who appeared in one game in their respective sports. Wildthing61476 23:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment
              • He may be not notable because he may be not notable. That is a tautology, per law of identity.
              • Plenty of articles exist that probably shouldn't. So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists doesn't prove that the article in question should also exist (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS).
              • Let's argue based upon the individual subject, not the subject's class.
Rjgodoy 23:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Never mind just WP:BIO - overwhelming consensus for every sport, across the board, is that playing so much as a single game at the top level of a team sport qualifies. The team's website is certainly reliable for confirming the ID and background of its own players.  RGTraynor  16:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Playing at the highest level of a professional sport is indeed a notable accomplishment, puts you in the 99.9th percentile --sumnjim talk with me·changes 19:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I agree that WP:BIO for athletes is not absolute and should not automatically confer notability on a subject, the fact that the subjects professional career has just started makes it worthwhile keeping, at least for now. If the subject was retired from professional sport I may feel differently. I am aware this argument breaches WP:CRYSTAL but seems to me the common sense option given that if it is deleted, as the season progresses, when can the article be re-created, after 2 games, 10 games, a full season? -- Mattinbgn/ talk 02:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A full season sound right... but I suppose there will be no consensus for that. Rjgodoy 00:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll go with a weak keep here. This guy's just off the bench in a pro-league, as far as I can tell, and hope he does well. Generally I consider players in pro sports leagues to be notable if they get off the bench - but they have to be in the pros, and they have to actually play. Revisit in a few months. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google News Archives has some coverage of him and he meets the criteria of a player in a fully professional league. It is highly likely that he will get more games. Capitalistroadster 03:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets our minimum criteria, and it is not surprising that sports stars have an article as soon as they cross this threshold as many people will have known of them as they went through the ranks to reach our minimum criteria. John Vandenberg 15:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:BIO criteria - played one game at highest level of the sport. Orderinchaos 19:58, 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 11:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uri Nation[edit]

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

Obvious hoax, no independent online sources confirm (incl. Geller's site or critics), no IMDB entry. Sergey Romanov 14:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment."Geller semi-retired from public life in the 1980s, although returned to the screens for the current affairs show Uri Nation in the early nineties on satellite TV."([29]). To me it's not clear it's a hoax. Whether it's notable is another story. Stammer 17:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The program is also mentioned in this book's online blurb (in Italian). Stammer 19:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, you're right. And the Italian blurb is copied from Italian Wikipedia. Stammer 20:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I think it is a hoax. Alphablast 19:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious delete - Geller does not mention this show on his website and, given that he's a notorious publicity whore seeker, there's no way he wouldn't note it if it existed. Furthermore, "UriNation"? Right. Otto4711 19:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ...even if it is hilarious in a back-to-junior-high kind of way. --Dynaflow babble 20:40, 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 DES (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UFO sightings in Germany[edit]

UFO sightings in Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The only information of the article, which calls itself a list, is a forwarding to another article, Haselbach encounter. Within four months nothing else was added. Therefore further changes are not to be expected. Thw1309 14:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - i see nothing wrong with this article, it just helps place a central spot to list redirects to articles on Germany UFO sightings (note: i created this article) (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 16:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless more information is found. Or else just redirect to that one encounter.---=Elfin=-341 17:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the single article for now. The list can be resurrected when more articles are created, or more relevant info comes up that's not enough for a separate article. By the way, would Nazi UFOs fit in here? Totnesmartin 20:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This doesn't qualify as either an article or a list. Someguy1221 21:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sourced and barely any content. Nick mallory 01:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hmmm, quite useless and seems to only exist to point to another article; the article's reference section seals the deal! (Also, many of the articles at List of UFO sightings are pretty similar to this one...) *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 01:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in agreement with the above deletes. This article isn't really needed. Acalamari 21:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep: This is a stub at present, expand, don't delete. - perfectblue 15:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag as a stub. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - nomination withdrawn. W.marsh 21:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BDORT[edit]

BDORT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • I am withdrawing this nomination in view of the consensus that an AfD is not a suitable forum for this discussion since it hinges on a content dispute. I will be posting on the article's talk page as to how I propose to resolve this dispute.GDallimore (Talk) 09:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a long history, so you'll have to bear with me as I explain. First, people may wish to familiarise themselves with two previous nominations for deletion.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bi-Digital_O-Ring_Test
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yoshiaki_Omura

Essentially, BDORT is a patented and well-documented but pseudo-scientific technique for gauging the health of a patient. It sounds pretty ridiculous to me and there have been long term edit wars on this page between those trying to support it and those trying to discredit it. I believe that both sides in the debate are expressing strong POV for or against.

There appears to be very little or no independent verification or reliable sources about BDORT. The only reliable information found on the topic is a series of New Zealand medical tribunals where a Dr Gorridge was using a technique called "PMRT" to gauge the health of his patients. During the tribunals, Gorridge claimed that his technique was based on the BDORT technique. However, the tribunal itself decided that PMRT and BDORT were not the same, to the extent that a study of BDORT would be irrelevant in deciding whether Gorridge was negligent in using PMRT on his patients.

Despite this finding of the tribunal that BDORT and PMRT are not the same, the side attacking BDORT are using the tribunal as a way to discredit BDORT in the article. This side in the debate seeks support for their position in a report on the tribunal which only refers to BDORT and a second tribunal with Gorridge where only BDORT is ever mentioned. However, neither of these other sources seek to compare Gorridge's technique (that he calls BDORT) with the patented BDORT technique in the way the first tribunal did. Thus, we have only a single reliable source comparing BDORT with Gorridge's technique and this source says that they are not the same.

I suggested on the talk page of the article [30] that, actually, this was an article about PMRT and that the article should be moved there and references to BDORT should be removed, except to clarify that PMRT is not the same as the patented BDORT technique. The only regular editors to the article strongly rejected this proposal. In the absence of consensus, I am therefore proposing the article for deletion for the following reasons:

  1. A majority of the material in the article states that PMRT is the same as BDORT. This cannot be verified against any reliable source (the only person making this claim is Gorridge, a discredited doctor) and is directly contrary to the findings of a New Zealand tribunal who analysed this claim. This material should therefore be removed as being WP:OR and failing WP:V and WP:RS.
  2. Once this material has been removed, the only material left is about BDORT as a patented technique. The only source of information on this topic appears to originate from the inventor of the process, Dr Omura. This information therefore fails to meet WP:NOTE and cannot form the basis for an article.

In summary, BDORT only potentially meets WP:NOTE because of the NZ tribunal, but the tribunal itself decided that BDORT was irrelevant because Gorridge was actually practicing a technique called PMRT which was different from BDORT. Therefore BDORT itself does not meet the notability requirements and there should not be an article about it.

As opposed to deleting the article, I would be satisfied with a redirect to PMRT and for a correction of the article's current unsubstantiated claim that BDORT and PMRT are the same. PMRT appears to meet notability requirements by virtue of the tribunal. However, this solution may not be appropriate in view of the clearly very strong feelings surrounding the topic and the high likelihood that a PMRT article or newly created BDORT article would end up in the same mess as the current article. GDallimore (Talk) 14:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I watched the prior controversy over this article and contributed and generally I agree with your characterization of the current sources. The bias I saw was mainly pro-BDORT references from one or two supporters and that appears to have been rectified. The main reason I am on the fence regarding notability is that a google search for "BDORT -wikipedia" returns, in my brief scanning of the results, a surprising number of references from what appear to be legitimate sources such as this NIH study. On the other hand, Yomura(sp?) seems to have also 'invented' many offical sounding websites, journals, and organizations to support BDORT and many of the citations might be facades.
    • It is also not clear to me what you mean by 'a redirect to PMRT', since PMRT redirects here. If you suggesting reversing the redirect, that opens up the issue of PMRT's notability. Antonrojo 15:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your comments. I think PMRT would be notable because of the NZ tribunal. As for BDORT - if it turns out that BDORT IS notable, then I guess my AfD must fail at step 2 above. However, I still think the article is wrongly anti-BDORT as set out in step 1. How would I go about opening up a discussion on that point in the face of likely strong opposition to any edits I might make from the regular editors of the article who are promoting the fallacy (IMO) that BDORT and PMRT are the same? Is there a wiki forum that I can open this up to? I'm still learning about the different ways of resolving difficulties... GDallimore (Talk) 16:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is not a NIH study. It's a paper in the Japanese journal Acupuncture and Electrotheraphy Research, included in PubMed, which does give it some minimal legitimacy. DGG 03:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed. It sounds like PubMed needs to be a little more selective. Annoyingly, the journal does not seem to have a webpage to see, for example, if Yomura is on the board. I did, however, discover that they advocate canine acupuncture. Antonrojo 03:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question As the initial creator of this entry, initially brief, which was then seized on by proponents, then became, at least from my perspective, a long, pointless WP:Squall I argued for its deletion in the second debate. I may well be so inclined at present, as well, but I fail to see how PMRT merits notability as a freestanding entry, when its only existence seems to have been in Gorringe's mind, as documented by the NZTs. Might it make sense to simply delete the present entry and have both PMRT and BDORT direct to the entries for the New Zealand Tribunals? In a world of rational prioritization this seems to me sensible. How do others feel about this? TealCyfre0 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is already an entry for Gorringe. Do you mean to simply redirect to it? TealCyfre0 18:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Missed that one. Maybe a merge of BDORT to Richard Gorringe would be appropriate, then. Losing most of the material from the BDORT article and simple adding in to Gorringe the quote from the first tribunal that PMRT (or BDORT) as practised by Gorringe was not deemed to be the same as the BDORT process patented by Omura. That should satisfy both proponents (since the disctinction found by the tribunal is made clear) and opponents (since the dangers of relying on untested techniques is also made clear).
No worries on missing anything. So far as I'm concerned this is what is sometimes referred to as a Confuddled Mess ;)
It seems to me that the present short entry for Gorringe in a sense neutrally covers the relevant ground. It refers to the relevant sources and folks can always scope them out themselves and form their own conclusions. Whenever anyone puts more than the barest minimum in an entry on this topic it seems to become an endless, pointless, swirling debate, with no real resolution available. Personally, if it were my call to make, I'd say reduce the matter to the barest, most neutral entry possible on Gorringe, and point any other terms, such as Omura, PMRT, BDORT at that entry. TealCyfre0 19:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've taken admin action in relation to this article and may have to again, so I won't support or oppose, but others might be interested to know that BDORT has been written about by reliable third-party sources, e.g. here. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, Slim, that appears to me to be simply another example of Omura's little vanity journal of The International Journal of Flying Saucers and Finger Pulling being picked up in PubMed. There's no question he and his journal exist, but is this sufficient basis for notability? In most of the previous discussions that were somewhat widely viewed there was the feeling that he and BDORT might be notable as quackery, but then the proponents weigh in saying there's no acceptable cites for quackery. Okay, if there aren't there aren't. But then why is he and BDORT notable at all, if not for that, and if the NZTs aren't as GDallimore argues, really enough to make him and BDORT notable. Perhaps only Gorringe is notable and Omura not at all?TealCyfre0 18:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator for some reason ignores the fact, which was conveyed to him several times, that there are two distinct NZTs - NZT-1 and NZT-2. Both addressed BDORT, and in NZT-1 BDORT is also called 'PMRT'. In NZT-2 however, the name PMRT disappeared and BDORT alone is mentioned. The NZT is a respectable and professional government body, which published the two BDORT-related reports on its official website. This alone gives BDORT more than sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. In addition, as we mention in the article, there are monthly BDORT-related seminars, given by Dr. Omura in New York, and the University of the State of New York Education Department allows these seminars to count towards course credit for physicians and dentists seeking certification for the application of acupuncture in the course of their practice.[31][32] We also have a review of the NZT Gorringe case by a secondary source. In addition, the BDORT procedure itself is patented by the USPTO, which adds some notability in itself, especially as it was chosen as an example of 'high weirdness' by a legal firm. The notability of BDORT on Wikipedia has been established by 2 AfDs by now. I don't see any facts that have changed since then. The article is well sourced and neutrally presented. I don't see grounds for deletion or any other change. Crum375 19:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still up in the air on this, still deciding. I'm leaning, though, in the direction of saying Delete. There are some points in favor of notability, as Crum375 points out, but are they equivalent, say, to the Professor Test? We're talking about one old quack, with a following of probably a very few tens of people so far as we can determine, who holds a few seminars in a hotel in New York in the course of a year and one for which he rents space at Columbia in an attempt to establish a facade of 'International' reputation. There's a 'Journal' for which he contracts out, with a circulation of, what? Twenty? It's listed in PubMed - so what? Essentially no one has heard of this nonsense by any objective standards, with the sole exception of its en passant consideration in the NZTs - which I think are quite clear in their conclusion that BDORT, as a form of AK, has no claim to scientific or medical status - but anyone with a level of intelligence superior to a flea can figure that out, arm-waving of lunatic advocates notwithstanding. I simply don't know that there's any real basis for notability here. WP doesn't consider every actor, however minor, worthy of its notability. Why every lunatic 'alternative medicine' quack who publishes his own journal, holds a few meetings a year attended by a couple of dozen regulars? There's the fact that it's spectacularly lunatic, for which we have a legit cite or two, but little else, nothing major. There is, too, the problem that the Lunatic Few seize upon the entry to attempt to establish legitimacy. Hell, its very existence, even if damning to them, is arguably more useful to them than an appropriate silence as to the world's total ignorance of their particular form of madness. There are so very many forms of madness ... yet not all may merit an entry. TealCyfre0 20:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may notice I did not mention Omura's publications as source for notability (I only cited one for the BDORT course material). I agree that the notability is not established by self-published materials. To me the strongest notability sources are the two NZTs - NZT-1 and NZT-2. If a procedure ends up provoking the stripping of a physician's MD degree (license to practice medicine), is found by a government body to have caused the death of a patient (by relying on it while excluding conventional diagnoses), and a tribunal (via their experts) spends the amount of investigation and study as is obvious they did in the NZT reports, to me that alone conveys more than ample notability. Add to that the fact that a mainstream New York University is relying on BDORT as a source for credit in re-certification of dentists and physicians. On Wikipedia we have separate entries for myriad Pokemon characters and some virtually unknown porn-stars - this procedure is far more notable than many topics you routinely see getting an AfD Keep here. Crum375 20:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken as to use of the publication. I meant it to illustrate, really, the fact that in Real World terms neither Omura nor BDORT is really on anyone's scope. The NZTs seem to be the only real cites per WP criteria. The question, though, is if they and the fact that Omura was grandfathered by NYS to teach courses in acupuncture a thousand years ago and under that rubric and inadequate/nonexistant state review actually teaches his magical mysterious finger-dowsing method of diagnosis are sufficient to establish notability for him and for BDORT. I agree there is notability for Gorringe per the NZTs and the press coverage of Gorringe's disgrace. I certainly feel that mention of Gorringe's method of quack diagnosis, which the Tribunals identified as PMRT/BDORT is appropriate. Other than that, I'm skeptical as to whether Omura or BDORT are notable per WP criteria. Previous discussions as to Delete/Keep tended to center around the quackery aspect. It seems, though, that per WP criteria we have no cites adequate to state quackery. Its notability then seems dubious to me. TealCyfre0 21:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should review the AfD debates and specifically look at the kept items. Your bar for notability is set way too high in Wikipedia terms. I saw a case of a porn-star who had no sourced notability, but once sued her agent, and this was written up in some trade publication. That was sufficient for a Keep. Here we have a procedure that caused a doctor to lose his license to practice medicine over it, that is certified by New York University as a training credit for doctors and dentists, that of all the millions of filed patents was chosen by a legal firm as an example of 'high weirdness', that resulted in two separate government proceedings with lots of experts and voluminous reports, I would say this is clearly higher than our present notability bar. Crum375 21:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that non-notable means non-notable. I would, therefore, have been on the Delete list as to the examples you cite. That isn't an argument for me to be in favor of Keep in this case, so far as I can see. TealCyfre0 21:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you simply review the current practice of Keeping at the various AfDs, you will realize that your standard for notability is not WP's. You are of course entitled to your own high notability standard, but I suspect that of the 1.7M entries on WP today, a fair percentage (30%?) would disappear according to your criteria. So the point is that we need to be consistent - we can't enforce a higher standard of notability on one specific entry than the norm. The current WP:NN says: "[a] topic is presumed to be notable if it has received coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", and the case in point certainly meets this requirement. Crum375 21:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, however, that that quote is from the 'This page in a nutshell' summary at WP:NN page head. Actual policy as to General Notability reads:
'A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive.'
Note, too, that the subject is noted as subject to 'active debate' within Wikipedia. The NZTs do not address BDORT directly, but indirectly, en passant, in the course of taking and evaluating the validity of evidence as to Gorringe's conduct. They are valid as sources, without question, but they do not satisfy the WP definition of 'significant coverage' – they do not address the subject 'directly in detail,' but only tangentially and not in detail as to either PMRT or BDORT. The entry for BDORT (and for PMRT) therefore fails to meet WP criteria for notability. Gorringe, however, is indeed, as the subject under investigation, evaluation, and judgement, addressed 'directly in detail' as per WP criteria for notability. There is, therefore, no basis for an entry per WP criteria for either Omura, BDORT, or PMRT – only for Gorringe. TealCyfre0 23:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll address your point about WP:NN. It says: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content." Note that it does not say the overall publication has to be dedicated to or focused exclusively on the topic, it should only address it 'directly in detail'. Clearly the NZTs have paragraphs and sentences that specifically address BDORT directly in detail (e.g. par. 100,280, 297: "...there is no evidence that BDORT [PMRT] has been subjected to a randomised placebo-controlled trial...", 306, etc.). If every WP article needed a publication or article totally dedicated to it, WP would get much smaller. Crum375 00:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crum375 ignores the fact, that I have already mentioned in the nomination, that there is not a single source that says that Gorringe's technique (which he happens to call BDORT) is the same as Omura's patented BDORT technique. Perhaps Crum375 doesn't fully understand how synthesis of sources can result in WP:OR. We have a source that says Gorringe is using a technique he calls BDORT. We have another source that says Omura is using a technique he calls BDORT. In the absence of anything to say that these two techniques called BDORT are the same, it is OR for the article to do so. This is particularly true when the only source to compare Omura's technique with Gorringe's technique says that they are not the same. There is nothing linking PMRT and BDORT except the assertions of a discredited doctor - he is not a reliable source! GDallimore (Talk) 16:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GDallimore, can you please give us your understanding of this statement from NZT1?

“… there is no evidence that BDORT [PMRT] has been subjected to a

“randomised placebo-controlled trial”. This of course is the gold standard in medicine for evaluating new therapies. Blind testing is essential to isolate the beliefs of the tester, and patient, who could otherwise influence the results through wishful thinking. The lack of this process with BDORT [PMRT] means it is not correct to claim, “the scientific method supports its clinical

use".”

— para. 297, NZT1
Please address the following: 1) Does the use of "BDORT [PMRT]" in the above statement mean that the expert writing it believes that BDORT and PMRT are equivalent? and 2) Is the expert saying that his evaluation is based on Gorringe's specific use of BDORT/PMRT, or is he being generic? Many thanks, Crum375 17:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First thing to note, the quoted paragraph is not a statement by the tribunal, but a quotation by the tribunal of a statement by a Dr Doehring. The specific answers to your questions are 1. It is impossible to tell and 2. it is impossible to tell. Therefore, none of this can counter the only clear and unequivocal statment concerning the equivalence of BDORT and PMRT, made 7 paragraphs earlier by the tribunal themselves (who, it should be noted, are quite consistent in using the term PMRT during their summary of the charges) that "the technique which Dr Gorringe practises is different from that practised by Dr Omura".GDallimore (Talk) 17:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may notice if you read the entire NZT1 that the tribunal relies on expert testimony for its verdicts. In the case of Dr Doehring, the tribunal states in para. 356: "The Tribunal was similarly assisted by Dr Doehring and Dr Isbell whose evidence it accepts on this issue." So the tribunal asked Dr. Doehring to testify as an expert, and then endorsed and accepted his view as evidence, which included the equivalence between BDORT and PMRT. We as Wikipedia are simply reporting what reliable sources are saying, as the tribunal accepted and summarized the views of Dr Doehring and the other experts. Crum375 18:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you're saying that the expert's opinion is notable and possibly reliable. Fine, I can accept that, although I would say the finding of the tribunal is more reliable than expert witness statements (if you want an example of why, take a look at this). However, from the passage you quote it is still impossible to tell whether the expert is talking about BDORT as used by Gorringe or BDORT as used by Omura. The only opinion on whether these two techniques are actually the same comes from the tribunal and the tribunal says "no". This argument is getting fractured. I'm going to try to collate it under a new comment below.GDallimore (Talk) 21:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GDallimore, this is a very straightforward situation. We have a Wikipedia article about X, an expert (one example of many) testifying about X, also equating it with Y, and a tribunal endorsing and accepting the expert's testimony, publishing the report on their government website. I submit that this clearly meets the letter and spirit of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NN. Crum375 22:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep – I fail to see any credible basis per Wikipedia criteria as to notability for an entry for BDORT, PMRT, or Omura. I see valid basis per Wikipedia criteria only for a minimal entry for the case of Richard Gorringe. TealCyfre0 23:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are using a misinterpretation of 'notability' on Wikipedia. Please see my message above about the fact that a publication need not be dedicated to a topic to make it 'notable', it only needs to address the topic 'directly and in detail', and the NZT publications certainly do that, in many paragraphs and sentences therein. Crum375 00:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our judgements differ in this matter. Mine is effectively the same as when I nominated what was then the Omura entry for deletion nearly a year ago. Further, WP criteria evolve incrementally. Think of this as my judgement as to rational criteria for notability applied within WP's matrix as an incremental shift. I don't feel the need for a papal mandate, nor a crowbar, a judgement as to the particulars is, to my mind, sufficient and appropriate. I say Delete, with only an entry for Gorringe, as at present extant, appropriate per rational and Wikipedia criteria. We differ. Let others have their say. TealCyfre0 00:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On further consideration of the arguments I've reconsidered. I've concluded that there is sufficient basis for the notability of BDORT per WP criteria to support its existence as an entry in Wikipedia, and as an example of quackery as pointed out by Someguy1221, as was the consensus of the two previous nominations for deletion. It's a minor example of quackery, granted, with respect to its microscopic following and application, yet its existence contributed to at least one documented death and at least several instances of documented grave suffering/injury. Injury, suffering, and death trump all other considerations. TealCyfre0 22:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note, also on further consideration, that the entry is appropriately BDORT rather than PMRT or subsumed within the entry for Gorringe. There is merit, I think, to GDallimore's argument, yet I am ultimately persuaded by the fact that, as per the NZTs, PMRT was simply one man's term for a variant form of BDORT, which is, in turn, a particular form or application of AK. These particular distinctions are clearly made in the present entries for BDORT and Gorringe, and the NZTs are appropriately cited as well for consideration of the reader in weighing through the particulars. BDORT is the term for the diagnostic as invented, patented, and promoted by Omura and his adherent quacks and patients, and BDORT is the term for the diagnostic as it is generally known, to the extent it is in fact known. BDORT is the diagnostic which two New Zealand government tribunals found was contributory to death and suffering of patients, and BDORT is the term appropriate for the entry, with PMRT noted as term for a variant application as practiced by Gorringe. TealCyfre0 23:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The NZT tribunal does not say that Omura's BDORT is related to Gorringe's technique or that it is a form of AK. Only Gorringe suggests that his technique had its origins in Omura's technique and the only tribunal to question that assertion said they were different and refused to consider Omura's technique in their reasoning. Consequently, the tribunal's findings that Gorringe's technique was a form of AK, that is was subjective, or anything else, cannot be said to be true of Omura's BDORT. It also canont be said that there is a reliable source saying that PMRT is a subset of BDORT. For the article to do any of these things is WP:OR. I repeare, there is nothing linking PMRT and BDORT except the assertions of a discredited doctor - he is not a reliable source! GDallimore (Talk) 16:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you have indicated that you have read and familiarized yourself with the previous discussion re this matter I assume you are familiar with the arguments advanced. I assume as well, therefore, that you are familiar with my arguments with respect to this matter, and that there is no need to repeat them. Repetitious insistence on the ‘obvious’ truth of your interpretation, however strenuous, however well intended, lends your argument as to proper interpretation no additional weight. TealCyfre0 19:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one pushing an interpretation. Tribunal 1 says uneqivocally that Omura's BDORT is not the same thing as Gorringe's PMRT (that he calls BDORT). Tribunal 2 does not mention Omura's BDORT at all. These are facts. The article is interpreting these facts to say that Omura's BDORT is at least comparable with Gorringe's PMRT, but this flies directly in the face of the unambiguous statement by tribunal 1 and is an interpretation which finds no direct support in tribunal 2. I've yet to see any rational explanation of this interpretation from anything I have read. This argument is getting fractured. I'm going to try to collate it under a new comment below. GDallimore (Talk) 21:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please reply to my query above about this point. Thanks, Crum375 17:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is an unfortunate fact that some quackery is notable, this is an example. Simply reading the references on the article lead me to this conclusion. Someguy1221 06:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. On another note, deleting an article is not the way to solve a content dispute. Someguy1221 21:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that the patented BDORT technique has no relationship with the accusations of quackery except in the arguments of the quack that were dismissed by the tribunal. Therefore the only reason BDORT appears notable is because of a mistaken and WP:OR association of Gorringe's and Omura's different techniques, which they both call BDORT. GDallimore (Talk) 16:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please reply to my query above about this point. Thanks, Crum375 17:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find your interpretation, GDallimore, to be unsupported by rational interpretation of the evidence. The matter has been previously addressed at preposterous length, and I have no intention at readdressing it at comparably preposterous length once again. Feel free to reconsider, and if your interpretation remains at variance, so be it. Repetition of your argument, however, as noted above, lends it no additional weight. TealCyfre0 19:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not putting any interpretation on the evidence. I'm quoting from the tribuanal who said that Omura's and Gorringe's techniques are difference. Where is there a reliable source that says otherwise so equivocally? This argument is getting fractured. I'm going to try to collate it under a new comment below. GDallimore (Talk) 21:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The problem though with leaving he present Gorringe article (which version of course satisfies those here wishing to discredit anything to do with Dr Omura) is that it is also heavily biased by those editors who obviously have a mission to dismiss Dr Omura and his methods, by using the Tribunal's parroting of Gorringe's claim to have used the BDORT - which the Tribunal states he obviously did not from quick persual, so leaving this as is with mistaken reference to Gorringe using what he claimed was BDORT would also be unacceptable. Whether it is deleted or kept (I vote deleted to avoid further malice already done), the main point is that the Tribunal refs 1 and 2 cannot be used as sources for a BDORT article - as the Tribunal, as a reliable source, clearly states they are different. I have been saying this for months. It is very clear.Richardmalter 13:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it should be noted that the ArbCom received from me information how one of the editors commenting here deliberately tried to do harm to Dr Omura by using WP as a way to represent him having falsely claimed certain things about himself, and who has a record of disagreement with Dr Omura in real life, that SlimVirgin had to delete at my insistance; while another editor here defended this version for many weeks tenaciously. The point is that personal biases are deeply entrenched here; which is why it has been noted above that the side attacking BDORT [the editors I make note of] are using the tribunal as a way to discredit BDORT in the article.Richardmalter 13:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.Yes, re above comment. But please note that I 'aggressively' tried to revert a version that contained the blatant BLP problems I note above; after real world harm had been done which no one in WP ever apologized for or took measures to prevent happening again; and that as SV has pointed out to me, the ArbCom rules on 'behaviour' (as they see it), not content. As a content dispute, the analysis by GDallimore, which has been also arrived at by 1garden (who has been editing the article recently), and which I have been stating for months - is clearly verifiable: Gorringe did not use BDORT, therefore notability for BDORT due to the NZ Tribunals is zero.Richardmalter 11:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be helpful, Richardmalter, if you offered evidence and argument derived from evidence. I, for one, would be delighted to see fresh evidence. Please feel free to offer it, at any time. TealCyfre0 20:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Richardmalter is not only banned from editing the article and its talk page, but he has also had several sockpuppets or meatpuppets banned after the decision. If WP:SOCK were being more strictly enforced, he probably wouldn't be able to edit Wikipedia at all, much less make an entirely inappropriate !vote in this AfD. --Philosophus T 08:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tying together some of the discussions above since it's getting fragmented: perhaps Crum or Teal can cite a single unequivocal reliable source that says that Omura's patented BDORT technique is the same as Gorringe's technique that he called PMRT and/or BDORT. I can't even find a reliable source that says they're even similar. GDallimore (Talk) 21:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The arguments have been made, at length, in previous discussion, with which you've indicated you're familiar. I've addressed them. I'm not going to repeat them. If you find them less than compelling, so be it. TealCyfre0 21:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This topic has been discussed at length on the talk page of the article, in the two previous AfDs, and in the ArbCom case involving the article. There are two NZ tribunal reports, and the second one addresses BDORT specifically. The argument about PMRT and BDORT not being linked is actually the argument that several now-banned editors used to try to hide the NZ tribunal finding and bias the article. --Philosophus T 08:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is certainly adequately sourced to citations, I think the issues that should be addressed here are not grounds for an AFD, but rather modifying the article to include other viewpoints, and academic criticism if published in reputable sources for citations. Smee 08:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Please could you let me know what IS the correct forum for addressing what I see to be a blatant OR in this article, then, in the face of editors who, as can be seen from the above, are not willing to discuss the matter further.GDallimore (Talk) 14:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible a petting zoo? Preferably in a less-caffeinated state? TealCyfre0 16:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not sure that this is notable or if not is, Im not completely understand. but definetely article has confusion about this Tribunal 1 and 2 and much 'pov' to make a point. This DR gorringe did not use this bdort technique of this DR omuras- three source say this and is very clear. So article needs major edits. I say also many times what GDallimore says also independtely.1garden 13:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I find myself in agreement with Smee, amongst others with respect to the observation that this isn't really an AfD discussion but a content discussion. The fact that a given editor or minority of editors are unable to win consensus for their position(s) seems to me a poor reason for re-casting a debate on content and presentation as a debate as to the appropriate existence of the entry. Perhaps I'm missing something. TealCyfre0 00:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My reasons for the deletion vote were that it was clear from the fractious history of this article that my trying to fix what I believe to be problems with it would probably only lead to an edit war. I merely wanted to get some independent views on the content and, as I don't often get involved with content disputes, was not aware that AfD was not a suitable forum. I have asked several times what a suitable forum would be. Is someone willing to answer that question even if noone is willing to answer my other questions? GDallimore (Talk) 00:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Believe it or not, I'm in a sense sympathetic to your dilemma though I disagree with your particular postions. The history of this entry reflects numerous well-intentioned attempts to get a wider 'audience' of folks via requests for comment, the enlisting of arbitrators, etc, all of which, in effect, failed for what seems to be the simple reason that there isn't sufficient interest. This poses, I think you might agree, a core dilemma in that the entry appears to be polarized between two tiny handful of folks. My perspective, for instance, as to my own contribution, is that while I'm a critic of the practice, which I, like most folk, see as pseudoscience and/or quackery, I've attempted to be fair in presentation, and that the only Wikipedia-appropriate sourcing, scant though it is, is critical. Proponents, on the other hand, have engaged in endless character assassination, accusing me of personal vendetta, as they have Crum375 in similar terms, all the while insisting that Omura (the principal early entry) was eminently well known, respected, scientific, etc. I sincerely haven't any answer to this dilemma of inadequate 'audience' for the entry. I, too, am open to suggestions. TealCyfre0 00:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add'l Thought: I simply think that Wikipedia doesn't function at all well in this sort of situation. It's premised, amongst other things, on reasonably wide scrutiny. Yet here one has very narrow scrutiny, and attempts to widen it have largely failed. In real life one has editors, an editorial board, whatever, presumably of some intelligence and judgement, to decide such matters. Here there is only an endless, open miasma. In the case of this particular entry it's been complicated, at least from my perspective, by adherents committed to construcitng any reference to Omura and BDORT in positive terms, and they long ago exhausted the patience of those attempting to present a more balanced perspective. I recognize that you and I appear to have differing judgements as to the particulars you raise, but I don't see that set of differences as the problem, as in a more professional context they would be judged or resolved one way or another. Here, it seems to me, there really isn't any appropriate mechanism for doing that, and the mechanisms that do exist are vulnerable, or so it also seems to me, to exploitation by fanatics committed to the notion that Omura and BDORT are perfectly sound science. Bear in mind that the present titling of the entry is reflective of attempting to deal with those realities within the context of Wikipedia. Originally this was an entry on Omura and BDORT, which most folks in early AfD debates found marginally noteworthy as quackery, but which was then relentlessly assaulted as inappropriate personal attack on Omura, etc, etc. As I've said, I think the core problem here is Wikipedia's limitations, though some doubtless feel otherwise. TealCyfre0 01:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I feel the need to elaborate much here. I am only stating that the technique obviously exists and is in practice. Whether or not it is legitimate is another story, there could very well be some OR in the article, but that is not grounds for an AFD. Smee 05:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Krimpet (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas Tanner[edit]

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

promotional; non-notable Tom Harrison Talk 15:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Send condolences to Cubby Broccolli's adopted son's business partner. Canuckle 22:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exercise the License to Delete. Minor TV producer, nothing more. --Dhartung | Talk 05:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reliable references from third party reliable sources have been added to verify that subject is notable TV producer and meets Wikipedia guidelines. TV programs ( Destination X Hawaii) produced by subject are broadcast to worldwide broadcasters in many countries including USA indicating worldwide interest of subjects artistic accomplishments
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 14:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that the previous two "Keep" editors have only contributed to articles about Dallas Tanner and his tv shows. Edison 20:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. The sources are mostly press releases moved over a press release wire. And a paper in India printed one of them. Others are about the tv show. I would like to see a couple of newspaper/magazine articles in independent and reliable sources satisfying WP:A which provide more information about Dallas Tanner, his history, his philosophy, and his accomplishments, rather than reprinted press releases about the tv shows. Edison 14:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Edison; these are "trivial sources" as defined by WP:V.  Ravenswing  16:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I don't see how this is article can be fathomed as non notable. This person is listed on imdb, has many 3rd party sources, and even produced a worldwide nationally televised special. There is no question as to if this is notable or not. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 19:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep. The guidlines for creative people per WP state to qualify ":The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" Well the person Dallas Tanner has created, written and executive produced according to a reliable source on IMDB, 9 episodes of televison into the USA and worldwide. In addition according to the broadcasters sites that air the shows in the United States, more reliable third party information, The Water Channel and America One Television Network, these episodes in fact air, so therefore the subject works are in circulation, also meeeting WP guidlines for creative people. Once again according to the definition on WP the person has in fact played a major role in createing a significant or well know or collective body of work. I would say the project being delivered each week to millions of homes ( granted not everyone may have seen the tv series created by Dallas Tanner...his series Destination X Hawaii is not American Idol) are in deed meeting the guidlines for creating a well know work. Lastly claims that referenced articles can considerred to be non notable, yes there are articles published on press releases and wires, but industry referenced publications also reference the publishing of the series. Beyond that, the mere fact that independent broadcasters own sites ( The Water Channel and America One TV Network) clearly indicate that the subject works are indeed in distribution to millions of tv homes in America each week. You dont need to be the producer of American Idol, to meet the guidelines for notable persons on WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichelleWinkofer (talk • contribs) 20:53, 24 May 2007

  • Comment: In response to the several comments above, first off, notability is not venereal; you don't get to be notable on the sole strength that something with which you're associated might be notable. Secondly, this blizzard of references and links obscures the fact that IMDB credits Tanner with only one show (the Destination X deal), that they all refer to just the one show, and that the mention of Tanner in those references constitutes a "trivial mention" per WP:V, in that the mere "produced by Dallas Tanner" is mentioned without any other information beyond that. None of the reliable sources are, as WP:V requires, about Tanner.
  • Finally, it is probably no coincidence that Google lists a "Michelle Winkofer" as being a PR/marketing assistant for Mr. Tanner. [33]  Ravenswing  15:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm far far far from being an expert with Wiki rules/policies, but I don't see a COI issue with one of his PR people establishing an article on him. As long as it's unbiased and strictly factual, of course. With that being said, I don't find it necessary to even bring it up. This AfD is to determine if the person in question is notable or not. With that being said, I still would like to reiterate that I believe his person passes WP:BIO, however I believe that his passing is debatable. With reading WP:BIO, it states this:
  • The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.
  • If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability.
  • Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.
  • Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content.
This is where the debate comes in. Yes, there are plenty of sources. Are they trivial. I would like to lean towards no because by reading Note#3 under WP:BIO it states Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. A 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not. The existence of a memorial (e.g., a named chair at a university) is not a substitute for depth of content in published work. . Since the sources provided are not simply "one-liners", I would say that they are not trivial, and consider them reliable. In addition, since the key phrase here is Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; however, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included., it doesn't go one way or the other. Basically...it's a toss up. Since it is a toss up, and he does have an imdb profile, and plenty of sources, AND he is already working on the 2nd season of his TV Show, I believe that he is notable, and the article should be kept. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 17:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Errr ... since you state that you're far from an expert on Wikipedia policies, I commend to you WP:COI. To quote from there, "avoid, or exercise great caution when (1) Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with, (2) Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors ..." (emphasis in the original). Ms. Winkhofer not only has a vested interest in defending Mr. Tanner's publicity, she is being paid to do so. Short of Tanner himself chiming in on this AfD, I don't think a greater conflict of interest is possible.
As far as the various sources given in the article, let's review. #1 is a broken link. #2 is the IMDB page, which gives no biographical information beyond a mere list of Destination X credits. #3 doesn't mention him at all. #4 and #5 gives his name only, and is about the show. #6 quotes him about an event he staged, and is entirely about the event. #7 is an adspam bio on a website where people put in their own bios. #8 doesn't mention him at all. #9 is a carbon copy of #6. #10 is a quote from him about the show. There is not a single citation from a reliable, independent, published source. None of the links talk about this fellow at all, nor give so much as a scrap of biographical information. Take a good look at the WP:BIO section you quoted: it requires that the person be the subject of reliable, published sources. This has yet to be the case.  Ravenswing  18:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further ... this from WP:COI: "If ... you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes) ... then we very strongly encourage you to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that would make your edits non-neutral (biased). Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy states that all articles must represent views fairly and without bias, and conflicts of interest do significantly and negatively affect Wikipedia's ability to fulfill this requirement. If your financially-motivated edits would be non-neutral, do not post them."  Ravenswing  18:52, 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. Sr13 23:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German Romatnic Nationalism[edit]

German Romatnic Nationalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Pseudo-historical POV rant, misquoting its sources, misspelled title, terrible English, hardly comprehensible. Unsalvagable. German romanticism exists, but there's nothing to merge here, and no need for redirecting because of the implausible misspelling. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Almost qualifies for speedy being almost patent nonsense, though it's more likely just a malformed attempt to create/translate an article by someone not very fluent in English. Either way a more valid article exists elsewhere, and as no new information is presented here a merge would be unwarranted. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Unsalvagable" is the word; there is no way this could incrementally be transformed into something informative. Creator is a known edit warrior, which is evident from User_talk:Nasz, including archived sections b and c. (I don't think it unduly ad hominem to point this out here because the already tedious task of trying to make sense out of nonsense is made impossible if the original author is combative and keeps reverting others' attempts at improvement.) --Bwiki 16:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and agree completely with the nominator's rationale. Olessi 18:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice to the creation of a decent article. German Romanticism is a huge topic and the properly spelled concept here is historically relevant ([34]). Stammer 19:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, woah, I feel sorry for that article. Can't redirect because of spelling, can't merge because of content, can delete though. *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 01:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. The whole area of German Romanticism on English Wikipedia needs overhauling (maybe we should import some articles from the German version). The main article we have on German Romanticism here isn't much better, since it contains gems like this: Weber was the first major composer to emerge as a wholesome product of the Romantic school (as opposed to unwholesome products like Hoffmann and Spohr, I presume). --Folantin 07:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Aminullah 10:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if there's already an existing article that covers the same topic and is far better in quality, this page is useless. Acalamari 21:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, recreate it, then delete it again, just to be sure. JJL 03:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pile-on delete as original research, barely comprehensible, redundant with existing articles, etcetera. AecisBrievenbus 23:47, 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. Krimpet (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs referencing Kurt Cobain[edit]

List of songs referencing Kurt Cobain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. The listed songs have nothing in common beyond referencing Cobain in the lyrics. Some don't even share that, as the list indiscriminately includes songs that reference Nirvana without specifically mentioning Cobain, includes songs which are supposedly about Cobain but offers no verification of that, or songs that are supposely dedicated to Cobain or Nirvana. Otto4711 13:16, 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. AKRadecki 19:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew E.[edit]

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

Insufficient assertion of notability, and the article currently reads like self-promotion. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep search on google and wikipedia suggest notability as founder of a record label with 30 artists. A rewrite is clearly needed, but I think it's salvageable. Gimme danger 13:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This has 1500 hits on the Tagalog Google.  Ravenswing  16:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite: This rapper is very famous here in the Philippines especially during the early 90's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danngarcia (talk • contribs) 11:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless rewritten and sourced (which is probable) --Whsitchy 17:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.--Owl 2 20:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - on the condition that the article is cleaned up and sourced. --JayJasper 18:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Gimme danger above. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as blatant advertising/promotional material (CSD G11). MastCell Talk 19:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Free Emerson[edit]

Radio Free Emerson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Advert for a very new play. Article created by Marc Ardizzone, a director of the theatre where it is being performed. -- RHaworth 12:46, 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 11:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeegpaw[edit]

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

Self-published book (Lulu.com); not encyclopaedic, and probably added by the author (who also inserted a paragraph about the book on Blondi). CSD G11 may well apply, but I'm not sure, so I think it's better to err on the side of caution and go through the regular AfD process. Schneelocke 12:31, 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. PeaceNT 04:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patterson equilibrium[edit]

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

Appears to be original research by article author User:Dmp717200. Unreferenced. All Google hits appear to be from mirrors of Wikipedia content. The Anome 12:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - clearly OR. The theory was "formulated by David Michael Patterson" - same initials as the article's author Dmp717200; the Talk page implies it's OR. andy 23:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as mildly coherent nonsense. Someguy1221 06:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOR. --Kyoko 06:18, 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 15:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmet Akgün[edit]

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

Mehmet Akgün is a soccer player, playing in one of the German third(amateur)leagues. There is no relevance to cause his reception within an enceclopedia.Thw1309 11:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has made a number of appearences for Borussia Dortmund; this is worthy of notability. Mattythewhite 11:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - has played in the Bundesliga, and I think the third tier of one of the world's strongest footballing countries is enough anyway (The name "Amateur", given to these leagues, is somewhat misleading). ArtVandelay13 11:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not enough for De:wikipedia, which allows only players of the first and second Bundesliga. Schould it be enough to have been a substitute for some minutes one time? The article shows, he is no member of the Bundesliga squad.Thw1309 11:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - per above. CAN 11:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has played top-flight football in one of the world's strongest leagues thereby easily satisfying WP:BIO for the English Wikipedia (this rule may differ from the German Wikipedia, but that is not what we are debating.....) ChrisTheDude 11:41, 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. Sr13 23:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jia-Ching Li[edit]

Jia-Ching Li (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy. Apparently he is a professor and entrepreneur. As a professor, no indication that he meets WP:PROF. The yogurt thing, whatever it is, needs more if it is to appear notable. Both the links go to Chinese-language sites. Herostratus 10:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep- producing a product of somekind gains him notability, but not much. Its best not to speedy this one and reach concensus. Alphablast 11:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but it really needs to be extended - there needs to be more information on what makes this new kind of yoghurt notable. -- Schneelocke 12:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion of notability, fails WP:PROF, and the yoghurt appears to differ from normal yoghurt in being a blend of goat's milk and soy milk. Big wow. And excuse me, but producing a product of some kind does not gain him notability. Otherwise my childhood fruit & veg stand would have an article. tomasz. 13:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above comments --Trumpetband 14:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete We have no evidence that he is a professor. He appears to be a sanitarian (i.e. a health inspector) in Texas. The yoghurt thing is a paper he wrote and we have no evidence that it was ever widely used or commercialized, or even cited by other authors. There is no trace of him in Google Scholar or Google Books, and only 3 trivial mentions in Google. The article and Talk about him appear to be written by himself and his sockpuppets (new users and anons). --Macrakis 14:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:V, WP:BIO. No reliable sources.  RGTraynor  16:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 116 GHits, in Chinese, 29 unique. [35] A sizable proportion aren't even him but are instead referring to a guy called Li Jia who works at Tsinghua University. Many of the other hits are from zhwiki or mirrors, where someone seems to have spammed his name into the yoghurt and Dynasties of China article. cab 01:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of evidence of notability. JJL 03:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hard to see what notability criteria he would satisfy. Slac speak up! 06:34, 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. W.marsh 13:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Business Insurance Terms[edit]

Business Insurance Terms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was nominated for speedy deletion per A1, little or no context. While I believe that the article provided enough context to avoid speedy deletion, there's a corollary question of what to do with the article. Should it be moved to Wiktionary? Should it be turned into a glossary? Should it be kept in place and does wikification suffice? Or should the article be deleted? AecisBrievenbus 10:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or re-write- unencyclopedic, needs a complete rewrite, of somekind. Its content seems useless anyway. Alphablast 11:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if it was re-written, it is not an article that has a place in an encyclopedia.--Trumpetband 14:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Seems something like this could be extremely useful for someone in a business insurance class. Citations are needed. Listify. --Remi 16:46, 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 15:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Optimus keyboard[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Optimus keyboard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Little more than catalogue page for product. Lack of reliable independent nontrivial sources, and only claim to fame is being slashdoted.

  • Delete. Fancy features do not a notable product make. I'm sure when it comes out, it should get enough reviews to make it noteworthy, but until then...Someguy1221 10:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting product that uses new technology of large potential benefit. It is definately in production. The information comes the manufacturer's website (doesn't get much more reliable than that). This hasn't just been hyped up on slashdot - plenty of otehr sites have discussed it. This AfD does not give any new grounds for deletion that weren't mentioned in the first one. (Also, fancy features *do* make a product notable... otherwise it just blends in with the competiion) Tompw (talk) (review) 11:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Manufacturer's website is not necessarily reliable, as they have the most incentive to lie (except perhaps their direct competitors). But it fails the "independent" bit, in any event. Anyway, this isn't being AFD'd from concern that it doesn't exist, but from concern that it hasn't received enough attention to be considered notable. Nearly the entire last AFD discussion was completely irrelevent to this concern, and was conducted as an actual vote, which this is not. Someguy1221 11:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, I've seen it covered on Slashdot and Engadget, but I'm not sure if we consider those reliable sources. :) Psu256 15:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's been Gizmodified on Gizmodo also, though it's production dates have been pushed back enough times that I'm wondering if it is WP:CRYSTAL until it is actually sold. The article certainly could use other primary press/web references, though I can't search and add them now. LaughingVulcan Laugh With Me / Logical Entries 02:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- there is no reason to delete this page, it is notable, and intresting, it has some content. Alphablast 11:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's an interesting product, and is highly anticipated among the tech community (have a look at the Digg story). Tim.bounceback(review me! | talk | contribs | ubxen) 11:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has been covered widely in the trade press, see [36] -- The Anome 12:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it catches on, then someone can write an article. Right now it's still in the pre-release hype stage. Mangoe 13:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - covered a great deal in the press. Needs to have an article, even if it becomes vaporware. — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As mentioned above, this is a well known highly anticipated product. CheekyMonkey 14:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - High coverage in press, even though its on the verge of vaporware -- pb30<c.t> 18:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my opinion to keep in light of the sources. Someguy1221 20:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If there is sufficient non-trivial coverage from multiple sources, as there is in the case of this article, then WP:CRYSTAL no longer applies. Yamaguchi先生 07:24, 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. W.marsh 13:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Parsons[edit]

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

Pretty obvious hoax article. Only claim to notability is ex-singer for Praxis, but I don't know if it's true or not, or if it's a different person entirely. The rest of the article is trivial, fabricated garbage. Bongwarrior 09:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC) >>> The claims on the article that have been left are all now true, I edited out the crap (RF)[reply]

  • Delete. Even if this is the Jerome Parsons who sung with Praxis, there's no attribution here except to a Myspace page. The majority of this seems like WP:BOLLOCKS. (edited) --Charlene 09:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know the man, and I have edited out the false claims on this page. Hope that helps - Ryan Fitzgerald

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

The result was Delete. PeaceNT 04:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Millstone (collectible card)[edit]

Millstone (collectible card) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Even as a Magic player myself, I hardly think it is necessary for a single card to have its own article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information, and the article only weakly asserts the notability of this particular card. Also, the article consists mostly of unnecessary statistical information about the card: Wikipedia is not a game guide. Finally, the article appears to have a quote from some source, but it is not attributed. Is this from a reliable source? Charlie 08:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with the reason for deletion. Alphablast 13:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I know "gamecruft" gets thrown around here on AfD a lot, but this actually does qualify. Not notable enough for it's own article and there's not enough information to make one anyway, but probably should see mention in an article on M:tG play. Cheers, Lanky (YELL) 14:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete -- Yes, Wikipedia sometimes has relatively trivial entries, but oh, come ON. If someone wants to do an entire article on all collectible, rare, or valuable Magic cards that's one thing. This is just silly. Artemis-Arethusa 15:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is more suited for the M:tG Wiki, if it exists. Here, the article is just fancruft. AgentPeppermint 16:17, 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 to delete all. I realize that this will probably get taken to WP:DRV but there's just no consensus to delete all of these articles. W.marsh 17:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of theatre that breaks the fourth wall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of films that break the fourth wall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of television programs that break the fourth wall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of animated series that break the fourth wall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of video games that break the fourth wall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An enormous, sprawling list, with 5(!) subpages, of examples of use of an extremely common literary device. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information; this list is completely unlimited in this scope and of dubious value, and the Fourth wall article already cites a bunch of historical and contemporary examples in context to illustrate the topic. Has been nominated a couple times before, and kept mainly under the arguments that the list is "useful", and/or that the list could be pruned to only pertinent examples; however, it has only grown exponentially since, and as said above Fourth wall already has a bunch of pertinent examples illustrating the literary device in context. Krimpet (talk) 07:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - the previous AfD's were far, far from compelling. This is like having a "list of media with a twist ending" - it's a common literary device, and it's an indiscriminate criteria for a list. --Haemo 08:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above. Doczilla 08:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and improve or nominate individually. It is too soon after the last Afd for improvements to have magically occurred, but these lists are borderline listcruft in my opinion. There have only been 15 edits since the last Afd, so this can hardly be considered a magnet needing immediate attention. Proposing them all for deletion presents an impossible task for someone wanting to recycle the content into a better presentation or apply new inclusion criteria. Each of these entries is potentially new material for the articles they link to. Fourth wall is extremely short, and would not give the reader a good idea of all the various ways the fourth wall is used, and this information cant be simply gathered from the articles; A Midsummer Night's Dream, on List of theatre that breaks the fourth wall, does not refer to the fourth wall or "direct address". Two suggestions for culling these lists:
    1. Create a category hierarchy, and move articles into it when the article text suitably describes how the fourth wall is used.
    2. Group the entries by how the literary/theatric device is used in the work. e.g. List of works that praise the creator, List of works that praise the work, List of works that involve the audience, etc. Each can then have more specific inclusion criteria
  • I am partial to deleting List of video games that break the fourth wall, as most games do in varying ways: they are by definition interactive. John Vandenberg 09:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. The items on the list have nothing in common beyond the use of a common dramatic device. Otto4711 12:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not maintainable, fuzzy concept. Any adequately clear criteria for inclusion (e.g., being cited in a scholarly work as breaking the fourth wall) would be arbitrary and lead to warped coverage. -- Visviva 12:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and improve. No compelling argument for deletion has been made. Was nominated only a month ago & kept. Bad loser renomination. Johnbod 12:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'll just reiterate the statement I made at the last AfD on this article, and say that while a couple of examples in the Fourth wall would be useful for context these lists are not. A clear violation of WP:NOT as has been said, these works of fiction have nothing in common except for a common literary element. There are plenty of calls for "keep and improve", but those were also made in the last AfD - saying "keep and improve" holds no water if no one is going to actually improve it. Regardless, there is nothing that can be "improved" to alter the fact that these lists are not encyclopedic by their nature. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because nobody has put their shoulder to the plow in order to carry out the communities consensus, doesnt mean nobody ever will. Please make suggestions on what form these lists should take in order to be acceptable to you, so that others can do the improve stage. John Vandenberg 23:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the last statement - I don't think that any amount of "improvement" will change the fact that these lists are not appropriate per WP:NOT. I realize that just because no one has improved an article after a given amount of time does not mean no one will - but neither can we let unfit articles remain just because someday, someone might try to improve it. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, except possibly the video game one. I do feel these meet the list criteria, and Wikipedia is not paper. Abeg92contribs 19:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hoo-boy. Ok, the main list in question does not appear to cite a single source, whatever, for any of its claims. An editor could be perfectly within their rights, as per policy, to remove just about every single line in the article, since none of them are verified. I have seen it suggested in these Afd pages that people arguing for deletion of such a list should be willing to improve it, and bring it in line with policy. I can appreciate this sentiment, but I think it ought to apply to those arguing against deletion as well. I submit that the fact that no one, regardless of their opinion on whether to delete, has been willing to source any of the claims in the article is a strong indication that the list, if not deleted, will remain unsourced indefinitely.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Echuck215 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 24 May 2007
    I object to the last part of your comment; I did not notice the last Afd, otherwise I would have started work on fixing this, like I have on other lists that appear on Afd. I haven't yet started cleaning up these lists because there is too much cleanup to be done within the five days, and as yet there hasnt been any discussion on what improvements would be useful. John Vandenberg 23:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean to say that the list cannot be improved: if you are willing to do it, then great! I think we both just want to improve Wikipedia. As for waiting for discussion on useful improvements, I don't think that is necessary if you can improve the article in an uncontroversial way. And adding sources to unsourced material is definitely an uncontroversial improvement. If you would like to do that, I would support you in the effort, and if I have time I will try to find some sources myself. Charlie 23:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup and take to it with the Axe of Verifiability (not to mention a heavy fixing-up of entries that are not actually breaking the fourth wall - I'm amazed that for Family Guy, a show which practically only has 3 walls, at least one of the entries is definitely not a 4th-wall breaker and several others I'd class as borderline). Confusing Manifestation 23:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All - Quite simply, even with citations, each of those articles would be huge. Plus, breaking the 4th wall is subjective in many cases. ("For all we know, our lives are just a tv show!" would count to some people.) Plus, what really makes any of these events notable? -- Kesh 02:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Simply because the most-recent AFD wasn't that long ago. I think that we have a sore loser who will nominate this article for deletion every week until it is deleted. Val42 05:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no policy or guideline that mandates a particular waiting period between AFDs. Calling other editors "sore losers" is not civil and fails to assume good faith. Otto4711 14:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for calling whomever nominiated this article for deletion this time a "sore loser". There should be some policy for a minimum time between deletion nominations. I will still vote against deleting this article until it has been at least six months since the last nomination for deletion. Val42 19:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and/or merge into a single list or article on the subject. It is a unique subject that many people have spent hours of time working on, and should be improved upon, not removed. If keeping then merging into fewer lists could reduce the clutter, and make it easier for readers to find. For example, the film, television, and animated series lists could easily be integrated into one list on visual media breaks of the fourth wall.Powergirl 19:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's unfortunate when people put a lot of work into something that ends up getting deleted, but the fact of the effort is not a reason for keeping the article. Merging different lists together would result in a list with even more unrelated things on it, making the problem worse, not better. Otto4711 14:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say keep all, but if you must delete them, save the appropriate ones in different articles or sections, such as Team Rocket (anime)#Breaking the Fourth Wall. Matty-chan 16:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - Deleting them now would set a bad precedent that if someone doesn't like an article, they can keep renominating it until they get the result they want.Sandmaster 20:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 23:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artitechture[edit]

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

Neologism and apparent advertisement or endorsement Skysmith 07:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as spam. I was very interested to see in the article history a number of editors disagreeing over the best way to get rid of this article. Anyway, it's had since last year to blossom into something encyclopedic and it never happened. Someguy1221 09:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spam and nonsense, the cornerstones of a non-nutritious meal. tomasz. 13:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: protologism, advertising. -- Karada 23:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an add, not an article. The definition given is way too vague to improve this article. Everything that is created is in some way inspired by some kind of artistic work. Malc82 23:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If I understand it, it is some sort of spam ... if I don't understand it, it's nonsense. I haven't decided if I understand it or not. But delete either way. HeirloomGardener 03:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. JJL 03:02, 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 as A7. --Seed 2.0 13:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sasa Macura[edit]

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

Article about non-notable youth soccer player that in the article's words, is "a name to look out for." Can't find any sources indicating a youth player of this name exists, or has signed with Red Star Belgrade; fails WP:BIO and WP:A. Probable speedy delete candidate, but sent it here just to be safe. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 07:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 09:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Just some kid bigging himself up. Even if he had signed with Red Star, considering that he is only 15 now it would have been in an academy side and therefore conveyed no notability whatsoever ChrisTheDude 09:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete awful Google! Mainly features in fantasy football game, no doubt added to its database online as a player by the person himself. Ref (chew)(do) 09:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per A7, given the comments above and the fact there is no assertion of any notability in the article. Maybe if he is a "name to look out for", he will be sufficiently notable for an article sometime in the future, but certainly not at the moment. Will (aka Wimt) 10:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as WP:CSD#A7 per above. Tagged as such. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 10:55, 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 13:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky Phi Beta Lambda[edit]

Kentucky Phi Beta Lambda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not a notable chapter/region of Phi Beta Lambda and could not find any secondary sources as per WP:ORG. Acidskater 07:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete State level organizations of larger national organizations tend not to be notable and this one is no exception. Metros 12:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. YechielMan 22:05, 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. Sr13 23:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moon nuclear model[edit]

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

Seems an extremely odd atricle, mixing the nuclear periodic table with the atomic one. Couldn't find a relevant paper in a respectful scientific publication, at least not in the last years. It all looks like crackpot stuff. I suggest the deletion of this article, unless such publications are supplied. Dan Gluck 05:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally this model has no connection to fundamental physics such as QCD. Dan Gluck 05:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. The only sources are either a group called "Blaze Labs", which matches the name of the originating editor, and several links to LaRouche Movement publications. This does not appear to be a notable physics theory. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 06:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Someguy1221 09:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When this theory gets published in a proper peer reviewed journal it can be recreated, although the sun will have expanded into a red giant by then and the oceans will have long since boiled away. Nick mallory 13:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've asked people in the nuclear physics community both in Israel and the UK, and no one seem to have heard about this model. Dan Gluck 13:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comments by Gluck, Mallory and Beback. Edison 15:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Definitely not notable. Fails WP:SCIENCE and if it indeed lacks any coverage in a respected journal then it also fails WP:NOR. --EMS | Talk 03:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (nn one person's theory) and review the contributions of User:Blaze Labs Research regarding Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. --Pjacobi 11:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this article does not have a magic number of reliable sources to indicate its notability and should fall apart into its component wiki-ons. Anville 17:16, 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 Delete. PeaceNT 04:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Koh[edit]

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

Article may be making a thin claim of notability with his positions, so I'm not going to speedy delete it. But I don't think he's notable enough to pass WP:BIO. Most sources given are generic (like a ref to http://www.credit-suisse.com/ ), of the two external links at the end, one is broken and one has a short paragraph where he was asked a question. ··coelacan 05:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete (speedy if possible) --- IMO there is no assertion of notability here. Being a lower-level exec for a bunch of companies is nothing special. This is also probably WP:COI --- created by Kohklt (talk · contribs). 404 GHits, GNews archive search shows 5 trivial quotes in magazines, nothing which actually has Koh as its primary subject (e.g. a profile). [37] Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. cab 05:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —dustmite 06:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I add that Kohklt (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account. Victoriagirl 22:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment even more amusingly, 198.240.133.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who has edited the article several times recently, comes from a Credit Suisse proxy server [38]; the probability that it's Mr. Koh himself is approaching 100%. Sadly, he's hardly the worst editor from that IP address either. Perhaps someone in a really nasty mood might see fit to enquire with Credit Suisse's HR department as to why their employees have nothing better to do on company time than vandalise Wikipedia ... cab 12:09, 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, principly as original research.AKRadecki 17:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holographic Principle Theory of Mind[edit]

Holographic Principle Theory of Mind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Original research. One of the two references can't be found on the linked website; the other is "in press". Contains many questionable claims without references. Author of the two sources is also the author of the article. —Keenan Pepper 05:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I had at least two psych professors who were enamored of the theory (though, granted, I attended a university with a reputation for embracing the weird), and I can think of a couple sources right off the top of my head that could almost immediately improve the article to WP:V compliance if the article writer went through their bibliographies. A lot of the popularization of the theory comes from the transpersonal psychology work of Stanislav Grof, and his book The Holotropic Mind; along with David Talbot's The Holotropic Universe; would be sufficient to source the article to the minimum required by WP:N and WP:V. --Dynaflow babble 06:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Aha! But it doesn't use those sources because the original author of the article seems to be attempting to claim credit for the theory. It is his work that is cited. The article is salvagable, but it requires major work. I'll put it on my watchlist and, when I get a spare couple of hours, I'll see if I can improve its academic-honesty factor. --Dynaflow babble 06:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I have found that Wikipedia already has a decent article on holonomic brain theory, and the only thing we'd suffer a net loss on if this article was deleted would be a bunch of original research at odds with the letter and the spirit of WP:OR (not to mention WP:COI). --Dynaflow babble 06:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has grossly incorrect references to the holographic principle of quantum gravity. The psycological / phylosophical part is a mixture of original research and uncited, out of context old stuff ([39] for example). If the article is to be kept anyway, any relation to physics other than a vague analogy must be omitted, and proper citing of old stuff must be given. Dan Gluck 14:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposed deletion are addressed as follows:
1) the link to a reference has been modified so that it leads directly to the reference, which has a full and complete description of all of the information presented in the article.
2) A reference has been made to holonomic brain theory. However, if the individual reads the article and reference carefully he will see that there is no "academic-honesty" issue as the theory is completely different from holonomic brain theory, and none of its content is taken from that theory.
3) The article does not have grossly incorrect reference to the Holographic Principle. The basic framework was established recently with Jacob Bekenstein, one of the leading experts on the physics of the Holographic Priniple. I have checked the link and it reference and it refers to a completely different theory based on David Bohm's holographic physics and not the Holographic Principle. It is not "out of context old stuff," but a completely new theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.207.224.249 (talk • contribs) — 63.207.224.249 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment That's largely the point. Wikipedia is a tertiary source and is not the place to publicize new theories you might be working on (I am assuming, based on your contributions, that you are User:Mark Germine, M.D.). Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research, and that is a hard-and-fast policy set for WP by the Foundation. That is why I referenced the Grof and Talbot books above, rather than journal articles, because, as derivative sources, they wouldn't require someone to synthesize new knowledge to write an encyclopedia article. If your theory attains notability, you can rest assured that someone else will come along and write an article on it for you, and spare you problems with Wikipedia's guidelines on original research and conflict of interest. --Dynaflow babble 16:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding the physics part, it seems to me this is not your field of expertise. It IS mine. The holographic principle, proposed by 't Hooft following Jacob Bekenstein, is a conjecture that gravitational systems are dual to non-gravitational systems with one dimension less; The entropy of highly gravitational state is thus proportional to the area of the system, rather than its volume. The brain is not a highly gravitational system, so this is completely unrelated to your discussion. Dan Gluck 17:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE: Brain as gravitational system not subject to Holographic Principle: Not according to Bekenstein, he says that the principle applies to the most fundamental field within the neuron, through many levels to the level of the whole neuron and from thence to the organism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.207.224.249 (talk • contribs)
  • Whether or not the article is incorrect is irrelevant to the conversation here. Articles that are wrong can be fixed, but articles based on original research, as this article seems to be, cannot be because they are not admissible to the encyclopedia per WP:POLICY. AfD is for discussion of whether or not an article should appear in English Wikipedia; arguments on the veracity of claims belongs on the article's Talk page. --Dynaflow babble 19:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The existing, peer-reviewed, published article is referenced. It is not "original" in the sense that it contains anything that hasn't already been published. Does this mean that all published original research would be excluded? Wikipedia is full of such material. I don't see this as an exclusion. There is no new information in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.207.224.249 (talk • contribs)

  • IP-user, please sign your posts. I have been doing it for you thus far, but you can do it as well by typing four tildes in a row at the end of your post (~~~~). The sig lines help us maintain the chronology of the discussion. As for the original-research thing, have you read WP:OR, which I linked to earlier? The article reads like a journal article abstract, which would also qualify as original research. Wikipedia is not the place to publish scientific results, but that seems to be exactly what you (again, assuming you're User:Mark Germine, M.D., just not signed in) are doing in this article, and on top of that, you're using yourself as the sole source. As an academic, you should probably know intuitively why this is raising so many red flags content-wise, and once you look through the rationale of our policy against publishing original research, you'll understand that concern of ours too, and perhaps be better able to address it. --Dynaflow babble 20:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced the article to its bare essentials and shortened it considerably. It is not in the form of an "abstract" at all. The link is to a peer-reviewed, professional, publication. The article has been presented without any reference to articles in press. Take a look at the revised version. I am not publishing any "new results." All of what is in the current version has been verified as valid in terms of physics. (<Mark Germine, M.D.>Mgermine 01:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)<Mark Germine, M.D.>) — Mgermine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete - A single paper published in a journal does not fulfill citation guidelines, nor does it establish notability. Further, the only citation is a paper written byMgermine, bringing conflict of interest into play, not to mention original research. -- Kesh 02:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep the trimmed article. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even trimmed, the article only has a single citation which is written by the article submitter. No establishment of notability, and a lot of conflict of interest. -- Kesh 22:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Conflict of interest, original research, and woefully inadeqaute sourcing (what sort of journal is that anyway?). —Gaff ταλκ 00:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The journal is a sub-page from this guy's website. This is straight-up big time original research.—Gaff ταλκ 00:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check it out: The journal reference cited bills itself as an "e-journal" and the associate editor is...you guessed it...Mark Germine!—Gaff ταλκ 00:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, apparently a WP:CSD#A7. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 10:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Eric Henderson[edit]

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

appears to be a spam advert bio. contributor is also starting articles on the company. Asserts notability, but no surces to back up. —Gaff ταλκ 05:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • BioForce Nanosciences, Inc. has been tagged for Speedy. Again, this may turn out to be keepable, but I am listing here for purpose of discussion d/t the spamming like quality of the submission.—Gaff ταλκ 05:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Before closing this, please be aware that notability was asserted by the contributor. I am not convinced this was a speedy delete.—Gaff ταλκ 05:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC) On second thought, looks like it was spam. —Gaff ταλκ 07:15, 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. Sr13 23:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scrumtrilescent[edit]

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

Non-notable, belongs in wiktionary Kangaru99 04:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Saturday Night Live. Do not transwiki, this is barely suitable for inclusion to Urbandictionary. cab 05:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no objection to Deletion either, I just thought a redirect might prevent it from getting recreated by the next fan who comes along. cab 00:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable neologism. -- Mikeblas 11:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a site to list every word made up on every TV show. Edison 15:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a word made up on a televison show and referenced once in pop culture media. This is an extremely obscure neologism. I agree this isn't worth a transwiki. --Cyrus Andiron 15:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sheesh. JJL 02:58, 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. Sr13 00:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu primer[edit]

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

Not an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a FAQ list. Already covered in hinduism. Weregerbil 04:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete Hinduism, though the world's third largest religion and the most ancient is unfortunately also the most mis-understood. By keeping such articles, Wikipedia is doing a service to the community and helping to dispel the widely present misconceptions about this ancient Religion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.171.191.60 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 24 May 2007.
    Please see Wikipedia:No original research. utcursch | talk 06:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete poorly sourced essay, unlikely search term. (I was thinking this had something to do with Primer (paint) and wondered why Hindus would use a different kind than Muslims or Christians???) cab 05:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NOT#OR Acidskater 07:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, OR, possibly retitle and base on reliable sources. Abeg92contribs 19:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well intentioned but obvious original research. Topic already covered in Hinduism and numerous other project articles. Abecedare 20:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete It is informative and in one place —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.125.80.96 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 25 May 2007.
    WP:USEFUL is not a useful argument. utcursch | talk 06:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Retitle "Hinduism in a nut shell" Summaries are required in encyclopedias. Who on earth wants to go through all the stuff and research and more stuff. Can't things be simple? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.125.80.96 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 25 May 2007.
    Please have a look at the Simple English Wikipedia. utcursch | talk 06:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Informative primer. Useful for quick reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.141.125.170 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 25 May 2007.
    The "useful" argument is not given any weight. utcursch | talk 06:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete This is useful information in a nutshell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jai Maharaj (talk • contribs) 17:37, May 25, 2007
    Please see WP:USEFUL. utcursch | talk 06:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete: Without hinduism, there would have been no civilization, no other religions and no language and no progress in science. By keeping such articles, Wikipedia is doing a service to the community and helping to dispel the widely present misconceptions about this ancient Religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.181.100.141 (talk • contribs)
    Wikipedia is not meant to spread or dispel any conceptions/misconceptions, propaganda or advocacy. Please see WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. utcursch | talk 06:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, looks like it's covered in the base article. Sad that these discussions get spammed with unsigned don't delete votes because of their prominent listing on said WikiProject. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 05:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment LOL, All of the "Don't Delete" votes are by the same editor, probably the author of the article. Have you ever even heard of a single "Don't Delete" vote ever before? They aren't the result of any sad, or said, WikiProject, Phoenix dear. In addition, the same editor has removed four "Delete" votes, which you can find in the history. I suggest Speedy Delete and close this thing before anyone else gets confused. ॐ Priyanath talk 02:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete poorly sourced essay, unlikely search term. (I was thinking this had something to do with Primer (paint) and wondered why Hindus would use a different kind than Muslims or Christians???) cab 05:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NOT#OR Acidskater 07:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, OR, possibly retitle and base on reliable sources. Abeg92contribs 19:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well intentioned but obvious original research. Topic already covered in Hinduism and numerous other project articles. Abecedare 20:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsourced original research utcursch | talk 06:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  04:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The content is adequately mentioned in other Hinduism related pages. This article itself is Original Research and terribly written. GizzaChat © 09:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Clearly spam and duplicated from other articles. Anwar 13:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO not delete - it is informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.128.172.4 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete due to consensus that the sources presented are not sufficient, but I will create a redirect to Model Congress as that seems useful. W.marsh 17:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Legislative Assembly[edit]

Youth Legislative Assembly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable state student organization. It appears to be North Carolina's Model Congress and appears to have no real notability, especially notability that is established through reliable sources. Google brings up about 800 hits (500 when you add "North Carolina" to the search) but a lot seem to be school websites that sponsor the program and the programs website (which makes up a large bulk of the hits). Metros 04:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This is notable as per WP:ORG. Some secondary sources which I have used [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]. There are many more which can be found as well. Acidskater 04:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment none of these are A. in the article it appears or B. very reliable to confer notability. Link 1 is a passing mention in a state board of education minutes. Link 3 is a press release that only mentions this program in relation to another program. Link 4 doesn't work. Link 5 doesn't appear to be a reliable source at all. This only leaves link 2, the News Observer article which doesn't seem to confer too much notability other than to serve as a "go youth leaders!" piece that local papers tend to write about such conferences. As far as I can see, these do no add notability, nor does notability exist in the article (since these links only exist in this AFD and not in that article) nor are there any reliable sources in the article. Metros 05:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above Rackabello 04:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete References given above are inadequate as all but one only refer to subject in passing. No evidence that this passes WP:ORG. --Charlene 09:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:ORG: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found."  RGTraynor  16:52, 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. Natalie 08:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Fork Wineries[edit]

North Fork Wineries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems like advertising and a vantiy page Rackabello 04:29, 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. —— Eagle101Need help? 14:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty Morphin Red Sox Rangers[edit]

Mighty Morphin Red Sox Rangers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously deleted nonsense page, violates WP:MADEUP. Possibly meets speedy criteria Rackabello 04:25, 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, wp:csd#a7. ··coelacan 04:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

District 5[edit]

District 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Sources are missing, questionable notability - the band had no record contract and only self-released recordings, according to the article. A previous article about apparently the same band has been speedily deleted in December 2006. High on a tree 03:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC). PS: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Armstrong[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, wp:csd#a7. ··coelacan 04:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Armstrong[edit]

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

Sources are missing, notability is not established. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/District 5. High on a tree 03:53, 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 (►) 10:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelscoil na Daróige[edit]

Gaelscoil na Daróige (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reached the 2 week limit on WP:PNT, with no one stepping forward to do the translation. Per PNT, untranslated articles older than 2 weeks go to AfD. I suggest Delete unless someone steps up before closing, translates and demonstrates notability. AKRadecki 03:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment OK, so it's a Gaelic-language independent school in Derry, N.I. Seems stubbable if notable, regardless of translation. But the contact is a hotmail address, which doesn't inspire confidence. Passes WP:V, no indication it passes WP:N. --Dhartung | Talk 08:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice to re-creation; preferably under an English language title. The prescribed rites have been well and duly performed. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Technically, the Irish name as given is the officially recognized name of the school. Flowerpotman talk|contribs 03:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, article has been translated into English. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PNT. (Hey, that's the first time I've ever cited that in an AfD. Woohoo!)  RGTraynor  16:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I was all set to keep my Delete vote intact, especially when I popped over to the Irish Google and saw only 19 hits other than Wikipedia. The rub is that those 19 hits include a BBC radio piece about the school, a speech noted on the Sinn Fein website and an article in the Belfast Telegraph. That handily passes WP:V.  RGTraynor  07:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - would you mind adding the last 2 refs to the article? AKRadecki 14:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. No problem understanding the article and could translate it, but doubtful if it's notable. A Gaelscoil opened after active efforts when other Gaelscoils were too far away to attend and the children would have had to attend school in English if this school had not been created. JdeJ 19:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per JdeJ, unless there is more by way of notability provided. I can follow the gist of the article, but the school is still a primary school (or grade school). Flowerpotman talk|contribs 03:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral (or weak neutral, if such a view is possible). I'm not sure that it passes notability, but I'm not sure that it doesn't. Flowerpotman talk|contribs 00:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete I have translated the article! Lughlamhfhada 20:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • weak keep - As the article has now been translated, I'm striking my "delete" comment in the nom. While I disagree personally with the practice of viewing all schools as notable, I do respect the fact that there is a wider consensus that they are. Given that there's a wider political and linguistic/cultural aspect to this issue, it'd be nice if someone could find a ref or two - even local news coverage - for this school. AKRadecki 21:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am having a few technical problems with RealAudio tonight (in the sense of it not working), so I'm not quite sure of the content, but there is an audio archive of a piece done on the school for the Mark Patterson show on BBC Radio Foyle, the local BBC radio station. There's a list of archive pieces for the show here, with the Gaelscoil Na Daroige link half-way down the page. (RealAudio link here). I can't find any other online references as yet, but I'm sure there must be somewhere. Flowerpotman talk|contribs 22:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks...I've added it to the EL section of the article. AKRadecki 22:42, 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. PeaceNT 18:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tantric sexuality[edit]

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

Article is original research. Reads like an essay. No inline citations. Delete TheRingess (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tantra, like Tantric sex does. Confusing Manifestation 03:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title of the article refers to a minority form of sexuality or sexual expression which I believe requires inline citation. The existing article, Neotantra is the preferred title for a synonymous subject. If Redirect is a preferred solution, redirect to Neotantra. -Vritti 04:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TheRingess and Vritti. IPSOS (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possibly rename to Tantra (sex). Both the Neotantra and the Tantra articles concentrate on the overall belief systems found in, for example, Hinduism. There is a growing trend (e.g. on sex forums and dating sites) for people to talk about tantric or tantra sex. They are meaning something distinct, seperate and identifiable from Tantra and there should be an article in this encyclopedia that explains what that is. (I don't say the current text is good or correct but that is another matter.) --Interesdom 06:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The statement that "there is a growing trend..." is itself original research. Who is studying this growing trend? Where have their studies been published? In other words, is there a reliable source for that statement? Without reliable sources, then what you seem to be describing is just another non notable neologism.TheRingess (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who is studying it, indeed. --Dhartung | Talk 08:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I wasn't referring to the term itself, I was asking who is studying the "growing trend".TheRingess (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Well, Interesdom may be unaware that the "trend" has been around since the 1970s. There has been a notable shift toward the mainstream in recent years, though. I don't know if anyone has studied that.--Dhartung | Talk 21:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and the current title is probably the "most common" in English per WP:NC. There are 75 books that reference the phrase, and 587 using "tantric sex", including The Complete Idiot's Guide to Tantric Sex, so this is not a non-notable or obscure concept. I have never heard of neotantra and that article in fact reads like a criticism section that belongs in tantric sexuality, i.e. some attempt to reclaim the true religious practice in a Western context. In any case, it's certainly more obscure than tantric sex, which is discussed in books, newspapers, television and radio, even if the name is inaccurate according to Hindu tradition. This article does not have inline citations, but it does have references, and asking for those references to be incorporated into the article according to 2007 Wikipedia norms is certainly welcome. But deleting the article on that basis is not warranted. --Dhartung | Talk 08:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I think the ideal solution would be to merge this article and neotantra into an article title "Tantric sex" dealing with the common use of "tantra" as it exists in Western cultures. Having Tantric sex redirect to tantra is just confusing to most English speakers looking for information on "sacred sex". Gimme danger 13:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/rename as suggested above. I too find the redirect from Tantric sex to Tantra as being a little confusing and counterintuitive to what most people are expecting to find. The information here and from Neotantra should indeed be merged under the title of Tantric sex, along with some cleanup to meet standards. But it would make more sense in the context of what people are likely to be searching for. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8Keep Tantra has a much broader meaning; I think the merge and rename has merits, but the that can be discussed on the article talk pages after we decide to keep this article. There might be a purpose in separating the traditional practices from the popularized Western version. 03:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

  • Keep as per Gimme danger and previous anonymous. Above all, Tibetan and Hindu tantra should be kept distinct from their counterpart in Western popular culture, although they are somehow related. The former are complex enough on their own and merging would make it even more difficult to address them appropriately. Stammer 08:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - a lot of people seem to be misinterpreting the suggestions to merge. No one has suggested merging this with Tantra, and in fact myself (and others) have suggested putting this all under Tantric sex and merging it with Neotantra, while severing the current redirect that Tantric sex has to Tantra. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are two distinct redirect proposals here, one by Confusing Manifestation, the other by Vritti. The former should imo be avoided. As for the latter, it implicitly identifies the subject matter of this article with Neotantra. Now, there is a sexual aspect both in Tantra and in Neotantra, so that it may be argued that such an identification is inaccurate. Ideally, from my point of view, the current article should be modified so as to provide informed disambiguation, pointing out the roles of tantric and neotantric sexual practices in different contexts. Actually sexual practices in Tibetan Tantra are a quite controversial subject on their own. Stammer 06:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per comment by Arkyan. JJL 02:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 500ghits to 7million+ for tantra means this is not notable.Bakaman 20:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I get 27,600 for "tantric sexuality" and 360,000 for tantric sex. Further, see Dhartung's citations from actual books above. Or you could try searching Amazon, where you'd find dozens of recent books on the topic. William Pietri 11:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a possible merge to some other article on tantric sex. No merge to tantra, though, any more than we should merge Missionary position with Missionary. William Pietri 11:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the valid points made by Dhartung and Stammer above. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important and valuable entry. Perhaps a merge is in order. Bradybd 07:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Neil (►) 10:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woodrow Landfair[edit]

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

Orignially tagged for CSD, creator improperly removed CSD tag, but article does weakly assert notabiltiy, therefore AfD is better than CSD. Personally, I feel that this fails our biographical notability standards, so I'm suggesting delete. AKRadecki 03:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the additional sourcing, I'm striking my delete comment. If consensus to keep continues to build, I'll rescind the nom. AKRadecki 04:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message. Greatwalk is right. I'm still learning how to do this. I still can't find a way to return your message to me! Guess I'll be on the help page. Thanks.
Thanks, Akradecki. I appreciate your response very much. Warm regards, --Greatwalk Talk 04:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose this relevant and think it should remain. Danjmoore 04:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danjmoore (talk · contribs) is the primary author of the article, and has no edits outside of it or this AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 23:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an article about an author that is well sourced and does meet WP notability guidelines. On a side note, this article has been authored by a brand new editor with no prior contributions. Danjmoore is still having difficulty tagging and including uploaded images on the page, for example. Using a sandbox to develop a new article is not a transparent process to new editors, no matter how familiar the concept is to others. Also, no prior welcome had been included, nor any offer to assist made. I don't really feel that an AfD was an appropriate way to welcome this new editor. Unfortunate, really. Kind regards, --Greatwalk Talk 04:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. I would be convinced if one of his works got published, but until then I don't think he meets standards for notability. I would laso like ot point out that the Keep votes by "JohnofAmerica" (unsigned) and "Hornsfannationalchamps" are these users only edits. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the references provided do not do much to establish notability. They constitute listings of the baseball roster in which he played, or blog mentions, or notices of coffee-house appearances. There is only the Austin American Statesman article if we count sources in which he's the primary substantive topic. This is interesting, but far from unique. --Dhartung | Talk 23:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still working on getting all my sources together for this. I have stuff from the Washington Post, Couer d'Alene Press, Bismarck Tribune and some print sources that I'm still trying to learn to cite. Bear with me. Thanks for the comments on all sides. No matter which verdict is decided, it's helping me learn how to do this. Learning the hard way I guess.Danjmoore 03:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do I do with newspaper articles that are no longer on the internet?Danjmoore 03:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference them as you would a book or newspaper in a research paper. For resources, see WP:CITET and WP:FN. AKRadecki 05:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added some references and have some more to do. Hope these will meet notability standards. Should be able to source more in the next two weeks. Thank you for all the insight. Please continue to let me know if and how this falls short.Danjmoore 15:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and sprinkle liberally with {{fact}} tags. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with regrets. As interesting the story and the character, there is not enough here to get over the wp:bio bar. The references are somewhat lacking, being mostly blogs, small local human interests, etc. However, I am on the fence on this one and would not be surprised that once the Woodrow's journey is complete, his book published, maybe a little more notable, it would be a keeper. To the contributor, I encourage you to copy your work with all formatting and store it on your hard-drive or a place like blogspot.com (where you can still have links hook up to wikipedia). Hopefully no hard feelings...—Gaff ταλκ 23:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps one of our experienced editors or admins could help the contributor "userfy" this page for further work if it is deleted? Or would this be a violation of userspace rules?—Gaff ταλκ 00:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 13:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colby katz[edit]

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

Sources are missing (except for the last paragraph which is a copyvio from colbykatz.com -> 'About'), NPOV issues, and notability is not established - it is not specified where exactly her photographs have appeared, and how much fame in the photography world does it imply to be one of about 70 winners of the "Emerging Photographers 2006" competition of the Magenta foundation? High on a tree 03:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. POV problems, notability not established. -- Mikeblas 11:24, 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 speedy delete. Sr13 07:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Bocanegra[edit]

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

No sources, questionable notability ("drummer of the year" in some local competition does not suffice IMHO) High on a tree 02:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, speedily; the competition itself only gets one google hit for me. -- phoebe/(talk) 03:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy del- per csd-A1. Non-notability is just another reason. -=Elfin=-341 06:46, 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. Sr13 00:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jindo 3D[edit]

Jindo 3D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable game engine. Only manages 100 Google hits and is only used by one game. No third-party sources explaining the features of the engine. Scottie_theNerd 02:44, 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 as completely lacking notability. Sr13 07:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Gaddy[edit]

John C. Gaddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not conform to WP:BIO. Skiasaurus 02:23, 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 with Black British, of which it is supposedly a subset. I'm redirecting; merging can be done from the history, but only with reliable sources for this term, please (see WP:V). Sandstein 19:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

African British[edit]

AfDs for this article:
African British (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completing an improperly listed deletion debate by User:Fclass. Personally, I abstain myself; I'm just helping out in maintenance. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is irrelevant. The term is not used in the U.K. There's no source for it's use except a poll. A poll? Come on. This article needs to go.Fclass 03:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Black British then, which seems to have the stronger usage and mentions the recent preference of "African British". Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As other posters have pointed out, nobody says 'African British' in Britain. The term just doesn't exist in common usage at all. Nick mallory 04:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Nick mallory. --Interesdom 06:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm leaning towards a "delete" vote rather than "redirect", as I see no reason why article space should be filled up with redirects which promote American-style neologisms for ethnic minority populations, the category system already does quite enough of that, thank you very much. However, this term does have 41,000 GHits [46] and many of them actually seem to be about the population in question cab 07:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Black British. In the "Black British" it is noted that "The term African British has grown in popularity as an expression used to describe Black British people of specifically African ancestry. In 2005 a poll conducted by Blacknet revealed that African British was the most popular term (40%) for referring to people of African descent in the United Kingdom. Also in a poll carried out by Afford (African Foundation for Development) 50% of respondents agreed that African British should be the term adopted." If this is so, and still nobody actually uses it in daily life, this is in itself a noteworthy phenomenon. Anyway, in practice the two articles are very much overlapping, and people seeking the information in the one are likely also to be helped by the information in the other. Andreas Kaganov 13:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article says it is for Black British with direct African antecedents, as opposed to Caribbean or Asian. A Google search shows referencing this usage is extremely easy, with 44,100 ghits here, including academic books & all sorts of mentions. The subject is hardly covered in Black British & sufficiently distinct. Both articles should cover the trend to use the term to cover those with Caribbean heritage as well, but this is not the meaning currently covered in the article, and best dealt with at Black British. Johnbod 17:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Black British. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 00:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs featured on The Office (US TV series)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of songs featured on The Office (US TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The previous AfD on this song listed closed as "no consensus". DRV overturned narrowly that closure for a variety of reasons, including the conflicting result of the UK version of the Office songlist AfD, which resulted in deleted. The matter is returned to AfD for new consideration. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep and I respectfully disagree with Xoloz's interpretation that there was any sort of agreement at DRV for overturning this and relisting. This was overturned on the grounds that, among other things, the companion list for the UK was deleted. I am not convinced the parallel is sufficient. While critically acclaimed, the UK series only ran for something like 12 episodes. The US show is considerably more popular. This information is fairly easily verifiable, what's more it's accurate. As pointed out in the first discussion, the music is integral to the show. As such the list is not "indiscriminate" or "loosely related" and again, I gently encourage people to look up the word indiscriminate in a dictionary before citing it as justifciation. Also, the notion of precedence is not ironclad -- a list about The O.C. was kept at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_in_The_O.C. I wouldn't argue that the music of The Office is as integral as the music of The O.C., but there is in fact a precedence to keep such lists. Finally, per WP:LIST this is good for both information and navigation. --JayHenry 02:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for the same reason I nominated it in the first place, Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. These songs have nothing in common beyond happening to have been used in an episode of a TV series. I don't believe that it's integral to the series that, for instance, "Jingle Bells" was heard at the office Christmas Party in episode 16 instead of, for instance, "Grandma Got Run Over By a Reindeer" or "Rockin' Around the Christmas Tree" or that the show would have been markedly different had "Brick House" been playing at Hooters in episode 18 instead of "Tempted." The article itself notes that the songs are "background music" which argues against their supposed vital role in the series and that they are "difficult to identify," meaning there are WP:V and WP:OR problems. This is no different from the deleted list of songs played at the Bada Bing club. As far as precedent goes with the keeping of the O.C. article, precedent is stronger for deleting this sort of article, with the deletion of the aforementioned Bada Bing list, the list for the UK Office, the list for House, the list for Skins and other recently deleted song lists for things like having a title with a phone number in it. Otto4711 04:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can we get rid of this thing already? The songs should be included in the articles for the individual episodes. This list, like the similar lists that have already been deleted, is a nonnotable intersection of topics. Deor 05:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can appreciate both that this show is quite popular, and notable, and that the music may be "integral" to the show (though I haven't seen a sourced claim to that effect, it is a feasible claim). However, neither of those is a reason this information cannot be presented within the main article. Further, being "integral" to a notable TV show does not, itself, make a list of songs notable. No argument has yet convinced me that this information requires its own article. Charlie 08:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Otto4711 above. If necessary the soundtrack can be noted in individual episode articles. Hut 8.5 10:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Charlie Gimme danger 13:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it amounts to nothing more than a non-encyclopedia trivia list. Tarc 15:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT as mentioned above. What songs were heard/hummed/sung over the course of the series is neither pertinent to the information about the series, nor is it encyclopedic information. I disagree th at this info can be moved back in to the parent article, it is no more useful or encyclopedic there than it is sticking out here on its own. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jay Henry. Matthew 10:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if the songs are soooooo important, squeeze them into the article and delete some of the less important stuff to make room if necessary. Carlossuarez46 17:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no encyclopaedic subject "songs featured on The Office", the basis for the list is indiscriminate. The term "featured" is also problematic: songs on a soundtrack are not necessarily integral with or even related to the plot, they can just be background, we'd need a reliable source for these featuring rather than just being played. Guy (Help!) 17:43, 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 keep by means of withdrawn nom. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charismatic megafauna[edit]

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

This is simply a dic def. The entire article is simply OR with no prospect of ever becoming a fully fledged article. Delete and Transwiki. BlueValour 01:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Plenty of room to expand into discussion of what makes the charismatic megafauna so appealing and how their appeal has been leveraged. Hesperian 01:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the snag is that I have found no sources that would enable this to be done, apart from one or two blogs. If this can be properly sourced up then I should be happy to withdraw the nom. BlueValour 01:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many relevant sources might not use the words 'charismatic megafauna', but still be talking about the idea. The way, the truth, and the light 01:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, then the article should be titled in a compatible way with those sources. At the moment the second paragraph is OR as the speculation of an editor.BlueValour 01:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added a Further Reading section with two scholarly articles on the concept of charismatic megafauna, both of which use the name in their titles. Hesperian 01:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now four articles. Hesperian 01:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Widely used term; should be expanded to cite specific examples of use such as polar bears and global warming. The way, the truth, and the light 01:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as nomination withdrawn - sufficient sources have been added to show that this is expandable. BlueValour 01:56, 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. Sr13 00:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire Derby[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Yorkshire Derby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The previous AfD on this matter was closed as "no consensus". DRV overturned, concerned that policy, especially WP:V, had not been properly weighed. Despite the overturning, there was not sufficient consensus to delete the page outright at DRV, so the matter is referred to AfD again. This is procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Rename This appears to be just two words that happen to appear in a particular order from time to time, not a separate concept. In this order, "Yorkshire" means whatever the author usually takes it to mean, unless it is modified as in "West Yorkshire derby". And "derby" has its usual meaning. Even if it was a separate term with a distinct meaning, Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms#Reliable sources for neologisms (a guideline) says "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." I searched on google, looking for any occurance of the phrase in a secondary source, and found none. One of the searches I did is this one; I also tried Google Books and Google scholar. I believe that no secondary sources on the term exist, thus we should not have an article on the term. It may be appropriate to have a List of derbys in Yorkshire, although I can't see why we need one. GRBerry 01:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:V as the term Yorkshire Derby is unsourced. Further, this remains indiscriminate information. Even 'Yorkshire' is undefined. Does it include just the former counties of North, South and West Yorkshire which would exclude the football teams Middlesbrough and Hull City or the long defunct traditional county that would include those? And of course the list of sports and clubs is unlimited. For example I can source a passing reference to Sheffield Hallam Civica against Harrogate as a 'Yorkshire derby' in Men's Hockey here but so what? Finally, we already have Local derbies in the United Kingdom where those derbies that are actually notable can reside. TerriersFan 02:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually looked for sources at the time of the previous AFD discussion. I couldn't find any that actually delineated a concept of a "Yorkshire derby". There is at least one question that this article would need to answer: What defines a derby as specifically a Yorkshire derby? There are no sources that I can find that actually answer that question. The only way to answer that question is apparently for Wikipedia editors to perform original research, inferring what a Yorkshire derby is by collecting together all of the things that have been called "Yorkshire derby" and trying to synthesize a definition of the concept from those raw data. That's exactly what the article at hand is doing. Wikipedia isn't the place for such original research. This concept hasn't been properly documented yet and here is not the place to be documenting it for the first time. Delete. Uncle G 02:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. Unschool 04:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not needed, all the events it describes have their own articles anyway, it doesn't tell you anything special. Alphablast 16:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Local derbies in the United Kingdom. Oldelpaso 12:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:V and WP:NEO. BlueValour 17:37, 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 speedy delete as collection of external links only. Created in a misguided attempt to shove linkspam from one legitimate article to another, which is really not WP:EL proscribes. Resurgent insurgent 02:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phase Converter Manufacturers[edit]

Phase Converter Manufacturers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A directory of external links; probably proddable, but she's got quite the history on her. And has already been prodded twice. RTucker 01:12, 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 snowball delete. Purely redundant. Sr13 07:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man Film Series Rogue Gallery[edit]

Spider-Man Film Series Rogue Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete awkwardly named and incorrectly capitalized new article that is redundant to the films' articles and wholly useless. Doczilla 00:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Doczilla 00:59, 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< 10:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All About Ya'll (album)[edit]

All About Ya'll (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page contains no certifiable information on a future album from Josh Gracin. I do know that the album's release date has been repeatedly pushed back. I can find no reliable sources that say anything about it, other than the fact that two singles have been released from it. I had a speedy on this but someone contested it. (Furthermore, the apostrophe should be after the Y, not after the A.) Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:56, 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, Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While there's no doubt to be a future album, that it keeps getting pushed back tells me of some mild crystalballery. I say delete it, and when we actually have a release date and/or a track list set in stone, then we can put it in. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete'. There are no sources for the assertations, and the wording is pretty awkward. When there's any real info about it, a new article should be started with the proper apostrophe use. Sci girl 02:24, 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 keep, nomination withdrawn per rewrite. Arkyan &#149; (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury University of the Seychelles[edit]

Canterbury University of the Seychelles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

[Nomination revised below.] Reads a bit spammy. Is it notable? -- RHaworth 00:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Reads as an advert and is very possibly phrased so as to mislead. See, for instance, [47], which lists Canterbury University under "list of unaccredited degree suppliers is maintained by ODA for the protection of the citizens of Oregon and their post-secondary schools by identifying those degree suppliers that do not meet the requirements of ORS 348.609(1)." See also Diploma mill. Finally note [48]which lists other occurances of CUotS and which may be similar attempts to persuade readers that the mill is legit. --Tagishsimon (talk)
  • Delete per concerns raised by User:Tagishsimon. Seems like a diploma mill's trying to make itself seem more notable than it really is. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rewrite. Article is still a stub, but at least by now, notability is asserted by means of reliable sources. Kudos to User:Tagishsimon for improving the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong/Speedy Delete This is a fraud-university add, see this guardian article. There is no real university (only a learning institution), it is not accredited, it is in Cheshire, England (while the city of Canterbury is in Kent and has no university of that name), the Seychelles part seems to be for legal reasons at best. There are no references, no links, no google hits for this institution besides WP-articles and I couldn't find it at the Seychelles department of education website. It only exists to screw foreign students. Thanks to the nom for reporting that s@#t! Malc82 01:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I have rewritten the article, it is now properly referenced and, I think, balanced. I think it is probably notable enough to stay; and by doing so it might achieve a useful purpose. It is, needless to say, on my watch-list. --Tagishsimon (talk)
    • Comment With the complete rewrite to a "diploma mill"-article, my former comments are of course obsolete. I will also include it to my watchlist. Malc82 01:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in its rewritten form (see comment above). Malc82 01:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wow. This is one of the worst spamming backfires I've seen here yet. I endorse keeping the article in its present form, but it will have to be watched carefully for evidence of respamification. Also, someone should stare at the present version for a while and figure out how to say, "Major educational watchdogs seem to think they're crooks," in an NPOV-sounding way. Do it for Jimbo. --Dynaflow babble 02:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never mind. I stared at it for a few minutes and then NPOV'ed it as well as possible [49], given the subject matter. The article should now satisfy WP:NPOV, WP:NOTE, and WP:V easily. --Dynaflow babble 03:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (revised view of nominator). Certainly this revised state is totally acceptable. My only reservation is that we should deny recognition altogether - is it notorious enough to qualify? -- RHaworth 11:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I share your concern about notability. But I have decided to be an inclusionist on this one, not least since I do not think there is any real competition for the Canterbury University of the Seychelles namespace, because the original author claimed that 10k poor souls were currently in process of procuring worthless paper degrees, and as a public service, because our CUotS article rates so highly in Google. It is also an object lesson for spammers. On the other hand many of my arguments have little to do with objective notability, and I suspect we've just created a troll magnet. -Tagishsimon (talk)
    • Comment It shouldn't be that hard to keep this article clean if only all contributors of this AfD-project keep it on their watchlist. If there are thousands of screwed "students" and several newspaper articles, I think it meets notability guidelines. Malc82 14:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Spammers aren't out for recognition; they're here to make their companies look good. This spammer has fallen down rather badly, and I don't think WP:DENY will hold true here. If anything, it trumpets that "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" is not as safe a place for spam as one would think. --Dynaflow babble 15:28, 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 G11. Sr13 02:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propeller Island City Lodge Hotel[edit]

Propeller Island City Lodge Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete nn hotel, only source is its website, no more google hits than would be expected of any hotel in a large city -- mostly travel sites inviting you to book at this hotel among others. Carlossuarez46 00:55, 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, hoax. Herostratus 04:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heart sweater[edit]

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

No g-hits for song or for either group that released it. Previously prodded and contested. Kathy A. 00:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Only ghit for that quote (something about your heart being a sweater?) is right here on Wikipedia, I'm calling WP:HOAX. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure OR. Unschool 04:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only Google results for the band name is this article. Hoax. Maxamegalon2000 04:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an obvious fabrication. -- Mikeblas 11:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No google hits besides us for Heart sweater Laser Thunds and the article sounds made up. In short it's a hoax --St.daniel Talk 11:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. A band called the Laser-Thunds in 1955? According to Laser, "The term 'laser' was first introduced to the public in Gould's 1959 conference paper 'The LASER, Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation'". Do I see a snowball? Deor 15:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ASAP. Tayquan hollaMy work 18:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as this is snowballing with good reason (delete per all of the above). GoodnightmushTalk 02:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 21:03, 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 speedy delete per G11 and A7. Sr13 02:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Gran Almirante[edit]

Hotel Gran Almirante (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy. This is about a hotel in the Dominican Republic. Unsourced, doesn't seem notable. --Finngall talk 00:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete G11 (spam). So tagged. With a line like "It is a five star hotel with excellent facilities for it visitors. It have a Casino in the front part, with excellent games, so you can enjoy it", and its description as being important due to the use by government dignitaries, it's pretty hard to not call this a promotional article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete spam for a nn upscale hotel. Carlossuarez46 00:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carlossuarez46. JJL 02:27, 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< 10:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Park Lane - Investment Banking Services[edit]

Park Lane - Investment Banking Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Originally a contested speedy as spam. Article has been rewritten to be less of an ad, but still uses first person. No sources to show notability per WP:CORP. Original two editors only edits were only to this article, so there appears to be a conflict of interest here. DarkAudit 16:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:CORP with a strong element of conflict of interest and spam. Hut 8.5 16:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. May be run by a notable individual, but no indication it is itself. Ohconfucius 16:00, 20 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, Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:34, 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. John254 15:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Champions League 2008-09[edit]

UEFA Champions League 2008-09 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Purgatory Fubar Converse or Snafu 20:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep-I'll grant that I'm not familiar with the workings of this tournament, but unless I'm mistaken, the 06-07 has just concluded, meaning this article is about the one after the next. That doesn't seem too far ahead to me.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with the above comment Doc13mets 21:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's safe to assume that this will take place whether under the current format or a different format. Kingjeff 21:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above reasons. *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 01:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Actually, the next edition would be UEFA Champions League 2007-08; but, the final stadium for the 2008/09 season is apparently decided so, no crystal-balls. Neier 03:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Perhaps a bit ahead of its time, but since the stadium has been decided it may as well stay. Barring any major disasters (such as WWI or WWII), the event will take place, thus more likely than the next Olympics or the next presidential elections in the US.JdeJ 05:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but you don't need crystal to predict the UEFA Champions League, one of (if not the) biggest club soccer tournaments in the world. It will happen, so it needs an article. G1ggy! 11:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This event will be taking place, and the article will just get re-created in a few months if it's deleted now. Acalamari 21:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The only question is with Platini as President, what format will he try and impose for the competition. We all know that it will happen one way or another. Kingjeff 21:43, 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. W.marsh 20:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deal TV[edit]

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

No sources to indicate that this is at all notable, despite being tagged for notability since April. Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per apparent notability established within article. Matthew 10:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand; to what notability are you referring? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless credible sources can be provided to establish credibiltiy. --JayJasper 19:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless and untill reliable sources can be found to establish notability. A quick google search finds the official website, a directory entry and lots of irrelevant hits. Eluchil404 20:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as insufficiently notable. No non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources.[50] -- Satori Son 15:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sr13 00:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of British politicians[edit]

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

Delete This list is far too ambitious in its scope, and currently includes only a rather poor and unrepresentative subset of British politicians. Wikipedia already has articles on several thousand British Members of Parliament, and total number of people who have British MPs since the Act of Union 1707 probably exceeds 10,000; and many notable politicians have not been MPs, and have achieved prominence through the House of Lords or in local government, so if this list was complete, it would probably have cover more than 15,000 people.

So there is no point in trying to improve this list; it is simply far too broad in scope, and will only ever be an eclectic collection of politicians. The same material would be better approached by creating further lists of MPs (see Category:Lists of British MPs), and by adding additional lists of particular types of politician, for example of Cabinet ministers --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If anything BHG is overgenerous to this list - since every one of those estimated 10,000 MPs has (generally) had at least two serious competitors in every election, plus assorted Lords, lobbyists, even bishops in the UK system, I'd estimate at a minimum 30,000 serious candidates for this list - and that's before we get into the assorted local authority leaders, mayors, party chairs, unelected ministers - a thousand years of history adds up to a lot of political hacks and chairwarmers. This works fine as a category as it's self-limiting in that only those people who pass WP:N appear - otherwise, this list has the potential to be totally and irredeemably unmanageable; the only way it could be useful is if sorted into an arbitrary "order of importance" which would probably violate NPOV and still be unmanageable — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and organize this material as BrownHairedGirl suggests.DGG 03:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this list could in theory list every British politician since the Roman times - it would be almost infinite. Dovea 16:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - This list is much too ambitious in scope. In any event, lists of this kind are much better as categories. The only merit in having them as lists is that lists can contain red links, thus identifying articles that may be needed. Peterkingiron 22:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the commenters above, too broad of a list to be useful. We should use categories and subcategories in this situation. Yamaguchi先生 07:06, 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 keep. Sr13 00:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Brown (sex worker) (second nomination)[edit]

Previous vfd:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divine Brown

This seems to be a person whose fifteen minutes of fame came when she was arrested in the company of English Hollywood actor Hugh Grant in Los Angeles. Some minor exploitation followed by nothing seems to have come of it. I suggest that if nothng major turns up over the next few days we just treat this as a redirect to the relevant section of the Hugh Grant article. --Tony Sidaway 23:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've got 11 hits on google books and 30 on google scholar. Several of the papers are focused on sex work and media coverage, and seem to talk about her in the aftermath, not just as a footnote to hugh grant. She's her own woman who parleyed one event with a celebrity into a measure of her own fame now. Subject of multiple documentary films should be enough for most people. I wouldn't call $1.6 million some minor exploitation, especially when she kept putting herself on tv for years. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - I doubt there's a major news source on the planet that hasn't covered her. I don't see how you can pass WP:N any more strongly. Notability is permanent — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. It's granted that her only claim to fame is being a prostitute that Hugh Grant hired, but that is her claim to fame - and a side effect of Hugh Grant's... um, adventures through media-land due to this is that now she is notable as well, if only because of the coverage this affair received. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. I look forward to seeing the currently very thin article expanded with accounts of her notable non-Grant related exploits since 1995. --Tony Sidaway 00:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • By the looks of things, Tony, it looks like the article already contains some of this - and in this case, other users are right: notability doesn't just go away. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. George Bush is only notable for being President. When his 8 years are up, I expect you'll nominate his article for deletion. Actually I don't. What I really expect is that you'll continue to flag for deletion any article about a prostitute, since that seems to be your MO. Ikilled007 00:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assumed good faith on the last article he nominated for deletion until he admitted that not only had he not read the policies, he didn't and doesn't care what they say and that his opinion was more important than any consensus. You can see it for yourself here: [[51]]. So my assumption of good faith was overturned by the fact that it's not good faith. Sorry. Ikilled007 05:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even so, let's keep that argument out of here, 'k? It hedges dangerously close to being a dick. Granted, but two wrongs don't make a right. Just take it privately. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not just notable for the oral sex incident. She also went on talk shows and made millions for her appearances. This makes her a minor celebrity. -N 01:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes "involvement in news events" criterion of WP:N, and notability does not expire. Continues to be referenced in the news in relation to that event: see current Google News results. --Dhartung | Talk 04:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't agree with "so-and-so is only famous because..." nominations - the person is famous, that's notable. The article's short and stubby, but that's not a great reason for deletion either. --Canley 11:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seemingly bad-faith nom that clearly does not meet community standards. Please remember that notability does not expire. If independent, verifiable sources exist, there should be an article about the subject. This is the case with Divine Brown, and therefore the article should be kept. DickClarkMises 13:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's true that her fame originally came from one incident, and if it had been confined to that, I would back a section in Hugh Grant's article and no more. Also, if she were being exploited from this, I could see backing a deletion out of basic human decency. However she has since appeared in a number of things independent from Grant, and has been exploiting her own fame for as much (little?) as it is worth, so neither of those apply. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable and verifiable. --Myles Long 16:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we keep notable sex scandal participants: Monica Lewinsky, etc. Carlossuarez46 17:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep significant media coverage, when a newspaper that covers Bombay India gets this story in it... she deserves an article.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd love to withdraw this nomination, but I just can't see much outside the Hugh Grant arrest. Here's what I mean. I look at the statements about the things she's done before or since, and then I look to see the references in the article. At present this is all I see:
    1. a reference to a book by Matthew Lippman in which apparently her subsequent arrest on minor charges is documented
    2. a reference to a website called rotten.com, which describes it mission as "collects images and information from many sources to present the viewer with a truly unpleasant experience." Is this what we call a reliable source? I think I hope the answer is "no".
    3. A link to a PDF file published by City Hall, a small independent music publisher (I can't find anything on Wikipedia about these people but this doesn't necessarily mean they're not well established) On page 20 of that PDF file is an item about a DVD about "the story leading up to her arrest with actor Hugh Grant and what happened after her arrest. Which brings us back to the Hugh Grant connection again.
    • I also note that the article contains many unsourced statements, which if this article is kept I shall remove (Biographies of living persons).
    • Now none of this is to denigrate Ms Brown. Contrary to what has been implied elsewhere on this AfD, I don't have some moral bug up my ass about prostitutes, and those who know me well from the admins channel will be well aware of this.
    • No, my problem here goes somewhat to the heart of Wikipedia is supposed to be: an encyclopedia. The references we have, such as they are reliable and demonstrate something of encyclopedic worth, do not corroborate any significant biographical information except her arrest with Hugh Grant and, eleven years later, her appearance in a DVD about the incident. This is why I think that, on balance, it may still be worth turning this into a redirect to Hugh Grant. There's nothing much else to write about her.
    • So I'll not withdraw this yet, I'll await developments on the article itself. If in a short time I see sourced evidence of something more significant and unrelated to Hugh Grant, then I'll change my mind.
    • And finally, thank you to those who have worked on the article so far. It is better than it was when I turned it into a redirect the other day. --Tony Sidaway 18:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as the name does keep coming up. JJL 03:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for many reasons stated above. Weatherman90 15:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per commenters above, as subject has exploited her own fame similar to Monica Lewinsky which is also passable under WP:BIO guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 07:03, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_24&oldid=1081100890"