Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 24 May 26 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliquary (band)[edit]

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

No sources indicating band is notable Mwelch 00:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article cites no sources indicating that the band is notable per WP:BAND. Mwelch 00:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm actually a bit of a fan but they don't satisfy WP:BAND. CIreland 06:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No non trivial sources to be found. A1octopus 23:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indietronica[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. Can find no reliable sources about "Indietronica" or any of the terms that redirect here (listed in the article's intro) Merzbow 23:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable, unreferenced neologism i.e. protologism. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful music genre name. --Brz7 09:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the article to survive this AfD, reliable sources must be added to demonstrate the term's notability. (Strong Bad's email is not a reliable source). I looked around for 30 minutes on Google, findarticles.com, etc., and found absolutely nothing. The term is not used by music critics, is not used by bands; in other words, it is completely non-notable. - Merzbow 16:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like indie rock, indie pop, indie electronic is used by music listeners and music critics (not artists, they don't like to tag their own music) to refer to indie music with electronic influences. I found many articles on e.g. allmusic.com ([1]) which is edited by music critics. So maybe it would be the best to make Indie electronic (being a lot more notable than indietronica), the main article - just like indie pop/rock. --Brz7 21:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Indie electronic" alone has more promise, but I still don't see any articles about the term, just articles that use the term. Per WP:NEO: "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". - Merzbow 22:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unrefernced, original research and non-notable. Were this a notable term it would be in common use throughout the music press and easy to reference. But since this isn't the case, it's not notable. And, in response to the above useful is not the same as notable. A1octopus 23:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above arguments. This is pretty clearly a neologism that has yet to achieve sufficient widespread use.--Kubigula (talk) 04:24, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore James "T.J." Detweiler[edit]

Theodore James "T.J." Detweiler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Uncategorized orphan stub on a character from the TV show Recess. Not even close to having enough content to stand out on its own; furthermore, this is already covered at Recess (TV series). Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 23:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. I can't find a speedy category, as he is fictional character. A real person with that article would be a clear speedy. Stifle (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete A7 -- lucasbfr talk 08:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Mercenario Clan[edit]

Spanish Mercenario Clan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I can't put it into words but my gut tells me this shouldn't be here Postcard Cathy 23:27, 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 No consensus and therefore the article will be kept. DES (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Williams Hearn[edit]

Gloria Williams Hearn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Failed congressional candidate; received an award from an educators group once. Neither seems to meet WP:BIO. Mwelch 23:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. For those who feel that a losing major party congressional candidate should automatically be considered WP:N, that would be reason to vote "keep" here. That question has come up four times on WP:BIO. Each time, most opinions were that such individuals should not be considered automatically notable. But there have been a few contrarian opinions who have argued that surely there must be plenty of sources available on such people, so notability should be assumed. I, however, am with the majority, and this subject would be a prime example of why. The election was just last year, but as far as sources go, there still doesn't seem to be much of anything out there about her that's both independent of her (i.e. not from her campaign or from the Democratic party backing her) and non-trivial. Lots of pre-election articles that say "longtime educator Gloria Williams Hearn is running" but really nothing more about her than that. Lots of post-election articles that just list the election results (she lost 67% to 31%) but nothing more about her than that. About the best I've found is this article, which mentions her briefly to say that she was not a serious challenger, but basically was an unknown that was just all the Democrats could scrape up in that race. The article about her that's referenced in this Wikipedia article has nothing to do with her congressional run, but rather is from an educator's magazine, and is about how she given a significant educator's award for her good work over her career. Laudable, but not WP:N. At least that article's coverage of her is actually non-trivial, though. That's more than I can say for any other independent sources I see about her, so maybe that counts for something. Mwelch 23:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had been inclined to vote to keep for the precise reason you anticipated. You have changed my mind. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As one of the "contrarians", I emphasize the status of being the major-party nominee. It's not so much that a reader would say, "I saw a reference to Gloria Williams Hearn, who is she?". It's more like, "I know that Rodney Alexander was re-elected in 2006, but I want to find out what I can about his challenger." It's valuable for Wikipedia to have a complete record in this respect. I suspect there's more information available in local newspapers that aren't online, but even without that, I favor keeping. JamesMLane t c 07:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per james.--The Joke النكتة‎ 17:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the winners' or election article.Stellatomailing 15:19, 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. 
DES (talk) 19:19, 31 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 21:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sai Gunturi[edit]

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

I have received a request from Sai that his entry be here deleted, I am not sure how Wikipedia usually handles BLP requests like this, but since notability is questionable for Sai in the first place (only one notable event related to him and he is already listed in the National Spelling Bee aricle). I hope that this entry can be deleted without too much hubub. If there is a problem with this line of reasoning, I hope that someone can come up with something that satisfies all parties.-Cronholm144 10:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think twinkle killed the old debate, I don't want to break the system further, so could someone move this to WP:AFD Sai Gunturi 2nd nom. Thanks and sorry for the trouble, afd is not my typical hangout.—Cronholm144 10:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I believe persons of low or unclear notability (i.e. those not legally considered "public figures") should have the right to have articles on themselves removed if they choose. The request sounds reasonable to me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems odd that there were no links to the previous or next winners of the Spelling Bee in that article. Based on that, and the lack of any other claim to notability, I see no reason not to delete the article per the subject's wishes... assuming that the nominator is satisfied that the person making the request is indeed Sai Gunturi. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 18:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am satisfied. We have remained in occasional contact since our highschool days. If the deleting admin needs additional confirmation I can provide it. —Cronholm144 00:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete, closed by someone else with non-admin cleanup by me. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 23:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Tedster[edit]

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

Not encyclopedic/possible hoax rogerd 22:58, 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. PeaceNT 08:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fried (soldier)[edit]

Michael Fried (soldier) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - Doesn't seem to be any reason this person should have an entry in Wikipedia. Thoughts?--Fresh 18:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I tagged this for speedy deletion a while back (notability), but the tag was removed with the Military Intelligence Hall of Fame cited as justification. I didn't pursue the matter much further, but re-examining the article I incline towards my previous view. This man no doubt had honourable service, but in terms of rank and stated achievements he does not seem to merit an article. There is precisely zero attempt to describe what meritorious service gained him entry into this hall of fame, an achievement which itself seems to be of dubious notability (see its article).
Xdamrtalk 22:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Xdamr. Being in the Military Hall of Fame defies an A7 speedy but still can't see a WP:BIO pass here. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 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) 03:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity blogger culture[edit]

Celebrity blogger culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I was about to speedy this but I couldn't think of a valid speedy argument. This page is entirely WP:OR, but not so slanted as to be an attack page. It's also not quite nonsensical, but still -- it's written entirely without wikification, and without a category to boot. It seems to be a total neologism, lacking in sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 22:19, 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 Redirect made to Space Centre by another user. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 19:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space Center[edit]

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

Horribly short dicdef; Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I'm kinda iffy about chances at expansion here. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 22:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:DICDEF HeirloomGardener 22:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete any space center would be big and notable enough to have its own entry, so a general entry like this isn't really needed.
  • Delete, Per WP:DICDEF. --Random Say it here! 23:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Spaceport article, or make this article more like that one. I think given that this term is fairly generic, it's appropriate to have something at the location. FrozenPurpleCube 23:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Mister Manticore. This is part dicdef, part list of links and part bacon sandwich, none of which are part of Wikipedia acceptable content. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm closing this debate, seeing as the page has been redirected to Space Centre, which seems to at least contain more info and is more than just a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 19:14, 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 per CSD:G11 with a generous dose of G1 and A7. Stifle (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Da Doo-Dirty Show[edit]

Da Doo-Dirty Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I found this whilst patrolling the new pages. Show is an LGBT hip-hop podcast with no notability claimed outside of that. I know that there're many LGBT's out there; there're probably many LGBT hip-hop podcasts too. Also, sentences like "DJ also realizes that most HomoRappers in this segmented industry have no Skills whatsoever. He demands that they step up their game and represent what they have to offer in the hottest way possible." have me thinking that even with a cleanup, this page is doomed. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 21:52, 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. Dakota 04:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Thomas Dunn[edit]

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

Utterly non-notable. Article was already deleted once (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Thomas Dunn). IMDB link is to Carson Cressley. Last deletion was huge SPA-fest. Horologium talk - contrib 21:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as nom. Sorry for buggering the entry; I'm not used to having to enter everything manually. (The previous AfD caught me by surprise. Horologium talk - contrib 22:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "The unknown actor" says it all. Resolute 05:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Resolute. Stifle (talk) 13:27, 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. Orderinchaos 16:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Vinson[edit]

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

Just another professor and bureaucrat. Fails WP:PROF. Body of work typical for your average tenured professor. Writing this stuff is what professors do and what would be remarkable was if he didn't have this publishing history. All writings published by academic journals or government printers, no commercial publishers. I would be a lot more impressed if there were writings about him - interviews and articles in the press, etc. - than I am by the writings by him. I'm sure he's a fine fellow.Herostratus 21:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tony Vinson is a major Australian writer, public servant, and academic. He is an Honorary Professor, Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney, and Emeritus Professor, University of NSW. As well as heading the department for correctional services, he has chaired several major state and national enquiries, been the subject of legal action with the media, and has won several awards. His reports are often debated at election time by Australian politicians.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TylerDurden1963 (talk • contribs)
  • Weak delete. The above user claims that Tony has "been the subject of legal action with the media", which would hint at notability -- if only I could find said media (besides the press release that User:TylerDurden1963 copy-pasted here. However, that aside, I still can find only trivial mentions of him online, so I agree that he fails WP:PROF. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 21:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rewrite made by User:TylerDurden1963. Page looks much better now. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 22:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of his career and work occurred before the Internet was invented. Professor Vinson's work appears via 'Google News' with great regularity. He is one of Australia's most lauded academics, with a broad range of academic awards.

Just the last week or so: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s1920584.htm http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/so-far-bracks-is-passing-his-fairness-test/2007/05/23/1179601484586.html http://www.careandhealth.com/Pages/Story.aspx?StoryID=5b442993-0c08-4a5a-b316-2d76d9a4614c Professor Vinson's longstanding reputation and contributions FAR outweigh many other Australian Academics on Wikipedia with whom there is no controversy. TylerDurden1963 21:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also ought to point out that Universities do NOT award an honorary D.Litt lightly, moreover they do not refer to their recipients as "One of Australia's leading social scientists and outspoken public intellectuals"

( http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=83 ) without it being true. I would be inclined to trust the University of Sydney in this regard. TylerDurden1963 21:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Actually, in some countries, they do give honorary doctorates out like candy. Some universities have 20 or 30 honorary doctorates per convocation, and many are local officials who don't come close to meeting WP:BIO. This may be why the editor didn't see that as a notability standard. --Charlene 08:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And, frankly, PR flack is PR flack-- the material prepared by universities on their own faculty can be a little dubious as far as the adjectives are concerned. Better to go by the accomplishments. DGG 02:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To look at Wikipedia's own standards: "an academic involved in significant current events is likely to be notable as a person under the general WP:BIO guidelines.

An academic repeatedly quoted in newspapers or newsmagazines may be considered to meet criterion 1." Professor Vinson's opinions, work, research, and results are the continual source of political debate in Australia. As previously mentioned, Google News confirms this quite simply. TylerDurden1963 21:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep I guess this has to be repeated each day. Holders of named chairs at major research universities are almost always N. They have necessarily published multiple works as peer-reviewed book or journal articles. They have been reviewed for the position by peer review committees using much higher standards than anything we can do here. The article should show his contributions, & that should be fixed.
The possible legal notability needs to be sourced. But even without it, distinguished academic are notable, as are distinguished people in every profession. We tell that they are distinguished by their accomplishments, and a named chair at a university is a very distinctive accomplishment indeed. Publishing large amounts of scholarly writing is not what " juat another professor" does--it's what a distinguished professor does.
In any field whatsoever, I regard nominations using the phrase "just another ..." with extremne skepticism. It's like saying "just another senator" who did what senators are expected to do, which is win elections. I cannot see the point of continued nominations of people with this sort of background, since they are always held notable at AfD if the career is real. There are hundred of bios of non notable or questionably notable academics to delete: as a rough guide, you can tell them apart because the possibly NN ones whose N is worth discussing do not hold full professorships at universities or named chairs. DGG 23:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep with significant reports under his name, such as, "Community Adversity and Resilience Report" for Jesuit Social Services http://acl.arts.usyd.edu.au/jss/ Paul foord 00:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per DGG and others above. More research should be done before bringing full Professors to AfD. --Bduke 00:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per all the above. Significant works, used as a reference by many. Simply checking Google Scholar would have prevented this Afd. John Vandenberg 00:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Strong) keep per publication record, demonstrated notability and respect in the community (named chairs, honorary doctorate, etc.) -- I almost feel that "tenured professor at major university with detailed article with at least some verifiable sources" needs to go into the list of common outcomes as "keep" (as surely as HS garage band with no recordings and "first gig coming in a few months!" goes under delete). There's almost never anything else that happens with these AfD's. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per all above. Lankiveil 02:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Strong Keep. Tony Vinson has been a significant figure in Australian public policy since the 1970's. There are 678 Google News results for "Tony Vinson" most of them relevant to him covering his policy work such as [2] and [3] and [4]. Capitalistroadster 02:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Vinson has been a significant figure since the 1970s in Australian politics.--Grahamec 03:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Vinson has played a pivotal role in education public policy in Australia for many years. You may as well delete the sections about education in Australia. Recurring dreams 03:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Any baby boomer would instantly know the name. Assize 07:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Stifle (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rewrite, notable prof.
  • Keep but remove copyvios - Vinson is a genuinely notable academic, but large sections of this article are copyright violations including an entire paragraph lifted directly from here - [[5]]. Also, no need to gild the lily - Vinson is not and never has been in contention for head of the State Education Department. Euryalus 06:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per commenters above, publishing record meets WP:PROF in my opinion as well. Yamaguchi先生 07:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Unverifiable and non-notable. Sr13 23:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Worth[edit]

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

This is a page about an ordinary orthodontist, and also contains links to much promotional activity. It needs to go. File Éireann 20:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • What promotional activity?--Letterkennyboi 20:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage to make him any more notable than any other orthodontist. Being the only one in town, or providing 'quick treatment' is not an assertion of notability. The rugby club is an amateur side, so he is not particularly notable in that regard, either. Sources are primarily from his own site for his practice. DarkAudit 20:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete via A7 Definitely NN. Borderline G11.--Whsitchy 20:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing notable. HeirloomGardener 20:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Orthodontist. Herostratus 21:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Is it starting to snow? Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 21:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, A7. Non-notable, and possible self-promotion. *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 01:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think a speedy is appropriate as there are several claims to notability. Stifle (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Surely worth a mention. After all, he is particularly notable in the town for his achievements. --DevelopedMadness 16:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And any coverage for such achievements? There really isn't any. DarkAudit 17:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- There are claims of notability so I say keep.--DevelopedMadness 21:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've already endorsed it once. There are claims, but very little to back it up, especially where notability and sources guidelines are concerned. DarkAudit 00:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Keep. Very famous around the North of the country. I got braces from him myself. He won awards and certificates for his dental achievements.--Balloholic 12:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then prove it There are still no sources forthcoming to make this man any more notable than any other orthodontist. 'The only guy in town' doesn't cut it without significant coverage. It should also be noted that the above user has made very few edits before this one. DarkAudit 18:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know I only joined yesterday haven't had much time. Can't find any but it says on his site so I think that is reliable enough--Balloholic 19:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it isn't. The sources also need to be independent of the subject. He can say whatver he wants there, but we can't use it, because without a secondary source, it's can't be verified. DarkAudit 19:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Without doubt. He was a vital component to the visit of New Zealand rugby union captain Tana Umaga to the town. He put in much hard work behind the scenes in determining the occurrence of the visit and he represented his rugby club as Umaga returned to the roots of Dave Gallaher, captain of the Original All Blacks who was born in nearby Ramelton. --86.40.193.22 20:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you say there are many claims of notability by users local to the subject, but there are few sources being provided to back up these claims. One article in a local paper does not notability make. All the other sources are primary sources and simply do not pass reliability or verifiability guidelines. All we have here is the say-so of editors who may or may not have a personal connection to the subject. There may even be conflict of interest issues here. DarkAudit 21:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Certainly no delete. The poem he wrote is contained on the official Dave Gallaher website which is not connected in any way to the subject of the article. Surely that makes it a secondary source? --86.40.200.135 22:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No That doesn't show notability. It shows the poem. There are not enough sources and not enough accomplishments per the notability guidelines to make this person any more notable than any other orthodontist or amateur rugby player. A local hero is still just that, local, without significant outside coverage. There still isn't any here. The Keep endorsements are all coming from editors from the subject's location, and/or admitted patients of him. There looks to me to be too much connection to the subject to be truly objective. DarkAudit 01:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources to establish anything remotely like notability -- Whpq 16:03, 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 delete. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan batrack[edit]

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

Notability of businessman in doubt. Company press release on him published in Forbes' compensation listing; was interviewed on TV investment show once. Clicketyclack 20:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see enough here to pass WP:BIO. It probably should have to pass WP:CORP since it discusses the company he works for and I think it doesn't pass that also. It also reads somewhat like spam given that it discusses the direction he is taking the company without citing a source (nor is Wikipedia a crystal ball). TheRingess (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is the creator of the dan batrack page: eleschinski2000. I understand that if Dan Batrack was allowed through, then thousands of other CEO's that pull million dollar a year salaries + stock would have to be created too and they are not noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleschinski2000 (talk • contribs)
Hello. Wikipedia:Notability (people) covers the relevant notability criteria in more detail. It's not really to do with their salaries, but rather their notability. Mr. Batrack has been interviewed in the references you've cited, but his company appears to have been the subject of the coverage in all cases, rather than him. Notability hasn't been established for the company on Wikipedia yet, and even a notable company can have a highly-paid, but non-notable, CEO. I can't find any sources online establishing Mr. Batrack's notability as an individual: can you please find some and cite them here in the article? (PS: Please also remember to sign your comments on talk pages, by typing four tildes: "~~~~".) Thanks, Clicketyclack 13:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO and Geogre's law. However, the author of the unsigned comment above this one should also check out WP:OCE. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I, The content creator did not know there were standards. This is my first new article on a Biography and I learned a lot. I will watch out for WP:BIO, WP:OCE as well as Geogre's law next time I add a biography.Eleschinski2000 14:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks for joining so good-naturedly in this discussion Eleschinski2000, and please don't let Wikipedia's criteria for notability put you off creating and adding more to articles. This one was obviously written in good faith, and well written at that. I look forward to seeing more contributions from you in the future. Best, Clicketyclack 17:49, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Grubb[edit]

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

Non-notable local politician. No significant coverage outside her home district. NewsLibrary has few references at all. Local politicians are not considered notable merely by holding local office. DarkAudit 19:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True... although those same criteria also state that those worthy of inclusion are "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" and people who have "been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Ample press coverage is available via more localized outlets. Cpteggyolk 03:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may be available, but what I've found to this point is trivial. Most articles I've found via Google that mention this Katherine Grubb only do so in passing. DarkAudit 04:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It also bears noting that the borough Ms. Grubb represents has a population of only ~6,700 people. If the coverage is still only local, that's quite far from bring a notable politician. I must also note that local politicians of municipalities many times larger will rarely pass the notability guidelines of WP:BIO. DarkAudit 04:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless futher sources can be found. No real press coverage- local papers don't really count for much in that respect. J Milburn 08:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of major reliable sources to establish notability. Local politicians are not notable by virtue of that only. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to notability concerns. --Kyoko 13:36, 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 deleted per WP:SNOW. Newyorkbrad 21:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ox in the box[edit]

Ox in the box (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Speedy denied. Non-notable neologism made up at school one day. DarkAudit 19:08, 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. Opting to redirect to Fountain, Colorado. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fountain - Fort Carson High School[edit]

Fountain - Fort Carson High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, no references. Ozgod 18:12, 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. KrakatoaKatie 19:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karnack Independent School District[edit]

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

Does not assert notability and contains no references. Ozgod 19:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Been through this type of debate before. [6] Small school districts are as notable as the larger ones. If every other school district in the state has an article, why shouldn't this one? --Acntx 09:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No reason to delete an article that is generally accepted as notable. Vegaswikian 02:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm generally an advocate of the WP:INN reasoning, but I see little point in picking off a single school district article. So, I advocate keeping the article until we reach a broader consensus on this issue. I also found a 147 page 2006 Texas state report that could be used as a foundation for a decent encyclopedic article.--Kubigula (talk) 03:28, 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 11:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Baker (Rock Musician)[edit]

Jon Baker (Rock Musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

attempt at deletion before; I am not clear on why it wasn't deleted based on edit summaries; but as is, it still comes across as a nn musician Postcard Cathy 19:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wasn't deleted before as the Prod tags were removed by an anon IP. Probably speediable, but best to let it get deleted here as it might well get re-created. EliminatorJR Talk 19:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, lack of references, all albums redlinks, etc. Stifle (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC and there are no reliable sources -- Whpq 16:07, 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 Speedy deleted as non-notable and spam. --Nlu (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Netstar[edit]

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

Prod has been removed numerous times by author. Software in a non-notable product, page appears to be advertising for it. Wildthing61476 18:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(From author) NetStar is not something you call "non-notable", it is well known throughout the Ares Network. Nor am i trying to "advertise" it, i'm just giving simple little detail about the server, it's features, etc. If people don't want to use it, that's fine with me, so I have no reason to advertise, I already have over 200 people who want this, and this was settled on Ares P2P, not here.

  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Page seems to have been created to promote the product. HeirloomGardener 19:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete even from the author it can be understood that the software is not notable yet. gidonb 19:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete It states right there that it was created by Netstar's owner, is written in an unencyclopedic and promotional tone. That already violates WP:COI. Top that with the fact that I could find no mention of this software anywhere on the web...---=Elfin=-341 19:17, 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 transwiki to wiktionary (which has been completed), non admin closure. Note, the article exists there already, so this seems well, procedural to me. Whsitchy 20:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spiv[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Pop culture section is original research. De-prodded w/o comment. Pan Dan 18:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Transwiki to Wiktionary tag added.--Whsitchy 18:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wiktionary already has spiv. Pan Dan 11:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE The article was interesting, the wikidictionary article was not interesting and did not have all the same information. Yes Wikip is not a dictionary this is not a dictionary entry and furthermore no harm is done by this article existing. Its not as if its taking up valuable space that prevents another article from being created. Don't be a Philistine. Keep the article. --Jon from California — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.73.181 (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; notability not established, no independent reliable sources. Krimpet (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daimonin[edit]

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

Delete - No assertion of notability, no reliable secondary sources available for verification, Google search is only turning the usual download link sites. DarkSaber2k 18:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  ATTENTION!

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

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

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

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}
DO NOT DELETE - please define "usual download link sites". Please explain why its bad. Can you please explain why you see only "usual download link sites" after entering what keyword?

Lets see - Daimonin is "Daimonin MMORPG" named. Lets do both keywords seperate - the name and the "class description" mmorpg

google.com english, keyword "daimonin", hits for first page:

Lets see what we have: 2 references to their open source project (thats ok, or?), wikipedia, freshmeat (biggest open source reference), happypenguin (THE linux game reference), mmorpg.com (THE biggest mmorpg related game site, listed by mmorpg even before wikipedia), getdeb (UBUNTU linux release dep package reference... if you don't know what linux or a dep installation package is, please give me a note, i will explain it), and another gamesite with gamezone... also a PRETTY BIG one.

BTW: Can it be that you are using not an english search engine? There you will find for sure more download links, because they are not refering to english sites and documentation on purpose. Thats a language depending thing, but we are on the english wikipedia here, so lets use the english search engines. Only commercial mmorpg have the manpower to install a multi language enviroment for their games.

Second try, same as above but now we use "mmorpg"... You must give me right when i say this is a PRETTY HARD test. Now, you will see something funny:

- one the first page EVERY ENTRY has a direct reference to Daimonin!!! Even the planeshift game site has an entry in their forum (ok, this is more for curiosity).

- Daimonin is listed on page 2 AS SECOND OR THIRD MMORPG IN GOOGLES. Perhaps you will explain this in using some link forms and such? Just for the case you do - can you then go through the 2 list i gave and explain how its possible?

So... where are your usual download link sites here? Can you explain me why a.) your facts you give us as reason for a deletion don't fits this simple google research? Have you perhaps used a different search engine? Which one and which keyword please? And b.) you was not able to insert this 2 keywords in googles and comes to the same result?

I can't help me - what you mentioned here as reason for a deletion don't seems to be the truth!

Thats strange. Should you not, as someone who is acting independent and in good will, careful do a research and interesting to see whats going on?

Because some lines under this lines you even mention to us that the Daimonin forum links to this. So, on the one side, you can't or you don't want do a regular, good resarch and one the other side you go really deep in it. Browsing the forum means you also browsed a bit on the website, yes? Why you don't mention then the sourceforge project, the fact we are the 2nd biggest open source mmorpg (well, counting the 135.000 people who has subscribed for Daimonin and waiting for the 3d client - or perhaps they just like to describe to sides like Daimonin ... and no, you don't need to subscribe for playing).

Its also somewhat disgusting that you always are saying bad things about the daimonin open source project. Where is your positiv part? Please comment about:

    • - Daimonin is a well known, growing open source project
    • - Daimonin is one of the biggest open source mmorpg
    • - Daimonin is full playable, with a growing community
    • - Daimonin has rised other open source project (browse sourceforge)
    • -- Crossmagi (animated 2d graphics)
    • -- Gridarta (formerly daimonin editor, now own project as general game data editor)
    • -- Angelion (fork of Daimonin... small but young)
    • - Daimonin has 135.000 Subscribers (and you don't need to subscribe for playing)
    • - Daimonin has between 500-1000 dowloads per day (please count on not only sourceforge

but also all the usual download links)

After all this facts i gave - and i am just to tired to post here more links - be sure there are more i was only refering to 2 google pages, can you explain your sentence: "Another search (to be thorough) for 'Daimonin mmorpg' only turns up the same unreliable download linkfarms etc etc ad nauseu"

Can you understand that people who has spend years of work in coding and running this open source game will very angry when they read it? Can it be that YOU WANT that they get angry? Its just a feeling... But you must admit that someone GET this feeling when you compare my thread with yours, or?

Please forgive me when i was a bit "sarcastic" in this "rant". English is not my first language and i think counting my words above, i tried to give as many useful information as possible. But the difference between the reality and the reasons for deletion given are a bit big, or?

And sentence like "usual download link sites" and the term "linkfarms" are used normally to describe web spammers and illegal actions against search engines. YOU used them. Against an open source project which is just linked to the, yes, HOPEFULLY "usual" gamesites and shareware/freeware sites.

Because we want that people see something different as the "usual" chinese pay2play game and another "Runescape" or "Playworld", done with a visual basic editor. I hope you are aware that the wikipedia is born out of the some roots as Daimonin - as an open source project from and for the community, with ideals like freedom and open.

Notable or not, listed in wikipedia or not - dealing with Daimonin in the way you did, is just a shame and worth a troll but not a wikipedia editor. MT - 26 May 2007 (UTC) — 83.236.59.245 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:11, May 26, 2007 (UTC).

Just to avoid wrong impressions: I am Michael Toennies, the project founder of Daimonin. Please excuse when my rant above there was pretty hard, sorry. This was not against single persons here - I just was hurt pretty much by terms like "linkfarms" and "usual download sites". These terms are related to illegal or at least unsocial behaviours in the internet.

We (we means our developers, around 30+ persons) put some effort in being noticed by big game sites. Why? Because normally you only get noticed there if you have money. Most games/mmorpgs at this kind of sites are deeply commercial. They usually don't accept non-commercial games. Open source as an option for a mmorpg, Second Life and other games going from commercial to open source (at last at the client side) are pretty new trends. That we as open source are accepted by many game sites is just as pretty new. There are only 1-2 other non-commercial games which are accepted.

So, please don't be hurt when you read my rant - it's at last my honest anger about being blamed of linkfarming.

Perhaps it's also the article itself. It was on our todo list to find someone to describe what daimonin really is: An open source project about how to make a game from coding to servers and community, how to design a make ... It's complex, notable and interesting.

The problem: That's not that easy... Some understanding of the project (not the game) is required for creating a good description about all its aspects...

Under the aspect that we are open source, community driven and independent, we are really open for real opinions. MT - 26 May 2007 (UTC) — 83.236.59.245 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:02, May 26, 2007 (UTC).

NOTE: This AfD has been linked to from the official game forum here. DarkSaber2k 23:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. DarkSaber2k 18:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete in the absence of sources to justify its notability. A LexisNexis search came up empty. — brighterorange (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yahoo search came up with the article as the second link. --Whsitchy 21:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That is true for most Wikipedia pages anyway. That is a pretty irrelevant statement. --Ihmhi 03:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Do Not Delete

3rd Party Review sites, verifying existence, and releases. I will save this article, even if I have to cite Sources with old information about the game (which is currently in Beta 4 now)

  • Cross, Keith (2007-05-22). "New Version Released". MMORPG.com. Retrieved 2007-05-25.

Clan/Player Support Websites


I will get more when i have time to, but it should be known that the people who play Daimonin will probably fiercely defend their article in Wikipedia. Furthermore, i would like to mention that just because there is not adequate 3rd party citation does not mean an article should be deleted! these are GUIDELINES only, remember that! (i rescind my call for a vote as it doesn't matter evidently)

Also, this game is healthy, actively being developed, and is not under any circumstances in jeopardy of disappearing. Furthermore, As an encyclopedia, keeping articles which may no longer server a purpose to the everyday person, is part of what makes an encyclopedia. I am watching many games being threatened with deletion of their articles merely because someone doesn't think they have sufficient validation of existence in an encyclopedia, where, on the flip side, i believe i would come to an encyclopedia to learn more about a little known game with little citation. Your erasing history by constantly removing valid games (both past and present) from your articles. Its appalling. ThePlaneskeeper 22:57 PM, 25 May 2007 (UTC) — ThePlaneskeeper (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic.

  • Comment- There are other websites and wikis useful for information about a game. Gameinfo is one of them. Also, Wikipedia is not a democracy. It does not matter how many new users come here to "vote," as actions taken here are reached by discussion and consensus. This page may look a lot like straw votes, but its not counted that way. You will have the most luck if you directly contest the points raised by the discussion and/or fix them. Good luck! -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 01:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lack of reliable non-trivial sources, thus failing WP:V ("Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources."). The above links don't look to be reliable (blogs/forums) or are trivial listings (couple sentence blurbs/user ratings). Wickethewok 03:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep since, while there are many others, I simply couldn't find a free software MMORPG with has more players than this one.-- Roc VallèsTalk|Hist - 04:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even after reviewing the above 'references':
    • MMORPG.com is a press release; trivial

EDIT: sorry, but here i get angry. The whole list here from this guy is, sorry, nonsense and a lie, that its necessity to mark this entry as what it is - just a selected list of links without any reference, documented in a way which only has one reason: To give a bad impression. Sorry, even the worst porn side has following Murphy at last one good entry, this list is not done to give information - its just a good tarned way for trolling.

Because: The mmorrpg.com entry, the biggest website about mmorpg, is a press release???? MMORPG.com is listed BEFORE wikipedia when it comes to search word "mmorpg" in googles, not because the do some search engine tricks but because they are more relevant to that keyword as wikipedia. Daimonin is there listed on their game list next to wow, daoc and all the big games: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/gameId/0 The entry is big and used since years: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/setView/overview/gameID/119 and Daimonin has even an own forum part there (as full listed game) http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/forum/668

I think its clearly to see that this links are telling a whole different story! Please ignore this troll!

    • about.com - very brief overview; trivial
    • lockergnome - reasonable review, but don't know if it is a reliable source, will give benefit of doubt, but not enough on it's own.
    • gamezone.com - directory listing; trivial
    • OMGN.com - press release; trivial
    • freewebs.com/daimonin - fan page; not independent
    • freewebs.com/daimoninunit - clan/fan page; not independent
    • scytheswingers - er, some kind of clan page?; not independent
To the players of the game that will 'fiercely defend' this article, please note that Wikipedia is not a directory for every computer game under the sun; entries have to be notable and supported by independent non-trivial references, regardless of if you want to throw the guidelines out of the window or not. As mentioned above, there are plenty of game-specific wikis out there - Gamerwiki is another. Marasmusine 11:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's sad to get redirected to commercial (.com) sites.-- Roc VallèsTalk|Hist - 11:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of independent reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 13:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another search (to be thorough) for 'Daimonin mmorpg' only turns up the same unreliable download linkfarms etc etc ad nauseum. DarkSaber2k 18:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep (I am a Daimonin dev so have a vested interest) Hm, notability seems a bit problematic. I understand the arguments that most of the above references are trivial and therefore do not satisfy notability, and I also understand that notability is not synonymous with popularity (I actually thanks Wikipedia for making that distinction!).
However, by the same token the notability criterion is making unrealistic demands on a non-commercial game in development. Such a game, eg Daimonin, will be largely 'under the radar'. In fact this is partly intentional as we don't want people to judge the game as a finished product while it is still in development.
Given this, that Daimonin has so many 'trivial' references is indicative of its notability. Of course this argument can be turned on its head and denounced as mere popularity. I won't pre-empt an argument about the two concepts.
But I will quote Wikipedia's own note on notability: '...it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.'
So in that spirit perhaps notability can be satisfied by Googling MMORPG, the genre of game to which Daimonin belongs. As you will see, the Daimonin website is in the top ten hits and a search for Daimonin on any of the general MMORPG site will turn up a result. Daimonin is known and notable within the genre.
I realise this probably won't satisfy the clamour for 'non-trivial' sources but I refer you back to the point about non-commercial games in development. However, look at Wikipedia's very own entry on MMORPGs. Daimonin is referenced there. I have no idea who wrote it, but it has been around for some time and Googling 'daimonin academic' will turn up many hits which have taken and built on this article over the years. So it seems that deleting Daimonin's Wikipedia entry on the grounds of lack of notability and no reliable sources would be something of an own goal for Wikipedia. Or is Wikipedia inherently unreliable and are you going to followup by deleting all references to the game from your general MMORPG entry? Smackyuk 18:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC) — Smackyuk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Don't delete.

Some facts:

  • I'm biased: I'm one of the Daimonin developers, and I'm the main author of the German Wikipedia article about Daimonin.
  • Afaik Daimonin is one of the most popular open source mmorpgs.
  • The source code is GPL.
  • The website has ~132000 registered users.
  • The server hosts >32000 player characters.
  • Usually there's ~45 players online in the avarage. That's some thousands of active players.
  • We've also already been the "parent" of some forks. I'm aware of 4 forks but only 1 of them (Angelion) seems to be still alive - more or less.
  • Daimonin has a very active community, with >45000 posts in its Forum (some of them in restricted boards).

So for notability, I'd count:

  • community
  • project forks
  • popularity (compared with other open source mmorpgs)

Also I'd wish for open source projects having a fair chance to coexist and gain popularity besides commercial games like World of Warcraft. Being listed in the Wikipedia could be a part of that chance. Sorry that we don't have the bucks to create plain notability from a massive campaign. Taking that into account, I find the mere popularity of Daimonin even more notable.

--Christianhujer 01:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC) — Christianhujer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment so, you're suggesting that the article has merit because it helps to popularize the game? Certainly understandable from a developer's or player's point of reference. But Wikipedia is not for Advertising. Either the notability of the game is already sufficient for an article and the article should be here, or it isn't and it shouldn't. The demand isn't being made on Wikipedia and its "standards in regard to open source." Rather, the demand is being made of the game that its notability be established. All that said, I'm abstaining from expressing an action opinion at the moment, and I personally appreciate those with vested interests saying so clearly. LaughingVulcan Laugh With Me / Logical Entries 03:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI think he's suggesting it has merit because it is Popular, not the other way around. Therefore, it is already popular and should be here (which it is) and should not be in threat of being deleted.ThePlaneskeeper 04:40 PM, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment My point was: Compared with WoW it's unpopular, but compared with other open source mmorpgs it's extremely popular. Comparing it with commercial mmorpgs only and from thus deriving lack of popularity and thus a lack of notability just wouldn't be fair imo.
Also please read: Just not notable
On the numbers given: Of course, numbers are just numbers. Whether they are sufficient for being notable or not is hard to judge. --Christianhujer 11:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete

Open-source MORPG's are rare. The "Free, open source role-playing video games" category has only 5 pages. Many open-source MORPG's begin development, but very few reach the point of playability. Rarity makes an item worthy of note. In addition, Daimonin appears to have a strong community; the fact that it has a number of fan sites and a strong user base contributes to its notability. I've never played Daimonin (or its predecessor Crossfire), and I found the article useful, though not as informative as it could be. I agree that it needs to be expanded.

Third-party reviews are not the sole criteria for notability; other criteria shouldn't be downplayed.

I would not consider this article an advertisement. It appears to be balanced, and it provides information useful to Wikipedia users.

Since Daimonin is an open-source project, I assume there is no company developing it. (If there is, that fact should certainly be added to the article.) An open-source project can't really be separated from its product, so a separate article would be redundant.

I suggest expanding this article rather than deleting it. Eterry 05:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The reply hierarchy is a bit confusing! Anyway, assuming some of these replies were in reference to my comment above, no I was (I thought explicitly) not suggesting that popularity grants merit, alone. However, there is some overlap between popularity and notability as concepts, whether or not that overlap has been recognised in the Wikipedia guidelines.
Specifically, and this is a point I think MT and Christianhujer were making, Daimonin's member (player) numbers and the quantity of 'trivial' mentions and links on general MMORPG sites (and thus to a large extent its high ranking on Google), while all on there own simply measures of popularity, contribute to notability if taken together. This is a point I think Eterry was making.
If you take Wizzard2k's last comment strictly it is in fact proving the point the first sentence explicitly states is not so: the argument means that popularity does guarantee notability. More than that, financial resources (perhaps indirectly) buy popularity and thus guarantee notability because third parties, however reliable and independent, write about popular entities.
I very much agree with Eterry's comment: you cannot judge an open-source software project's notability by the exact same standard as that of a commercial software company. Daimonin is notable within the MMORPG genre, partly due to its popularity as a free, 'amateur' game (ie, member/player numbers, >32000). However, compared to say, WoW which has >8 million players, this is nothing. Due to that popularity, and its financial backing, WoW has had many articles published about it and can therefore point to many references. Thus popularity guarantees notability.
A strict application of the notability criterion is not helpful, unless you want Wikipedia to be merely a listing of the larger commercial companies.
I, and I think the other Daimonin devs, also agree with Eterry's comment that the Daimonin entry needs expansion. This has been on the TODO list for some time, but there is quite a bit involved in developing and maintaining a MMORPG, and doing it in our spare time we have to prioritise. However, trying to force the issue by recommending deletion is not helpful. Smackyuk 15:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per DarkSaber2k. Sephylight 23:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Web notability guidelines suggest, "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Of the links mentioned above, only the About.com and Lockergnome seem to give coverage of Daimonin beyond, "Download it here." I don't know Lockergnome well enough to say it's non-trivial. Is it on Gamespot? No. Is it on Gamerankings.com? No. Is it on IGN? No. Is it on videogamereview.com? No. Is it on Metacritic.com? No. Is it on Gamezone.com? A download link is, but no review or any other coverage. Has it been Slashdotted? No. Are there multiple non-trivial published works listed in the article? No. Sorry, I like seeing open-source projects succeed also. I really hope this project continues building to the point where it merits Wikipedia coverage. But as I mentioned above, Wikipedia articles are for subjects already notable, not ones in search of notability. LaughingVulcan Laugh With Me / Logical Entries 00:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You seems to be using "notable" as a synonym for "known." This is not accurate. Notability does not mean "known" but rather "worthy of notice." Multiple sources are preferred but not mandatory. If nothing else, Daimonin is notable due to its rarity, its sizable community, and the usefulness of its article to Wikipedia readers. Eterry 05:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hm, I'm not sure this 'discussion' is proving very useful. The points being made by posters such as Eterry and myself are not really being addressed, much less discussed. In fact all that is happening is the pro-deleters are quoting and requoting (or in fact usually just linking to) the same Wikipedia guidelines over and over again. This continual repetition gives the appearance that the self-describing guidelines are being touted as hard-and-fast, flawless rules.
They are not. They have certain inadequacies, as I have pointed out above.
Also, Sephylight, nice argument. Remember, this is not a majority vote, it is a discussion with a final decision made on the merits of the arguments not by counting votes. I'd have thought that a Wikipedia recent changes patroller, or indeed anyone who has read the top of this page, would know that. If we're going by votes I shall post to the Daimonin forums asking players to edit this page with '''Do not delete''' As per MT, Christianhujer, Theplaneskeeper, Roc Valles, Eterry, and Smackyuk ~~~~.
I pointed out a reason we intentionally have not tried to get Daimonin on gamespot.com, etc. or slashdotted. Again as Eterry points out you are misunderstanding the meaning of notability.
Here's another reason why Daimonin is notable: it's place in (free, OS) MMORPG history. Daimonin is a progression from CrossFire (itself the subject of a misjudged Wikipedia deletion crusade -- a failed crusade I might add) which is highly notable in MMORPG history, being pretty much the grandaddy of it all. Daimonin has expanded, changed, and modernised the code and philosophy of CF to create a distinct and unique game, on a par with (and using some of the same and some different concepts as) the most modern commercial MMORPGs. A history of the genre which does not mention Daimonin is incomplete and therefore inherently unreliable, regardless of who wrote it or how high on the Google rankings it is.
Why does one come to an encyclopaedia? To gain knowledge. One expects the encyclopaedia to be exhaustive in its coverage of a subject, to be, well, encyclopaedic. Not to offer coverage of only the most commercial and popular subjects. Encyclopaedias should surely offer detailed and specialised information? Surely the idea is that if someone wants to find out about MMORPGs she goes to Wikipedia and that tells her as much or as little as she wants to know? Not she goes to Wikipedia and that gives her information about the most commercial games only? Smackyuk 11:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Is the discussion without merit? Hadn't noticed that. I see a bit of cross-purposes going on here, but that isn't the same as being incapble of listening. Yes, there are times and places to make exceptions, and this might be the time for one. Eterry and Smackyuk are correct that there are times for exceptions to notability, and to make reasonable exceptions to policy. But, without trying to Wikilawyer, the notability guidelines do suggest that multiple and nontrivial sources are a nominal component of notability. And I don't think I'm confusing "known" and "notability," I'm making the case that something "worthy of notice" should already be noticed in reliable sources besides Wikipedia, before being placed here. It certainly would help if someone could put some reliable sources into the article itself, instead of relying on the primary reference of a directory-and-statistics site, and the site itself in the article.
Certainly you have the capability to invite every fanboy you know to put up "Keep per ... etc." on the page, despite the banner at the top. It is my understanding that this has already happened. I'm sure the closing admin will be able to filter them out, just as he or she will sort out all the "Delete per ... etc." "arguments." As he or she will filter the concepts citing, "its sizable community, and the usefulness of its article to Wikipedia readers.", and, "...a progression from CrossFire", and, "Why does one come to an encyclopaedia? To gain knowledge."
All that said, you are certainly making a persuasive case. I am moving from what I thought was a simple delete for notability and advertising to a weak keep. I think the only thing I'm wondering about is the source reliability of the lockergnome site. LaughingVulcan Laugh With Me / Logical Entries 14:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It's clear that this Daimonin page falls short of the policies and guidelines developed recently, particularly with regard to notability and verifiability. Some of those on this page who have voted “delete” have said as much, with pangs of regret.

Yet, it doesn’t feel like we are making our encyclopedia better by the subtraction. That feeling has good reasoning behind it; the rules we have established and repeat are flawed. The fact that we repeat these rules ad nauseam does not forestall the same arguments against them from being made over and over. Some of the more tortured guidelines are counter-intuitive, while the arguments against them have the merit of common sense.

If we agree that Daimonin has no place in Wikipedia, it not only means it gets no page of its own, that ruling means Daimonin gets no mention on any page. It means that a user visiting the definitive mmorpg page is better served by never hearing about Daimonin nor its ilk. Never mind that the user may very well find that information useful or interesting, or that a large number of people have built a community around it. That information is irrelevant and those people are nonentities because a newspaper, magazine, or scholarly journal has not sanctified them with a nod yet.

I do not feel comfortable wiping significant underground movements from our encyclopedia. I do believe that cults should be notable based on popularity, because while the reverse is not necessarily true, items which are popular are notable by definition. An uninformed user would and should expect to see a mention of Daimonin in Wikipedia. Daimonin’s absence would be felt and would reflect poorly on Wikipedia. This is the test case which should cause us to rethink our recent guidelines and come up with more sensible and intuitive ones.

Note: I am not a member of the Daimonin community and have never played their game. Pisomojado 16:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep the article lacks good sources and contains some fairly trivial information, but if this number of downloads is halfway accurate it's well worth keeping and improving. This isn't some week-old Sourceforge vanity project, people. Eleland 18:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V due to a lack of verifiable third-party sources. It doesn't matter how popular this site it, how substantial their membership is, or anything of the sort - popularity does not equal notability. Arguing that it does goes against accepted policy, and attempting to debunk policy on this Afd will not change the fact that the policy exists. If you wish to change the policy in question, go to the respective policy page and request a change. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 22:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep While Wikipedia is trying to clean up its pages I don't think Daimonin is detremental to its encyclopedia, offering information and content to a niche market, which I think is FAR more than enough to meet this statement about tne notability criteria "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." To take away the Daimonin page would be against being an 'encyclopedia'. Notable is stated as not meaning popular, but in the criterion that is set the only way to achieve notability is in most circumstances to be popular, this is a bad flaw IMO.

It can be very difficult for a specialist/niche product to become notable, the point is: Niche - has a small market. The niche being a free MMORPG open source game. With searches using that niche description only turning up a few pages of results. Therefore to take away the article would be damaging to Wikipedia. — 81.100.112.95 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:01, May 28, 2007 (UTC).

Comment: Wikipedia is not a form of advertising to make your game more attractive. As you directly pointed out, there exists a lack of third party sources to make Daimonin notable, and as such, it still fails WP:V. Using a Wikipedia article to change this situation would directly violate policy. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe there are some misunderstandings of the notability guideline. The notability guideline does not state that something worthy of notice should already be noticed before having a Wikipedia article. Something which has been noticed is presumed to be worthy of notice, but something which has not been noticed cannot be presumed to be non-notable. "Notable" does not mean "noted." Also, it is true that popularity does not equal notability; however, popularity does guarantee notability. The reason popularity does not equal notability is because lack of popularity does not guarantee non-notability. Finally, keep in mind that topics are "presumed to be notable" if they meet the specific criteria listed at Notability or in the subject-specific notability guidelines, but they are not presumed to be non-notable if they do not meet these criteria. A determination of notability, or the lack thereof, requires careful analysis and thought. A litmus test is not possible, and so far as I know one has not been proposed. Eterry 06:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps my thinking is misguided but I am of the opinion that an MMORPG whose website has over 100,000 members is notable. ugen64 06:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could be, but what does total website registrations over all time have to do with anything? -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 06:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - all this talk of notability has obscured a key point. Notability is a guideline, but verifiability is official policy. The devs have chimed in to this discussion and explicitly stated that they wanted to be "under the radar", and a consequence of this desire, there is little independent reliable sources covering teh development of the game. -- Whpq 16:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, the Daimonin project is over 6 years old and independent hosted by sourceforge. A complete source & content history can be found in their project page. To question their verifiability is pretty obscure - the technical system behind the sourceforge source repository is the same as behind the wikipedia page history and security and technical not questionable. Developers have no direct access to their repository root, its not possible for a hosted project to manipulate it in terms of date or already commited data.

To track down their verifiability is pretty easy. There many technical related verifiable sources to their development. Please notice the number of .org and non profit sites.

on daimonin but not from the daimonin project. The packages and install makes are developed and maintained by the related OS volunteers (gentoo, debian...). Their organisation is pretty similiar to the wikipedia editor community.

Many links to technical & development are "hidden" in source engines, are closed on purpose and removed from "visible" net like outdated technical issues, closed bugs or date/time depending links. They only show off when the right keywords are given. Also, the reference to daimonin is often only mentioned in somewhat hidden places - in development sites a short reference link or note is normally common. Thats a big difference to (noteable) blogs, forums review pages. It does not make them less important for other wikipedia classifications.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 -Docg 19:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Sholars[edit]

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

Vanity page created by the subject of the article, of which there exist no non-trivial sources. Thus, a sourced article is not possible. Approximately 300 results for this name in Google, all of which are either trivial or do not deal with this subject. Subject of the article removed prod tag. Quatloo 17:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete This article is very disjointed and confusing. It suggests that this individual won some acclaim as a athlete, but I don't know which "medals" are being described. Furthermore, the sports league in which he plays is itself non-notable. Fails to meet the notability guideline WP:BIO. AlphaEta 18:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a straightforward speedy. Begone! --Tony Sidaway 19:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:BIO (A7) - no claim whatsoever to notability Orderinchaos 19:30, 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. PeaceNT 14:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disaster capitalism[edit]

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

Basically just a dicdef for a neologism used as a guise for an anti-American rant -Docg 09:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete There are a large number of uses of the term in in left-leaning editorials of partisan news websites but very little mainstream coverage of the term. The origin of the term apparently lies with Naomi Klein in the title of an as yet unpublished book [7]. I could find only 2 articles in 'mainstream' sources: [8] [9] but both of those are written by Klein herself. CIreland 11:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The term has been used, as indicated by the piece written by Naomi Klein, but there isn't enough indication yet that the term is notable. It might "make sense," but it's still a non-notable neologism if the term hasn't been discussed in other reliable sources. Leebo T/C 14:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with Leebo. If it's a term basically confined to one writer so far, and has received no real coverage otherwise, it is nn. Ford MF 16:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the intent of this article to define "disaster capitalism", Wiktionary would be a more appropriate place for its inclusion. However, it seems that this term is merely a contrivance formulated by one author and it certainly has not entered the vernacular. Non-notable. AlphaEta 18:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, idiosyncratic neologism. Once it's published Rise of Disaster Capitalism can be an article (it's very likely to pass notability), and Klein's views can be summarized there. --Dhartung | Talk 19:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No credible sources to establish notability. A second to Dhartung's arguments.--JayJasper 19:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could we speedy it though under G10? --Whsitchy 20:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a biography, and it doesn't attack an individual, so I don't think it can be speedily deleted as an attack page. Leebo T/C 20:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • either way, it should be gone if you ask me. --Whsitchy 21:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete As the creator of the article, I'd have to agree with everything said above. Regardless, if one is to look at the history of the article itself, it's apparent that it has been prone to sabotage on more than one occasion, and thus, the article's nomination for deletion is suspect. Granted, that does not mean it should not be deleted. Perhaps the article should be modified to center the term around Klein, and then once the book is publish (when is that, btw??), the article should be either merged with one that would deal with her book, or conversely, should be deleted and replaced by the sole article pertaining to her book altogether. Mass147 21:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another possibility is to redirect the article to War profiteering. The two concepts are essentially the same, and in my opinion the progenitor of the term "disaster capitalism" is attempting to sensationalize an old idea. AlphaEta 02:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, and maybe a subsection should be added onto that article with reference to the Klein term. --Mass147 02:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A non-notable neologism. Nick mallory 02:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article may be fit for a subsection elsewhere, but is not important enough to sustain an article. DDB 12:01, 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 deleted as a blatant and evident hoax. Suspected hoaxes generally aren't speedyable because the accuracy of hoax detection is not 100%, but there are sufficient factors both intrinsic and extrinsic to leave little doubt in this case. Newyorkbrad 20:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Robbers (film)[edit]

Apparent hoax, no evidence for existence outside Wikipedia. Also features very unlikely, anachronistic casting (the film supposedly predates the entire IMDB credits of four of its actors). Andrew Levine 11:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Made up film. No evidence of it existing after a check on several movies sites. ~ SEEnoEVIL punch the keys 14:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete silly hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apparent hoax Hut 8.5 14:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find evidence supporting the film's existence. Leebo T/C 14:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as a copyvio, and spam too. Stifle (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey International Group[edit]

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

Page created and almost entirely edited by User:Tasjeffrey who happens to be the chairman and founder - COI?. Reads like an advert for the company. No references given. May be a worthwhile entry, but in its present state a plug and little more. (Large chunks of the article are repeated verbatim in Global Spirit Airlines, which also belongs to him. Emeraude 12:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete this corporate vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 12:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete apart from being an advert, large portions are copyright violations from the company's website. Hut 8.5 16:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...by the company itself. Emeraude 16:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but they haven't cleared it properly so it qualifies as G12. Hut 8.5 16:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
..precisely! Emeraude 19:28, 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 delete. Carioca 03:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goroohe Ma[edit]

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

This article is unreferenced, and I couldnt find any articles in Google on the subject (allthough there were lots of hits, they werent in english so I have no idea what they were about). As far as I know, it might not even be a real organization. Also, I dont think a crime organisation with "100 members worldwide" is at all notable. 99DBSIMLR 13:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article fails to cite sources that can be considered reliable, and suspicions of notability abound. --Aarktica 17:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Aarktica's excellent summary. Stifle (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VERIFY. No sources of any kind, much less "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Search on Google News produces 0 hits. Search of Google News Archives produces 0 hits. Yahoo News has 0 hits. LexisNexis has 0 hits. Possible hoax. -- Satori Son 21:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Also, most of the hits for "Persian Mafia" reference a joke in the film Clueless. -- Satori Son 21:19, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vcar (telepresence robot)[edit]

Vcar (telepresence robot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesnt assert notibilty. I found only one webpage and it appears to be just a web-controlled robot some guy built in his basement. 99DBSIMLR 13:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I cant see this being notable at all, it seems this will never be a suitable article. — The Sunshine Man (a.k.a Tellyaddict) 15:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete According to the article, the subject has been around for at least eight years; the lack of any evidence to support notability in that time says plenty about its importance — or lack thereof. --Aarktica 17:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Aarktica. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 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. PeaceNT 08:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creditary economics[edit]

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

As I suspected, a search in the OED came up with nothing. In any case, the current article is little more than spam and a dictionary definition. (WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, WP:NEO)) nadav (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as copyvio. Sr13 03:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ouessant (sheep)[edit]

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

A very poor translation from French and a badly laid out article. OK, these can perhaps be put right if anyone is interested, but the whole appears to be copied from a blog ('From http://ouessants.blogspot.com') and the original French website that was copied from is not currently available. Emeraude 16:25, 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 DES (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Vista Governors School[edit]

Mountain Vista Governors School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod removed by anon IP without discussion. It's a school; the article doesn't make any particular claim of notability, so does it have enough to keep? EliminatorJR Talk 16:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No assertion of notability, no sources. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 18:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of it is nonsense. —METS501 (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You all say that this is nonsense, but it is in fact, fact. Their are no sources because this is a compilation of first-hand accounts of real events. Many of this information was unknown until now. So please don't delete it. Clean it up, but don't delete it - Concerned MVGS Student — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.90.179 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per Concerned MVGS Student. Wikipedia is not for first-hand anything. No prejudice against recreating if such a recreation is accompanied by proper sources and references. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if reliable sources can be located, the school appears to be relatively notable. Yamaguchi先生 04:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You are kidding me right? LOOK at the article. What kind of sources do you want? The lunch menu? A list of courses offered? There is nothing of notability of this page. Furthermore, there is a section of current drop outs for the year? This page is a bunch of crap --sumnjim talk with me·changes 12:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do you have any idea what you are talking about. Read the article and use your brain, there is nothing to cite unless you want to dig up some poor Winchester Star or Northern Virginia Daily articles. Furthermore "LOOK at the article. ... This page is a bunch of crap..." hardly sounds respectable. I am in support of Yamaguchi, he is in support of the ideals of a Wiki, the collective effort of the people to improve knowledge, and while there is nothing to source, other people will come in aid of this project. Morphoray 13:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Morphoray (A wiki n00b)[reply]
  • Comment First of all, Please read No personal attacks. You can discuss something without lowering yourself to personal attacks. Secondly. Adding sources ie: the school's website, and some local award ceremony do NOT make the school notable. This school is NOT notable, the article is VERY POORLY written (A section that discusses what time the school has classes, and who dropped out of school this year are hardly worth mentioning -- along with 99% of the article). There is no point to having this on wiki. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 14:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources Added In response I have added three news articles on MVGS from two sources and I am attempting to locate a link to the original article for one of the events. --Morphoray 14:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Criteria for inclusion of school articles seems to be fairly broad. I've removed most of the crap, and it could use some more cleanup, but it's no less notable than most school articles around here. PCock 14:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Just because there are other non-notable school articles out there doesn't mean this one should be kept, it means they should be deleted too. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 14:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not arguing to keep because the other crap exists; but rather arguing that Wikipedia consensus is that this kind of crap is worthy of inclusion. PCock 15:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete weak because I venture to guess that there might be content to add, if anyone who knew local sources was prepared to do the work. DGG 23:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you look back at the note when the page was created, along with the multiple revisions, you can easily tell that this page was created as a joke by some students of the school. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 14:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or stub and flag for the schools Wikiproject. Loks like a directory entry plus nonsense right now. Guy (Help!) 09:08, 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. WjBscribe 05:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoggan Health Industries[edit]

Hoggan Health Industries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Marginally notable corporation, probably fails WP:CORP. The only reference in the article is to an in-house website. I wasn't able to find nontrivial external sources from a cursory web search. YechielMan 16:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Burden of proof is on article creator to establish notability, of which this article has none to speak of. --Aarktica 17:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Aarktica. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as insufficiently notable. No evidence of non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 21:03, 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 wasWithdrawn by nominator'. As I said in the nomination, this was procedural and I see a pretty good reason to keep and source, so I'm withdrawing. Redirects, renames, etc can go on the talkpage.--Isotope23 19:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Gay Left"[edit]

"Gay Left" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I found this tagged as a speedy. I think there is an assertion of notability in this article, the problem simply is that it isn't sourced. Speedy isn't the way to go here, so I'm listing it here. No real opinion, this is a procedural nomination. Isotope23 15:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If references were added I could see this being a suitable article. — The Sunshine Man (a.k.a Tellyaddict) 16:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with Socialism and LGBT rights and redirect - This publication addressed the interplay of race, sexual orientation and Marxist ideology in a radical new way. In this respect, it it unique worth keeping. It should be kept as is or condensed, supplemented with proper citations, and merged with Socialism and LGBT rights. AlphaEta 19:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename to Gay Left or Gay Left Collective. Citations in Google Books and elsewhere that could be used to improve the article. Connection to Jeffrey Weeks should be mentioned. --Dhartung | Talk 19:28, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gem Phenomenon[edit]

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

I found this tagged as a speedy delete, but I don't see a clear speedy rationale for this, so I've retagged it for AFD. This is a pretty clearcut protologism with no reliable sources that it is in usage by anyone but the article creator. My opinion is that this should be deleted. Isotope23 16:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 16:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - As per nom. No refs, no other indication this is a term used in software circles. Only quote containing the phrase is in the article (and its by the author!) 99DBSIMLR 16:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per above, and the only google hits for this phrase use it in a completely unrelated context. Someguy1221 08:11, 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. PeaceNT 18:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exposed: The Climate of Fear[edit]

Exposed: The Climate of Fear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability William M. Connolley 15:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Excerpts of transcript, likely candidate for copyvio.(problem solved) -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 15:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my recommendation to Keep. The article still needs a bit of work before it can be left alone, as there appear to be a few POV assertions contested, and a few more citations needed for some statements, but there are now attributed, non-trivial sources discussing the episode (some even before it was aired, which might be seen as a notion of notability in itself). -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 22:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it isn't done, more will be added, meets notability requirements, based on multiple sources that are acceptable in other articles (listed in talk page).--Zeeboid 15:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - those parts of the article that are not simply quoting the television report are incomprehensible. Hal peridol 16:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to weak keep. The work of Oren0 and Kim D. Petersen in particular has addressed concerns of copyright. Its notability still appears marginal (hence the 'weak'), but there are several sources now. Hal peridol 02:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It looks like a work in progress and if it can be expanded upon, I believe it would meet requirements. CWPappas 17:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears to be an article on a specific episode of a TV show only containing excerpts from the transcript. Without any commentary on the episode itself from reliable sources, it currently meets G12 for speedy delete as a copyright violation, and probably should be tagged as such. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 17:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahh, you should read it, because it does include commentary on the episode by reliable sources. right there under Critism. Also the article is yet incomplete. I would encorage you all to help add to it. There are 4 sources listed, 3 of which are objectional views by notable "reliable" sources, and the other is from CNN.--Zeeboid 17:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those would be from blogs, not reliable sources. The article is still very heavy on quotes, and the page still contains a great deal of verbatim lines from the transcript, which is copyright. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 18:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The blogs are notable, they are used all over the palce and have even wistood other attempts to remove them as non-reliable sources. Sources are not the issue. the lines are quotes from the movie. How would you sugguest they be altered to allow this article to stay?--Zeeboid 19:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blogs, notable or not, are not published works (no peer review etc), and are not proper sources WP:SPS. As for what to do to keep, see my comment below. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 20:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing a keep fact. The TV episode itself was subject to review prior to broadcast. There is no reasonable question the show is notable.RonCram 20:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt debate its notability. I'm trying to point out that this article's overuse of the transcript and other quotes currently qualify it for {{db-copyvio|http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/02/gb.01.html}}. There is clearly some notability about the subject, but the article itself violates the rules. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 21:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not address your remarks regarding possible copyright violations because others here have done so. I agree with them that there is no violation. The article does not violate the "fair use" standard. My comment was to point out that the broadcast did have to pass journalistic review.RonCram 21:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a citation to prove that? If not, then its just hearsay. "All television broadcasts first have to pass journalistic review" is not a truism, unfortunately. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 21:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying all journalistic review is thorough, but I will say it had to go through a process. There is no question about that. If Beck was able to avoid the process somehow, that itself would be newsworthy. All of the other cable channels would jump on it, MSNBC most readily.RonCram 21:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is obviously a POV fork. The question whether or not one could write a good wiki article about "climate of fear", is irrelevant. Count Iblis 18:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What could this possibly be a POV fork of? ~ UBeR 18:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you guys still don't get it, do you. According to policy[10]:

The purpose of the discussion is to achieve consensus upon a course of action. Individuals will express strong opinions and may even "vote". To the extent that voting occurs (see meta:Polls are evil), the votes are merely a means to gauge the degree of consensus reached so far.

I HAVE SEEN NO attempts to reach a consensus, just attempts to remove information some don't agree with. those of you with an objection atleast try to appear as if you are following some type of policy and explain how you would fix the article so we can try to reach a "consensus" which as you all know is quite diffrent then majority. according to wikipedia, majority voting is not the determining factor in wether a nomination succeeds or not, so I won't stand for this article's straight up deletion without work to make it better.--Zeeboid 18:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, how can you argue that an hour-long special on national television is non-notable? See WP:EPISODE. While this article might have tons of content yet, give it time before insta-deleting it. Oren0 19:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with the content, but if you read WP:EPISODE it says "Avoid excessive trivia and quotations." If the copyright violations are removed, down to a reasonable amount of quotes necessary to sustain any topical sections about the episode (not about the topic!), I dont see anything wrong with keeping it. The form the article is in now, however would require a major rewrite, as most of the content there is unacceptable. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 20:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What copyright violations are you refering to? I see names of people, their title, and a quote from the documentry...--Zeeboid 20:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but it was nominated here as being non-notable. It's clearly notable. Give it more than two days of existence before you delete it for lack of content. It will build. An Inconvenient Truth and The Great Global Warming Swindle both demonstrate that you can write about GW-related documentaries without only relying on quotes or delving too deeply into the issue at hand. Oren0 20:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Ask yourself: Will anybody still know what this is in 10 years? In ten months? The average Teletubbies episode will be in syndication, but this will be forgotten as yesterday's news.--Stephan Schulz 20:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a funny standard for "notable" that has never been used before. In ten years time, global warming may well be consigned to the junkyard as an embarrassment to science. RonCram 20:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't bet on it. But even if, it will still be notable. Even a non-event like global cooling is still notable after 30 years. This TV show is not, and it's unlikely that it ever will be. And I don't know where you Google, but I get less than 40000 hits.--Stephan Schulz
I get more than 72,000. Try this. [11] And, as you know, the PDO turned to the cooler phase last year (a 30 year cycle). The El Nino effect ended in NA in March. April was the coolest April in 46 years. We can expect cooler temps globally for the next 15-30 years.RonCram 20:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where on earth did you get this "coolest April in 46 years" idea? According to the CRU data, this was the third-warmest April in the instrumental record.[12] Do you just make stuff up??? Raymond Arritt 21:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raymond, my mistake. See my apology below. RonCram 21:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. The number of hits went from 72,100 to 72,400 in just a few minutes!
Wow. Google is not Yahoo (and I get 69900 on Yahoo, so it's down again?) --Stephan Schulz 21:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I was searching on Yahoo. My mistake. I still get 72,400. RonCram 21:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stephan, you are right again regarding April. My apologies. The stat I was referring to relates to North American temperature anomalies and I thought it was referring to global temp. It has been much cooler than normal here in southern California for about seven out of the last eight weeks. RonCram 21:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you google "Exposed: The Climate of Fear" you get more than 72,000 hits. It is strange for someone to say a TV episode creating that much publicity is not notable. The show is being discussed by online news outlets, think tanks, blogs and cable network talk show hosts. It was even discussed by the PR website RealClimate.org. If it was notable enough for William Connolley's colleagues at RealClimate to discuss it, it is notable enough for Wikipedia. RonCram 20:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's just a segment of a regular TV show. What's next, an article on every episode of 20/20? No evidence of notability in mainstream sources. Raymond Arritt 20:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete There does not appear to be verifiable information from secondary sources about this episode; blogs are not really reliable sources and I am a bit uncomfortable with Media Matters for America being the sole source indicating notability. If kept, however, a serious rewrite would be needed. --TeaDrinker 20:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Media Matters is not the sole source. The show is discussed on CNN's website, Yahoo News, NewsMax.com, and multiple other online news organizations. In addition, Sean Hannity talks about it on his blog which means he has probably covered it on his show on FOX as well. RonCram 21:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Raymond --Whsitchy 20:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep This article is perilously close to violating multiple conditions for television episodes. The extensive quotes could be construed as an "indiscriminant collection of information" and possibly a copyright violation. That being said, the article should not be deleted just because some editors disagree with its content. With minor revision it should come into compliance with Wikipedia standards. AlphaEta 22:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with RonCram. I visit wikipedia often, and am still amazed that it is this easy for a religious group (global warming supporters) to control what claims itself to be an Online Encyclopedia that anyone can edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.237.97.97 (talk • contribs) 19:18, May 25, 2007
    • Comment the above anon has only made two edits, the one above, and to the talk page of the article up for AfD. --Whsitchy 04:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's as notable as any other TV show on here and has plenty of 3rd party sources. Nick mallory 02:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we are to label the subject of this article as non-notable, then we would need to extend non-notability to a broad range of articles that discuss a show, person or group's non-NPOV position on controversial issues, thus deleting hundreds if not thousands of articles. I would suggest instead that the subject of the article is notable partly because it presents an alternative POV. --Athol Mullen 02:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep advertised special show on single topic, not as claimed above "just a segment" on a show usually about several topics. We'll see if article grows. (SEWilco 05:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete, I trust WMC's judgment. Stifle (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No-question delete: Where to start? Utterly non-notable - where are the independent secondary sources again? A soapbox article about a non-notable episode of a non-notable show, also a copyvio for good measure and a POV fork. I see none of these issues (particularly notability, the most vital) addressed convincingly by the "keep" !voters. MastCell Talk 19:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mastcell, the notable independant secondary sources are in the article.--Zeeboid 19:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • very strong delete I'm going to leave to others the argument about this show being notable (imho its not). And instead give some good reasons for it to be deleted as a strict WP:NPOV issue: The entire article is based upon a specific editors selective quoting from the transcript of the show. Stringing these together is a series of WP:OR statements, such as Beck proposed explanations for global warming, and while stating that the Earth is warming, ...continuing... his one-hour documentary presented the views of scientists who don't believe that global warming is caused by humans.. For the first sentence: Where is that explanation? and what does it consist of? Answer: Ask the editor - since the show doesn't give such an explanation. For the second sentence: Say's who? Answer: The editor. John Christy for instance does believe that humans have a finger in global warming. (he contests the amount - or rather if its catastrophic). We do not have a reliable source summarizing this show - or to give hints to the editors on which parts to focus or expand. Its a freebie ride to quote whatever random part of the show to match your own POV (or in this case the editors). For other examples, lets take headlines: "Experts on Kyoto" ... says who? John Christy certainly isn't. Nice touch with the quote from Al Gore (very much taken out of context - but used in the same way in the show). "Global Warming Crowd" who are these? The show doesn't say (transcript doesn't even have the word: Crowd). "Intimidation Tactics" - the word Intimidation doesn't appear in the transcript - why is it in quotation marks? etc. etc. etc. --Kim D. Petersen 20:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let it be noted that most of these supposed POV points have been fixed. Working together, we can make this into a high quality article. The fact that an article could be used to push POV is not itself a reason to delete anything; nearly any article could push POV. If you think the article pushes POV, be bold and fix or flag it. That's no reason to delete the page. As for the "stringing together" of statements, every article on a documentary will necessarily involve some discretion of the editors in summarizing the points; it is our job as editors to make sure that the summaries and claims are accurate. Again, no reason to delete the page. Oren0 04:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alot of my specific claims have been resolved, by having OrenO come in as another editor. But there are still issues, of which most are based in only having a primary source to a show that is (at its own admission) extremely one-sided. It still suffers from cherry-picking and interpretation of issues, primarily because no secondary sources have been pulled in, to guide in a focus on what issues and what interpretations should prevail. As an example the Oregon petition, which is mentioned in passing once by an interviewee in the movie, suddenly becomes one of the shows major points. --Kim D. Petersen 16:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — This article is both notable and relevant. Remember, thirty years ago, scientists thought that the Earth was experiencing global cooling. (Time Magazine, June 24, 1974 and Newsweek, April 28, 1975.) The common consensus is that scientists were wrong then but right now. (Does the latest scientific study show that fat good or bad for us?) We can only just determine current relevance, not to predict what will be relevant even one year from now. This article also contains information from relevant and independent critical sources. Val42 21:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, apart from the fact that your history is wrong, what does this have to do with this article? We don't have specific articles on the Times and Newsweek articles, although they indeed do have some notability (enough that Newsweek still comments on it after 30 years). Instead, we have articles on climate change and global cooling. This article is about a 1-hour episode in a tv news magazine, which will maybe rerun once at night for a filler, and then be quitely (and justifiably) forgotten.--Stephan Schulz 07:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've pretty much rewritten this whole article to try to address the POV, copyright, quality, and apparent notability issues raised here. Gone are the quote sections, I've tried to replace them with summaries where appropriate. I've also added 2 reliable sources about the subject. If 2 isn't sufficient to demonstrate notability, there are plenty among the 55,000 google results [13], but it gets to a point where additional sources aren't really adding any new information. Hopefully this alleviates most of the concerns that the 'delete' crowd has raised. Oren0 21:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that since the article is now clearer, it has become more obvious that it's a POV fork written expressly to promote a specific POV. Notability still is not established beyond a few mentions in the blogosphere. (And how utterly bizarre that two sources the skeptical editors have long fought tooth-and-nail against are now being used to argue for notability!) The article remains a disaster of POV and disorganization: half the "experts interviewed" aren't experts, the writing is atrocious, and so on. Among the factual points needing clarification: what's the evidence that the show is a "documentary" as opposed to just another episode of Beck's show? Raymond Arritt 22:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No secondary sources? What about Glenn Beck Torpedoes 'An Inconvenient Truth' - NewsMax.com and TorontoSun.com - Gore's hypocrisy exposed, both in the article? Or this one [14], not in the article. I can give you more without even entering the blogosphere. As for "is it a documentary," Beck calls it a documentary on his website [15]. Who in the article isn't an "expert" in the field they discuss? If you don't like the writing, rewrite it. If you think parts are POV, flag them as such. All the article currently does is summarize the claims made in the documentary, how can that be a POV fork any more than the pages for An Inconvenient Truth or The Great Global Warming Swindle? Oren0 23:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raymond, its amazing, isn't it, how much we all can get done when we learn to accept (in part) what others consider to be accaptable sources. Consider this a lession I have learned. If they are indeed acceptable, then they help to make this article better too, right? The arguement against this article's Notability is a loosing one. Notability has been well established.--Zeeboid 02:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your standard for notability is loose. I am glad to see you admit it. Raymond Arritt 03:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are the side without the needed concensus to delete here, what with wikipedia's policy won't allow the deletion simply on a majority.[16]--Zeeboid 04:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, can you explain a little more clearly? Raymond Arritt 21:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: I'd like to step back a little and ask a fairly basic question. To be a POV fork, an article has to be a fork of another article on the same subject. Could someone perhaps provide a link to the other article on this television program? If not, then there is no other article for this to be a fork of. --Athol Mullen 02:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected; for "POV fork", read "vehicle to promote a specific POV." See Kim D. Peterson's comments above for a small sample of the article's POV-pushing. Raymond Arritt 03:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, If we're going to cite policy here, Raymond, then does "vehicle to promote a specific POV" not also apply to Al Gore's peace? while we're pulling policies, then wp:iar should work too. Kim's opinion above is easially correctable. Look. You guys don't want this informaiton displayed, so you claim there needs to be notable independant sources. those sources are listed on the page, and once agin, the Global Warming possie here keeps trying to change the requirements or the reasons to delete the article. William and MastCell's want for deletion because of notability, even though the same sources (which they have defended tooth and nail as being valid, notable, etc etc) are being used here. The deletion per non-notability is a loosing arguement, so you switch to POV pushing, which is not exactly easy to show, what with the critism section and all.--Zeeboid 04:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A "POV fork" can also be a fork of a portion of an article to push the controversy to another page, leaving only one POV in the original article. A fork is acceptable if there is enough information for another article, and the controversy is sufficiently summarized on the original page. I was going to fix the section of the original article that this came from, but I'll wait until this deletion request has been resolved. Val42 04:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but I didn't come to this deletion discussion via another article from which it was split. I still don't know what the article is that this is supposed to be a POV fork of. --Athol Mullen 05:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it was a POV fork. Some may think that it was a POV fork from the Glenn Beck article. But it isn't because there is a summary, with the controversy, in that article. The article under discussion is not a POV fork. Val42 06:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and a short summary in the Glenn Beck article is exactly the right amount of coverage for this 1-hour TV special, which has zero scientific and nearly zero cultural notability. Forking its own article smacks of creating a platform to expound anti-global-warming views. MastCell Talk 17:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From that page, "First, create an article on the television show." That exists. "Once there's enough verifiable information independent of the show itself, create articles on each season, or some other logical division, of the show." Missing that step. "Once there's enough verifiable information from secondary sources about individual episodes, create separate articles for them." That would be the step this article would fall into. (Selections from:Wikipedia:Television episodes) -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 07:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article needs some improvement but is notable being a TV special from CNN. The machine512 06:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not entirely, but it certainly is a factor. Just as an article written in the New York times would be taken notice of more than say the Turkish Daily News. As for living up to the existing standards of wikipedia, compare the 63,000 entries in Google for "Exposed: The Climate of Fear" to the 1,000 entries in Google for "The Greenhouse Conspiracy", yet The Greenhouse Conspiracy is somehow more notable on wikipedia? The machine512 11:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You forgot to mention WP:GOOGLEHITS. I won't nominate it as I feel it is WP:NOHARM. I am however curious to see if someone opposing this article will nominate it, as many here have seen it before and no one has opposed it in the past. The machine512 15:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per what was said above about notability. As for the copyright issue raised by wizzard2k, I am far from sure that this is a copyright infringement (its not as if we were making the video or the full transcript available through WP) but as to review carefully this concern, the first thing to do is close this deletion request which focuses on notability concerns that are obviously not accepted. Perhaps then open a review specifically about the copyright issue. --Childhood's End 19:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the editors involved have worked hard at removing the copyrighted transcript text, which at the beginning of this discussion was nearly the entire article. The criticism section still contains entire quotes from other sources, and would probably be better served if they were summarized and cited. There still exists a major issue of reliable secondary sources that establish the notability of this particular episode. This discussion seems to have derailed a bunch of times, and even appears to bring up the subject of global cooling in part of the discussion! How this pertains to an articles for deletion debate on an article about a tv show, I'm not quite sure. Remember, we're not trying to determine if the subject of the TV show is notable, but whether or not the episode itself is noteworthy. Also, whatever article X or Y has is irrelevant here. This article was nominated, so we're trying to determine if it, and it alone, should be deleted. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 01:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not sure if this comment was meant as an answer to mine or as an independent comment, but I also agree that this discussion has derailed quite a few times with POVed accusations of POV and such (that's why I suggest that we close this AfD since lack of notability does not seem to be accepted - I count 13 keeps and 10 deletes, where among the 10 deletes only 5 supported the lack of notability claim - I also think that notability is further established by the fact that this is one of the very few TV shows in the American major media that covered the skeptical position regarding global warming, making this specific episode noteworthy, as you were inquiring). Finally, given very little time, a few editors have been able to resolve some other side issues that were raised in this AfD, such as the copyright point that you raised. --Childhood's End 14:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was trying to answer with a statement to the effect that I believe the copyright issue has been solved. I rewrote the criticism section in the article so its a little clearer what the references are, and it does appear to have them. Now, I think some people need to weigh in on the quality and notability of those references, but seeing as how two of the three do have articles here in Wikipedia, there's reason to believe they're notable enough to establish notability for this article. Just remember, Wikipedia is not a democracy, so vote counts mean zilch. I think all we need left in this discussion is some sort of proof that the references cited in the article do assert the episode's notability (ie, why is it in particular important enough to have an article here on Wikipedia, and what separates it from lesser coverage on the same topic). I dont think anyone can rightfully argue the topic is not notable. I dont think anyone can argue the show itself is not notable enough to warrant an article. Notability, however, is not inherited, so it must be established for everything through sources. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 16:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree w/ Childhoodsend, lets close this [incivility deleted]--Zeeboid 14:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment i have to say that i find this comment out of line. Besides you've already voted Z. --Kim D. Petersen 21:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On which part of wizzard2k's comments do you support this? --Childhood's End 19:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious too! (I just struck my earlier recommendation for clarity's sake). -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 20:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This answer will be fun to see.--Zeeboid 20:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thats been over 5 days now (policy states discuss for UP TO 5 days), and if wikipedia was a majority, the Keeps would have it, so that clearly means there is no concensus to delte. Can we close this [incivility deleted] now?--Zeeboid 20:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relax. It will happen. You've already stated your opinion multiple times, so there's no need to reiterate it here. By the way, AfD's happen all the time. Taking it personally and labelling it a "witch-hunt" (particularly for an article as borderline-notable as this one) is not a good way to go forward. MastCell Talk 23:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. It is a topical controversial issue of great interest. It has been widely discussed and publicized - for example on Connolley's own blog. The Afd is part of Connolley's POV campaign to stifle any dissent from manmade global warming on wikipedia. Paul Matthews 12:56, 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 deleted, no assertion of notability. -- lucasbfr talk 08:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sight For Sore Eyes[edit]

Sight For Sore Eyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No doubt a worthy organization, but appears quite unnotable. No references or sources except for the orgs own web site. Sdmittedly the creation of a college student. No mention of media coverage. No indication of the kind of project scope likely to get non-local media coverage. There are many local groups that work on similer projects with the Lions clubs. This has been twice speedy deleted and recreated, but I don't think it is quite a speedy. DES (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom unless independent reliable sources are cited so as to establish notability. DES (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - written as advert, just read the last sentence of the first paragraph. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 15:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable HeirloomGardener 15:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as does not meet notability standards, and has little coverage other than its own site. Josh 15:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Bordering on spam and not notable (founded in April 2007, I mean come on...)...candidate for speedy, so tagged. -Cquan (don't yell at me...) 20:39, 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 11:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alkatrazz (wrestler)[edit]

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

Also Lil' Cholo, Markus Riot and Gilbert Aguilera. Relisting. As I noted when I first proposed that the articles be deleted, "All [four] articles are sub-stubs with no references, assertions of notability or substantial information. All [four] articles have gone over three weeks since their creation with no improvements." This remains the case. Moreover, the company that employed all four wrestlers (their sole claim to notability) now appears to have ceased operations. McPhail 15:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Unnotable "athletes" in an unnotable secret wrestling society(?). 99DBSIMLR 16:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of these played a major part on the TV show, and have apparantly done nothing notable before or after. The show has been put and permanent hiatus by MTV, and it is unlikely that any other channnel will pick it up. --Eivindt@c 21:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - as stated above. Govvy 09:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant achievements or following on the scene before or since. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 14:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as stated above, no notable achievements to speak of. Yamaguchi先生 04:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. These wrestlers shouldn't have articles until they have done something more substantial or notable. Nikki311 23:00, 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. PeaceNT 08:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Imrie[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO as never having played in a fully professional league - Taringa Rovers and Tamworth are both in amateur leagues. robwingfield «T•C» 14:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Brisbane Premier League is a professional league. He played for Tamworth in the Nationwide Conference, a professional league.Jonesy702 17:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per previous discussion, players who have only played outside the Football League are considered NN (the Conference is not fully professional). Can you source the Brisbane Premier League being fully professional? If so, he qualifies. EliminatorJR Talk 19:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 21:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the Brisbane Premier League is not fully professional, see these player profiles from the Taringa Rovers website, which clearly list the players' day jobs: [17], [18], [19], [20], etc etc. And the Conference is not fully professional either - overwhelming consensus is that a player who has never played above the Conference is not considered to meet the requirements of WP:BIO ChrisTheDude 21:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The Brisbane Premier League is most definitely not fully professional. The only fully professional league in Australia is the A-League. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 00:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. John Vandenberg 00:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn football player. Lankiveil 02:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as per guidelines. There are some incidental mentions in local papers but nothing that would persuade me that he meets our guidelines. Capitalistroadster 02:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until he gets multiple, non-trivial secondary references. First reference is a directory listing (provides verification) the second only mentions the subject in passing.Garrie 02:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Angelo 17:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ChrisTheDude. Qwghlm 09:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Garrie. Subject fails to meet standards of WP:V. CloudNine 12:06, 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 Merge and redirect to Harrisonburg City Public Schools. KrakatoaKatie 20:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Harrison Middle School[edit]

Thomas Harrison Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not assert the importance or notability of the subject (the middle school in this instance), nor does it contain any references. Ozgod 14:19, 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. Note that "redirect" and "rename" are both keep as opposed to delete, and are both editing actions that may be performed without an AfD discussion. DES (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Band (music)[edit]

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

It is only a one-sentence dictionary definition and links to related topics. The previous somewhat longer definition was innaccurate because it limited the definition of band to specific music genres. Spylab 13:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with Delete and Redirect per above. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 18:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with redirect, and the individual links can be added to the Band disambiguation page. Dekimasuよ! 09:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect. You're right, since band has a number of meanings, and there are many incoming links. — brighterorange (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is clealy a disambiguation and it does not need more text than one sentence. I proceed in changing it to disambiguation style. Please check and review your opinion (the arguments for all opinions written above are valid for an article, but do not correspond to a disambiguation).--FocalPoint 20:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There already is a Band disambiguation page. I think this would qualify more as Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Set_index_articles. Perhaps the entries here should be merged into Band? -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 22:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is probably a "Set index article", even more than a disambiguation (never had an idea we had a name for this - well done wizzard2k!).--FocalPoint 13:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Musical ensemble appears to be a set index article. This should just redirect there. Dekimasuよ! 09:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Fix this article. Jet123 (Talk) 22:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a valid set index article and is not subject to disambiguation anality (rules). ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 11:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is a useful page for disambiguation and links to sub-articles. WWGB 14:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - It is not disambiguation (all links are the same concept (namely musical ensembles)), it is not a set index article (not the same name either (see example on Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Set_index_articles page)). Redirect seems the most appropriate. -Catneven 10:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per YechielMan. There is already a disambiguation page for Band; this term should go to an article about the concept. --Russ (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename: I believe that this is a valid list article and shouldn't be merged or redirected. It should follow the list article style. However, the title is confusing and makes people think it is a dab page: it should be something like List of musical band types. An existing similar article is List of mountain types. Musical ensemble is a full-fledged article and would be junked up if you merged this information into there. hike395 15:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rename to List of musical band types seems to me appropriate. --FocalPoint 18:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the best option indeed. I would opt for List of musical ensemble types in that case.-Catneven 19:31, 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 11:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kwami k. kwami[edit]

Kwami k. kwami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable per WP:BIO. "Best known for" a self-published book, and a defunct radio show that appears to have only aired on college radio stations. Very likely WP:AB, too. Closenplay 12:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There appear to be autobiographical elements. The connection between the references and the article is not stated (i.e., there are no inline citations). YechielMan 18:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable person that wrote a non-notable book. All Web hits from Wikipedia and it's counterparts, and it does seem to be slightly autobiographical. -=Elfin=-341 19:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Elfin341 and Geogre's law. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all. --JayJasper 18:40, 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aphenphosmphobia[edit]

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

The problem with this article is that it leaves you asking "So?". Wikipedia != dictionary. Transwikied dictdef, contested prod. MER-C 12:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Shouldn't this be speedied as it has been transwikied? JodyB talk 12:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. The transwikification system is not a back door route to deletion. Transwikified articles should be considered on their merits, and in accordance with our policies and guidelines, just as any other articles. The questions that editors should be asking themselves here are the usual ones, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy: Is this article verifiable? Do sources exist anywhere from which it will be possible to expand it? Is it possible for it not to be a perpetual 1-sentence stub? Uncle G 13:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a legitimate phobia, and Uncle G has expanded it beyond the 1-line definition to a decent stub article. HeirloomGardener 15:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:HeirloomGardener. Page is more than just a mere dicdef now, and is definitely a serviceable stub by now. Kudos to User:Uncle G for expanding the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, this is no longer a mere dicdef and shows clear potential for expansion. Kudos to Uncle G. — brighterorange (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the expanded version. Was a valid deletion candidate when nominated. Stifle (talk) 14:28, 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. PeaceNT 08:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eliza Cuts[edit]

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

Contested prod. Hairdresser who is rumoured to be engaged to a singer, and is "well known on Buzznet and Myspace". Not notable and rumourmongering. Hut 8.5 11:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. CIreland 12:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although the article attempts to assert notability I think it fails to adequatly do so. There are no RS's which is required. Items that are purely crystal ball or speculation really have no place here. The use of Myspace and Buzznet do not, in my judgment equal credible, reliable or non-trivial. JodyB talk 12:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable. As a side comment, I thought this was hilarious Though she has many many haters she still has 2 or 3 fans on Buzznet. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 13:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - You mean that's not an assertion of notibilty? (Delete it) 99DBSIMLR 16:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Ozgod 14:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ---=Elfin=-341 19:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Blueboy96 23:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing notable about a hairdresser having an affair with band members. Truthanado 02:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems my arguments are well-covered here. KrakatoaKatie 06:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per commenters above, fails WP:BLP with no sources at all. Yamaguchi先生 07:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 05:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Apprentice (US Season 7) (2nd nomination)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Apprentice (US Season 7) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This show has been cancelled, so the series will never be made or air. Source-[21] Dalejenkins 10:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Cancelled, not important. Information about the series cancellation is already in the main article. --- RockMFR 12:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any useful information not already posted into the main article The Apprentice (US TV Series) (post the draft onto the talk page there) and then delete redirect. One hitch though - the article asserts that the jury may still be out on cancellation. Trump says he is "done", but the contract is still valid: "Trump is contractually obligated to appear on Apprentice 7", and another network may pick it up:"Mark Burnett stated in April 2007 he would move the show to another network should NBC cancel it". So this AfD, if based on an assumed cancellation, is skating on pretty thin ice until a final decision is made at the network(s):"The network has until June 1, 2007 ". That said, that the article exists constitutes crystalballing, which is a decent example of why we should not be asserting that this or that future show or movie "will be released" in some future date, because things can happen between then and now. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 14:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At this point, there has not been ANY official word from NBC that this show is on indefinite hiatus, cancelled, postponed etc. The network still has an option to pick this show up. So let's just wait and see. Vikramsidhu 16:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This merits a line or two in the main article, which is the case. If and only if it is confirmed (with or without The Donald), it may be recreated. --Dhartung | Talk 19:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Recreate if the series is picked up, but there is no need for an article documenting how this season does not exist. Resolute 05:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverified crystal-ballery. Then create a redirect to The Apprentice (US) and mention that the series has been cancelled. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Straightforward crystalballery. A1octopus 23:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Donaghey[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO as never having played in a fully professional league. robwingfield «T•C» 10:57, 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. PeaceNT 08:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Storer[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO as never having played in a fully professional league. robwingfield «T•C» 10:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 11:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no Football League experience = doesn't satisfy the demands of WP:BIO. Despite past debate, current consensus is that playing in the Conference does not meet WP:BIO ChrisTheDude 11:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if he never played senior football for league clubs. Punkmorten 11:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Harry Donaghey. EliminatorJR Talk 13:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep according to his biography he is a professional football player, and his team links to Conference North. The article needs expansion and references. --Ozgod 14:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conference North is not a professional league - Storer has only played league games at an amateur level according to the article and any other sources I've found. robwingfield «T•C» 14:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Christhedude. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Christhedude; fails BIO.--Kubigula (talk) 02:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO. No record of appearances for Leicester, so has to go. Dave101→talk  15:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, never made a single appearance in a professional league. Period. --Angelo 16:59, 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 08:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Touhy[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO as never having played in a fully professional league. robwingfield «T•C» 10:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 10:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no Football League experience = doesn't satisfy the demands of WP:BIO. Despite past debate, current consensus is that playing in the Conference does not meet WP:BIO ChrisTheDude 10:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if he never played senior football for league clubs. Punkmorten 11:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Harry_Donaghey. EliminatorJR Talk 13:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if not referenced The article says he plays professional football, but contains no references to back up that claim. --Ozgod 13:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems like he never played in a professional league --Angelo 17:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Ujah[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO as never having played in a fully professional league. robwingfield «T•C» 10:24, 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 Keep and rewrite. PeaceNT 11:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jára Cimrman[edit]

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

Article about a fictional character that is written as if the character was a real person, which violates guideline on writing about fiction. The article does not make distinctions between real world facts and fictions. The only indication that this article is about a fictional character is form its lead alone. Because the article is intentionally written as if the character was real, it clearly invocation of Wikipedia's core policies on neutral point of view and verifiability. Also, because the article does not use any sources, it strongly implicates that the entire article is original research. And lastly the articles maintainers have stated that one must understand the Czech meme that spawned the character before one understands the article, which means the article doesn't do its job. I tagged the article to allow a chance for the maintainer to clean it up and bring it into line with Wikipedia's policies, but their statements indicate that they are not interested. Which is demonstrated by comments such as The "talking about him as he is real person" is exactly the point[22]. --Farix (Talk) 09:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment/Neutral There is a grey line between actual biographies of actual people and fictional characters, and I always run into that when I am tagging for the WPBiograph Project. The article needs references, definitely. I am on the fence about whether to delete it, however.
  • Keep The whole Jára Cimrman “phenomenon” was created as a form of artistic mystification. I found it legit in the context if the artistic style and particularly this piece that the distinction - even in encyclopedia - between what’s real and what is just fiction is not that obvious as in real persons or evidently fictional characters cases. Nevertheless the distinction is still clear in the article. If you think it’s not in some parts, please indicate them, so they can be eventually reworded. But deleting the whole article is overreaction.
    If you find something an original research, please tag it with the fact/citation needed mark. I am sure valid reference(s) can be added. Please take into consideration, that Jára Cimrman is so popular in Czech Republic (the article actually hints it too) that something you might see as original research was – perhaps wrongly – taken as common knowledge by the article maintainers. Again such errors are to be repaired and not the whole article deleted.
    Excuse me but from my point of view it seems you are just making your little revenge, because the article maintainers haven’t accepted your changes, changes you haven't even bothered to explain and/or discuss on the article’s talk page. (Forgive me if not, but take a look at the history of the article. You made a minor edit in the article for the first time then after it is reverted you nominate if for deletion the second day :-s.) --Rikapt 14:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please assume good faith. I attempted to tag the article as needing cleanup, specifically because it doesn't make distinctions between fiction and fact because. However, the tag was twice reverted and I was "told off" by one of the editors to not edit the article further if I didn't understand the content.[23] The article is in serious need of a cleanup, but with that kind of attitude from the editors maintaining the article, it's not going to happen. --Farix (Talk) 22:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, in-univerise PoV is not accpetable. A new article with a proper encyclopedic tone could later be created, if warrented. DES (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in the article is clearly explained that J.daC. is fictional chracter; and playing the game on his real existence is part of his characterization. Actually, he was nearly elected Greatest Czech, but electoral fraud of Czech TV (stating that fictional persons are not eligible to contest, while nothing in this manner was in rules of contest) excluded him from contest. --Pooh-winnie 16:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I understand your frustration and I share your concerns with the article, but AfD is not an appropriate venue to make ultimatums to bully editors into fixing problems. The article has clearly established the notability of its subject. --Sneftel 16:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, based on the comments from Samohyl Jan on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler, there is little chance that this article will receive the needed cleanup. From my impression of his comments, he and other Czech editors will revert such attempts at bringing the article within lines of Wikipedia's policies. --Farix (Talk) 22:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Following Wikipedia policies yourself would be a good start. If you feel like discussion on the article's talk page has failed, file an RFC. Deletion isn't going to solve anything. Besides, you've said yourself that the subject deserves an article. Do you think that the current crop of Czech editors are going to be detonated by this deletion? Or do you plan to have the article re-deleted every time someone puts in an edit you don't like? --Sneftel 00:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I will cite WP:SNOW as Samohyl Jan comments and Jan.Kamenicek actions strongly indicates that no cleanup will likely take place. But at the very lease, the cleanup tags should be restored and not removed until actual cleanup and rewriting of most of the article does takes place. --Farix (Talk) 15:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And that's fine. But AFD isn't going to make it happen. --Sneftel 16:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep User:Rikapt said it all. --mj41 17:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's notable, integral part of Czech culture. I am a bit sorry I started this havoc just for the sake of spoiler example, ah well. As for those comments that say a better job could be done, trust me, it may be hard to tell unless you know what is it all about (the current Wikipedia article explains a lot, and if it is not enough, please indicate the parts you don't understand). Samohyl Jan 17:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability does not excuse the article form violating other Wikipedia standards and policies, especially WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. As for this comment, I looked at the articles talk page and saw no consensus to place the spoiler tag. (Two people agreeing with each other does not form a consensus.) Also this justification about the spoiler tag is about as loopy as they come. Just because non-Czech don't know he is a fictional character, it will ruin the surprise to them when they find out the truth when they read the article. And finally, you make a weak comparison to Forest Gump, which doesn't work because the latter makes a clear distinction between it facts and the fiction of the movie character. --Farix (Talk) 22:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as I see it, the notability is only thing relevant for AfD. My original comments "if you don't know, don't touch" meant: How can you judge NPOV or OR in the article, if you don't know the subject better then what the Wikipedia article says? I explained why I am pro-spoiler in this case on Wikipedia Talk:Spoiler already, and will put link to that debate in talk page (and imho, the spoiler doesn't hurt anyone). But anyway, I always tried to be neutral party in the debate, and thus trying to save the previous version against people who may be confused by the Cimrman phenomenon (the article should make you unconfused, but again, you cannot judge it correctness just on the basis of article itself alone, therefore, if you haven't known about Cimrman before reading about him on Spoilers page, you should probably not to try/ask other people to "fix" it). Samohyl Jan 06:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The AfD process is based on more then just notability. Articles with serious problems with original research, POV issues, and/or is largely comprised of statements that cannot be verified through independent reliable sources. --Farix (Talk) 15:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but the editors are cautioned to eliminate the in-universe perspective and rewrite the article encyclopedically. Wikipedia is not and should not be part of this game. --Dhartung | Talk 19:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, see my comments to Sneftel --Farix (Talk) 22:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deletion is an innapropriate method of improving an article imho DDB 11:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:OR, WP:A, and others. If kept, complete rewrite is needed to distinguish clearly between fact and fiction. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know about the article's notability, but the problem here seems to be with the editors of the article and not the article itself. Might I suggest a temporary topical ban for those who continue to remove the {{in-universe}} tag? -- Ned Scott 03:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: doubtlessly notable per the media coverage; the only problem is with some edit(or)s approcach, but not the existence of the article as such. --Malyctenar 14:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Do you actually think this article would confuse someone into believing Jára Cimrman is not fictional (and it states that quite clearly in the lead, so I don't see a problem). When you look at Forrest Gump, you don't see complaints about fiction mixing with reality. Well, for Czechs, Jara Cimrman is sort of Forrest Gump, thanks for understanding.
  • Keep: it is possible to delete in-universe parts only (or revert to older version). Out-of-universe parts are right (i mean). In-universe parts are strongly based on theatre palys - it is possible to rewrite or delete it. --Postrach 12:36, 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 per CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AceBoards[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB. Article acknowledges non-notability, with alexa over 300k. No evidence of notability. Contested prod. MER-C 09:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete possibly even speedy delete, since the article arguably asserts lack of notabilty. CIreland 10:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Due to acceptance of non-notability, and low alexa rating. Josh 11:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly speedy. In addition to non-notability, it may violate WP:ADVERT. HeirloomGardener 11:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I think this maybe should be merged into a subsection of the Ace of Base article. If not then delete.
  • Speedy Delete as A7 web content. the article does a pretty good job of explaining why it isn't notable, right down to an abysmal Alexa ranking. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:07, 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. Sorry, but no references (at all, print or otherwise), in conjunction with nothing other than Wikipedia hits on google, is very persuasive that this is a hoax, which is where the broad consensus seems to be. Neil (►) 08:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also deleted - Lord Ygo III of Galama, Ygo Gales Galama, Galama-family. Pier Gerlofs Donia is kept for now, as it is referenced to at least an extent. Neil (►) 08:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Ygo III of Galama[edit]

Lord Ygo III of Galama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An alert user tagged this article as a suspected hoax. Google has no idea who he is, aside from Wikipedia itself. YechielMan 08:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems suspiciously like the Stuedgar mess we had a few weeks ago. I could research this more thoroughly but I doubt I will find anything. Adam Bishop 08:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused - Article states he died in 1095, but also that he died that the Siege of Antioch, which occurred in 1097. However, there is quite the, uh, large series of articles about this guy, and his family, all written by User:Haggawaga - Oegawagga, or his IP - and this is one of them. In fact, all of his articles are equally unknown. This is very worrying. --Haemo 08:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at all of these:
  1. Lord Ygo III of Galama
  2. Pier Gerlofs Donia
  3. Ygo Gales Galama
  4. Galama-family
Comment. Ygo Gales Galama was created by Ezza61, who I'm pretty sure is a different person, although he/she might be the "more knowledgeable" person needed in this situation. Their comments on Haggawaga - Oegawagga's talk page seem to suggest a lot of the article may in fact be incorrect and OR. Ford MF 09:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Year of death. This genealogical website claims Ygo III died in 1099. Ford MF 09:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment People's personal genealogical websites can say anything and are not reliable sources satisfying WP:A. They might also be echoing spurious info picked up from Wikipedia or a mirror site. Articles need to be grounded in published sources for events of this antiquity. Edison 13:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's also extensively edited related articles. We need someone more knowledgeable to look at this. --Haemo 08:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't saying it was a citeable website, I was just adding that there was a third DOD out there. Ford MF 17:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I couldn't find any worthwhile Google info either, but I don't think it's a hoax, just google-deficient. The article needs sources badly. The creating user, User:Haggawaga - Oegawagga, has, so far as I can tell, no history of bad edits, inaccuracy or hoax-creating (although he does claim to be 97 years old!) He also claims the article is sourced by several Dutch/Frisian publications. The guy is kinda new to Wiki (or this Wiki) and I think he should be encouraged to fill out some citation templates. I don't think deletion is useful here. Ford MF 09:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'DeleteLord Ygo III of Galama, Keep Pier Gerlofs Donia, Delete the rest. The Lord Ygo III article contains some nonsense and is badly written. It says he lived from (1139-1198), and that he died in 1099. Go back to the first version, and it said he lived (1148-1199). This suggests the dates were improvised, or that if the article was written from reliable sources, they were not closely examined. It is sourced to family histories without publication info to show that they are reliable and independent sources satisfying WP:A. The whole series of genealogical articles should go except for Pier Gerlofs Donia, who seems to be a folk hero with a statue. There have been numerous hoaxes on Wikipedia about supposed historical figures referenced to obscure or madeup references, and there have been recent other cases of people creating huge collections of articles about people sourced to privately printed genealogies and websites, which have been deleted. Perhaps someone able to access sources in Frisian or whatever can find reliable and independent sources by the end of the deletion period. The article on the Siege of Antioch has a number of accessible references, which someone could check to vet the details of this story for plausibility. If kept, this whole set of Galama family articles needs help from a native speaker of English. We can get along for a while without a set of badly written articles, careless with dates, about claimed historical figures who are little known outside a couple of dubious non-English sources which are just family genealogies. Edison 13:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article, and delete parts of the Death at Antioch-section; he didn't die there, another Frisian noble of less importance died that way the day; I confused them. And change the year of death to 1199, as the site mentions, and write it is of unknown cousrses.But not delete he article; it doesn't do no harm at all. The man has lived. And he was a crusader. And about the Galama-family; they existed and where historically correct and veriable figures; read the Schieringers and Vetkopers-artice (which I not maded). Same goes for Pier Gerlofs Donia. So please, don't delete this article; keep it, and shorten or remove the things mentioned above at first. Keep it; please. -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 13:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete most per Edison, weakly, unless some kind of reliable source is found, in any language. I'd also observe that Image:Ygo II Galama - The great crusader.jpg looks suspiciously like a modern confection. It may have once been a photograph of a tomb relief that was converted into black and white line art, then saved as a JPG. This process does not inspire confidence. FWIW, the name "Galama" seems to be borne by a number of Frisians or Netherlands people, including Otto Galama Houtrouw. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Sure it needs references, tag it. I have worked with the creator and have no reason to assume anything other than good faith. Just because google has not heard of it does not mean it does not exist. Ask the user to provide references where he got his information? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, since there is so much information about the First Crusade, in books and online, the fact that Google has not heard of him is significant. And as I said, he is not mentioned in any books about the First Crusade. But if Haggawaga has confused him with someone else I guess that answers my concern. (But I wonder who he has confused him with.) Adam Bishop 14:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galama concerns:

Suggest you contact http://www.tresoar.nl/ the Fries Historisch en Letterkundig Centrum, they should confirm for you the existence of the Galama family and the role they played in Friesian history starting from Ygo Galama the fifth potestaat of Friesland in 876. Ezza61 15:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 15:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Adam. Srnec 19:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We can't take chances on hoaxes. If a source can't be found, it has to go. It's not like there aren't plenty of detailed books on the Crusades out there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article sounds like throwing spaghetti at the wall to see if it sticks.:Put a bunch of statements of uncertain validity in an article, then remove the ones shown to be wrong, while asserting that the family is well known. Some of this may be legend, but anything in the article must be well sourced. Don't just write a lot of stuff and assert that someday someone will foind sources for it. It had to come from somewhere. If the source is family history lore, then it is not reliable to keep. Find what is in reliable books and if anything can be found, keep that, as a stub if necessary. Or delete (as I said above) if not even that can be found. There is confusion and conflation in this and several of the other articles. Might be best to start over with an article based on good sources. Edison 21:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Suspicious amount of detail about his death, especially two and a half hours to die - what, they had watches in the Crusades? Clarityfiend 22:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence This is a case where we can ask for specific page citations to published references, and posisble for quaotations of the relevant paragraphs. There is at least some historical basis for the family names: The Sixteenth Century Journal v.12 no.2 p. 43-60 (1981)(includes Taco Galama, Seerp Galama, & Hatman Galama, (& also Epo, Douwe, Taco, Idzard & Foppe Douma ) in its list of 16th century minor nobility on p.55-56, and Auke Galama on p.53. available at JStor, so they apparently are old families. more if I have a chance. DGG 00:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think we should keep this artickle, Haggawaga - Oegawagga is still bussy improving the artickle. The Honorable Kermanshahi 10:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haggawaga - Oegawagga is busy removing tags that he does not like. He has done nothing to improve the article but preserve its contradictions in dates. Srnec 16:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the dates; and that way removed the that way becoming useless contradiction-template. I guess most of the other templates are rightfull ones. -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 07:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think, changings need to be done, not deleting whole articles! -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 07:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion[edit]

  • Remove the title "lord"
  • The title Ygo III is uncertian, so should me reverred to as "sometimes called Ygo III...."
  • Remove the picture
  • Reduce the size of the lemma to a couple of sentences
  • Killed in battle ? More obvious is that he died of starvation, many did on that peninsula
  • Make wiki-links to battle of Antiochia
  • Hunt down more crusaders

Bornestera 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Can I make a suggestion (or two). I think the original author confused Ygo II Galama with the crusader Galama whose correct name is Ygo Joukes Galama who died well after the siege. There is no references that mention a Ygo III. Direct ascendants of Ygo Joukes include (his father Jouke Ygos Galama) then believe it or not, in order, Ygo Ygos II Galama, Ygo Ygos Galama, Ygo II Galama and Ygo Galama...but no Ygo III. The title of the article should be Ygo Joukes Galama ..(alt. spelling Galema). The 'after his death' business seems exaggerated unless ref can be provided I would remove it. Any reference to a fictional Count Nychlenborch should be removed and there is no castle Nychlenborch I believe.Ezza61 23:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think, changings need to be done, not deleting whole articles! -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 07:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep , but gretly improve; the conclusion above is bounding, and totally right. The article is important, and sure enough evidence is provided to see this man has lived, long ago. But most of the article is nonsense, and so a major cleanup seems to be the only solution. Sory, H.O, but loads of work needs to be done. Watch the articles talk page, for instance! I just wanna make clear, improving is better than deleting; think about what I said!

PS: as for the Grutte Pier article; that can certainly stay, no doubt about that!

Murlock 12:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I was very happy to find this article, but unhappy to see a delete tag on it. However the redirect from Gale Yges Galama to Lord Ygo III of Galama seems wrong as they lived hundreds of years apart. (Between these two were at least Juw, Douwe, Hartmans), To complicate those doing internet searches, the names can be spelt different ways. eg Ygo as Ighe, Gales could have zn, zoon, zoan or soan instead of the "S" to means son, and the Gale part could be spelt Gala. GB 21:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "conclusion" above is not binding. This article is completely unsourced and unverified and contains contradictions and much information which is demonstrably false. Why should it be kept. It is in such need of overhaul if there is any history behind it that it would be best to delete the current (poorly titled) article and allow thoughtful editors with the proper sources to create a new article. I still believe that legend has been confused with fact here and I have not been given any reliable source to show me otherwise. Srnec 06:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't share that opinion with you, Srnec. I think it can be kept. Of all the ref's the creator came up with, clearly can be seen, he came from a historically documented family, and that he excisted. Still, much needs to be done. I know. But deleting? Why just deleting it, and not improve it? I think, the article needs to be moved to the right name, at first, and than perhaps, this version can remain a redirection-page. A new article than can be started, which has this one as a redirection-page, and perhaps, when that one'll be deleted, it can be merged with another article. But no, deleting isn't the solution here, Srnec. Murlock 07:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Any material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed at any time." The sources provided were checked and found to have no reference to Ygo by me and another editor. The other sources were not properly cited and so could not be cross-checked. I am not denying his family: I am saying he is a mythical ancestor concocted at a later date, as was common, to prove that the family had partaken in the First Crusade. Srnec 15:47, 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 speedy delete as non-notable web content. Sr13 09:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto wars[edit]

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

Non-notable Warcraft III modification. No sources, fails WP:A and WP:N. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per CSD:A7 - it was speedied on the same basis a short while ago. --Haemo 08:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as per above. Ford MF 08:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. A7 does not apply to computer games or other software products. And this isn't blatent advertising IMO. But ther seems no reason for the articel to remain, wikipedia is not a directory of all minor computr game varients. Mention in the article about the parent games if you choose. DES (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as A7. No notability asserted, no sources, no article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A7 applies to people, groups, companies and websites - that's why I put this up for AfD. I do admit it could be expanded, though. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems to me that as something distributed exclusively via a website, it would qualify as web content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:21, 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 for WP:CSD#A7 failure to assert notability, also as blatent advertising. DES (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KindreDead[edit]

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

Non-notable band failing WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. Speedy tag removed by creator of article. (Diff). Ford MF 07:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - and so tagged. --Haemo 08:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - author removed tag again. I retagged, and warned author. HeirloomGardener 12:03, 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 07:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr William Johnston[edit]

Dr William Johnston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, no secondary references, created by a WP:SPA, reads like a CV. The entire content is a copy-paste from [24] —Moondyne 07:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn and unsourced CV. Also the website's legal notice says "Information may not be published in any other format without the express written permission of the University or the copyright holder", so it's copyvio in any case. Ford MF 09:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Ozgod 13:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - quite apart from the copy-vio problem, the subject appears to be non-notable academic, from the website apparently copied. However, I guess that the website is written by the subject himself - an autobiography might be a suitable source. Peterkingiron 23:01, 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 speedy delete. Natalie 08:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PanoTools Group[edit]

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

This redirected page is covered on the PanoTools page as a hatnotes reference. John Spikowski 07:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I created this page to reference the PanoTools group. As the creator of the page I would appreciate a Speedy Delete.
  • Speedy delete - the only other editor was tagging it as disputed and POV. --Haemo 08:07, 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 07:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

66crusher[edit]

66crusher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NN band fails WP:MUSIC and WP:RS, as it's sourced only to the band's myspace page. Ford MF 07:45, 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 IMMEDIATE DELETE. Why did anyone ever bring this here? Shoot on sight! Advert, patent nonsense - attack - BLP violation - take your pick -Docg 14:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anchor Inn[edit]

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

Non-notable, unverified, POV, possibly original research Rich257 07:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete - it's not "possibly original research", it has outright lies. It claims that the original building dates from 1300, and was not renovated until 2002 (!). It claims to be the "hippest spot in Western Europe" on weekends. I don't even want to get into the list of regulars. It's hoaxalicious, unsourced nonsense, and should be deleted per basically every guidelines on the books. --Haemo 08:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. Ford MF 09:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: Violation of WP:ADVERT, and unsourced information. Josh 12:00, 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 07:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bethesda Chevy Chase Rescue Squad[edit]

Bethesda Chevy Chase Rescue Squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article about a local emergency response team provides sources from within the organization, but does not cite primary sources to support its claims of national coverage back in 1950. The primary author has no other contributions, which raises the possibility of WP:COI. YechielMan 07:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Did you inform the author of the article that his piece needed some extra sources? He may well be able to provide them. The article says that President George H.W. Bush visited the Rescue Squad in 1990 on its 50th anniversary and complimented it as one of his 'points of light'. That must have received coverage in the area press at the time so that might offer useful sources. Being a member of the organisation, and there's no evidence that he is, wouldn't prevent the author writing about it according to Wikipedia rules surely? Nick mallory 07:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. Normally I don't notify authors of my AFD nominations, but I see why this situation, with a newbie user who might have access to supporting information, might call for that extra step. Thank you for doing it, Nick. YechielMan 08:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, inherently local volunteer organization. No doubt they have rescued many people and saved many lives and strive, as most of their counterparts do, to exceed the standards of their profession. But there is little that can be written about such a subject to confer remarkable notability to begin with, and we have no sources showing that anyone has done so. About the only thing that does stand out is the President designation them as a point of light -- but they designated 1020 of those, about one every business day of his term in office. It's recognition, but it isn't really a significant award. --Dhartung | Talk 07:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was just pointing out that the article says that President Bush visited them and that coverage of that might confer notability. Nick mallory 08:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory for emergency or rescue services, and besides, this is not notable either. --SunStar Net talk 08:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The copyright notice on the website all the text is copied from says "No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose other than authorized Bethesda-Chevy Chase Rescue Squad uses". Ford MF 09:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE SPEEDY DELETE - A visit from the President does not automatically confer notability on something. Something has to be notable in its own right. Regardless of that, this article has to go no matter what, as it is a clear COPYRIGHT VIOLATION from http://www.bccrs.org, the official website of this rescue squad. --Hnsampat 06:58, 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 keep. Sr13 07:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vikartindur[edit]

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

Unreferenced, not very well written stub. Anynobody 07:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The subject seems notable enough if the article can be sourced. Perhaps a cleanup tag may be more appropriate than AfD. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 07:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mattinbgn read my mind. I found two sources online and rewrote the article to conform with those sources. I think it's okay now. YechielMan 07:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a notable incident. I'm adding some other sources too. I think an attempt to improve an article like this should be made before nominating it for deletion. Nick mallory 07:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable enough incident. I don't know what state the article was in before, but it seems fine now, aside from being in need of some copy-editing. Ford MF 10:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs cleanup. Josh 12:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  06:41, 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/redirect. I will do the redirect, if anyone wants to actually merge content, the history is preserved. W.marsh 20:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arroyo Seco Elementary School[edit]

Arroyo Seco Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable, an elementary school like every other, doing things an elementary school does Chris 07:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete wp:csd#a7 ··coelacan 07:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colostomy Bag[edit]

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

completely non-notable Doctormatt 06:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Delete Ever - This is why notability criteria was invented. Fails WP:BAND. When did Nintendo Power Violence become a music genre? the_undertow talk 07:06, 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 21:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight of the Dead[edit]

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

Delete as spam for nonnotable vanity press (see AuthorHouse and self-published (Publisher created the article) book DreamGuy 07:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete: Self-promoting, and could be seen as an advert. Josh 12:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retraction:After reading T-dot's comment, decided I did not have a proper view of the article.. Josh 15:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Reconsidering all given points, I stick to my original recommendation. I had not properly understood the notability guidelines, and now vote with a clearer range of knowledge. Josh 21:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Per Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria: there were reviews (see article), and it has an ISBN (two actually, including a "special edition"). Published by a Vanity Press may be indicative, but not determinative, of non-notability. It is available from Amazon.com[25] and that includes an editorial review ("Christine Filipak, Dark Realms Magazine: Adkins remains absolutely faithful to the zombie genre while offering an exciting new twist of horror and human perserverance."), and presumably there is more at the original review site. But together these still make for a pretty weak keep, as there seems little interest (external notablility) outside of the Zombie genre. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 15:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry, but your comments don't match at all with the criteria listed on [[Wikipedia:Notability. Having an ISBN and being listed on Amazon absolutely DO NOT show any sort of notability. The review criteria specifies that they have to be "multiple, non-trivial" published works separate from the source itself. There is only one cited review and that's from a very small magazine, certainly not multiple and non-trivial. DreamGuy 04:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the meaning is that any present-day English language publication claiming to be a book must have an ISBN--otherwise it's not even a book; Amazon is I think obsolete altogether, considering they sell home appliances as well. DGG 02:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, after a google search and what not I'm fairly convinced that is notable. Popularity is not always an indicator of notability, however the reviews and the fact it's available on amazon and other notable stores suggests it is notable. Englishrose 23:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is conditional on suitable references been found to back up the claim of notability. Englishrose 10:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but being available on Amazon is NOT criteria for notability. If you think there are reasons for notability that match the criteria, please state what they are. Do not ignore policy and declare it notable, give reasons. DreamGuy 04:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for those who haven't actually read the notability guidelines, here are important passages:

"A book's listing at online bookstores such as BarnesAndNoble.com or Amazon.com is not by itself an indication of notability as both websites are non-exclusionary, including large numbers of vanity press publications." "By the same token, it should always weigh against an article's inclusion if the author or other interested party is the creator of the Wikipedia article." (The article was created by a new account with the same name as the self-publishing venture who sold the book.) "Books should have at a minimum an ISBN number (for books published after 1966), be available at a dozen or more libraries and be catalogued by its country of origin's official or de facto national library. " (A quick click on the ISBN of the book on the article to the Book sources page and then the WorldCat link shows only TWO libraries that have copies, NOT a dozen or more, and it's not at the Library of Congress.) Come on people, this one is pretty obvious. DreamGuy 04:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is extremely exceptional for a vanity press book to be held N here--I think i remember one & one only in the last six months. The reason is simply that anything that people are at all likely to buy and notice finds a publisher. DGG 02:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A WP:COI article about a self-published book requires pretty clear evidence of notability, and the reviews that are cited just don't convince me.--Kubigula (talk) 03:42, 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 Keep. Shadow1 (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Dover[edit]

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

I'm nominating three pages under the theorist's name: Gabriel Dover, adoptation, and TRAM (genetic).

No real evidence of Gabriel Dover's notability is provided. However, there is more than just that: There is positive evidence of his non-notability provided by two other pages about him.

TRAM (genetic) says that it stands for Turnover, copy number and funtional Redundancy And Modulatory. Putting that into google gets four hits, none of which have anything to do with the page's claims. I tried Turnover "Redundancy And Modulatory" as well. No hits.

Adoptation. This one's a bit odd: Google corrects its spelling to "adoption" unless you search for it in quotes. Searching for "adoptation" in quotes gets you a lot of typos for adoption; "adoptation" biology gets you typos for adaptation, and "adoptation" Gabriel Dover gets 45 hits, not all of which are relevant.

This seems a pretty clear delete - almost at the speedy level, but I chose the formal process, as the three together form a clearer picture than we'd likely get else. Adam Cuerden talk 06:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep ISI web of science indicates Dover's 1982 Nature paper has been cited nearly 1000 times. Articles should be clarified to indicate current status and belief about Dover's ideas, but certainly kept. --TeaDrinker 06:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable - although the article on "molecular drive" needs to be created, also has written books in his field - article needs referencing, however. --Ozgod 14:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was an article on molecular drive, but it literally was pure nonsense. It probably wasn't intended to be, but there were key words missing, and unfinished thoughts and... basically, so many mistakes made that there was no way to tell what was supposed to be being said. Adam Cuerden talk 14:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article hides it in the middle, for some unknown reason, but he is Professor of Genetics at the University of Leicester, and theefore very likely indeed to be notable. And of course the ISI count is evidence of the notabiity ofthe work, andf would make him notable even if for some reason he had never done anything else or attained any particular position. In looking for the influence of someone's work, one doesn;t look for the phrase--this is not a novel--one looks for the citations. The inclusion of him in subject articles in WP , though of course not definitive, is usually meaningful, especially because the pages on genetics is maintained very carefully by very knowledgable people. Incidentally, failure to find something in an index is not positive evidence of anything--even when done with an appropriate search in an appropriate index, it's negative evidence Positive evidence would be finding a reference that said he was not notable, or that he did not do the work. Google is very good for some purposes, but failing to find anything in google is meaningless for any work or notability in any field whatsoever before 1998 or so.
Adam therefore did right in bringing it here, as speedy never applies if notability is even asserted in any credible manner; in an open forum the people who know something about the field and the subject has a chance to explain. Dggalt 01:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This page was created by me but I'll weigh in anyway. Gabby Dover is pretty well known for the molecular drive theory, a page on which used to exist (with some references as I recall) and should probably be recreated; as TeaDrinker points out, the Nature paper referenced in this article which proposed the theory is highly cited. Dover has also written a popular science book, cowritten a definitive textbook, and has numerous papers in reputable primary journals as well as reviews. I can tidy what's up there and provide a few more refs, but I'm afraid I'm not competent to review his more recent work; however, references are accessible via Medline (mainly under GA Dover & some under G Dover) for someone more knowledgeable to expand the article. No opinion on TRAM & adoptation, they could probably be usefully subsumed into other articles leaving redirects. Espresso Addict 16:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting the impression he's a notable scientist somewhat hurt by very poor sub-articles on his theories? Adam Cuerden talk 18:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's my opinion. As I recall, one of the reasons I started the article on Dover was that the molecular drive article badly needed rewriting, and (not being a geneticist) I didn't feel up to the task. Espresso Addict 21:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For reference, annd for a big reason as to why I nominated (it seems incorrectly) here's what appears to be the definition sentence of the old molecular drive article (or, at least, if this isn't the definition, then the article doesn't define the term): "It is a process capable of changing the average genetic conposition of a sexual through the generations as consequence of Non-mendelian inheritance mechanisms." Other sentences were similarly mangled. This sentence was part of a section getting pasted into Evolution and related articles, alerting me to this grouping. Adam Cuerden talk 19:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a copy of a review by Dover, so I'll have a go at defining molecular drive in the article when I get a moment. Espresso Addict 21:38, 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 04:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

20-20-20[edit]

20-20-20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

unsourced article about an independent record label with a very small number of releases. There is no evidence that the label is notable for any reason. 16 Ghits, most from commercial sites, or other trivial mentions. Ohconfucius 06:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. There's kinda-sorta-maybe enough press notice to qualify this article to exists. It's iffy and User:coelacan makes a strong case, but one that ultimately must be labeled "not proven". Herostratus 20:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MyChurch[edit]

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

Non-notable MySpace imitator. Sources don't meet WP:N. This is a blog; blogs don't count toward notability. This certainly looks like a blog and the mention is trivial (one clause in one sentence). This is a fancy press release from a pay-for-coverage marketing company, CMP Media LLC. That leaves only this, an apparently legit article by The Press-Enterprise (California), but the article does not include substantial content about MyChurch; in fact the rather short article is about three different websites at once, MyChurch, MEETfish, and Shmooze, and does not by itself include enough detailed content to prop up a verifiable article about any of those three sites. I conclude that at this time, the article does not pass WP:N. ··coelacan 05:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I went ahead and did some copyediting and adding of refs. The sources are reliable. Just for additional info, the Press Enterprise is indeed a legitimate source. the_undertow talk 06:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • These new refs don't help. The EURweb link is a press release from CR Newswire; as a press release it doesn't help notability and it's not even a reliable source. You've retained the itweek.co.uk or "Thomson" link, which has absolutely trivial coverage (one clause of one sentence) that doesn't count toward WP:N. You've retained the itnews.com.au or "TechWeb" link, which is a pay-for-placement marketing device. Scroll down to the bottom of that TechWeb page and you'll see it says "Copyright (c) 2007 CMP Media LLC". You've found another ref, informationweek.com, which you've presented as separate, when in fact it is an exact duplicate of the itnews.com.au link. Both websites are run by CMP Media LLC. "CMP Media provides targeted technology media and innovative marketing solutions to companies seeking access to the entire technology audience spectrum -- builders, sellers and buyers -- worldwide."[26] That's marketing jargon for "you tell us what you need printed, we print it for a price". Here are their services; I believe this one is what they call an "advertorial". What's left is the pe.com (Press-Enterprise) link again, which is still covering three websites at once, in no substantial detail to write a verifiable article from. Take away the bought-and-paid-for advertising from MyChurch itself, and there's non-trivial left over to work from. ··coelacan 11:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Okay, I'm going to use another Source. This is an article written by a member of the Associated Press and featured in the Christian Post. This AP article mentions MyChurch to a degree in which enough information can be extracted and referenced reliably. the_undertow talk 19:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow Up - Thanks for pointing out the duplicate article. I removed the redundant source. the_undertow talk 19:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I had actually heard of this before I saw this request, and it is properly sourced. I believe due to its mention in media and its nature, it deserves to be kept. Josh 16:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hopefully the article will be expanded.Doc13mets 18:39, 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 imma firin mah deletion lazer. Krimpet (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball Z (memes)[edit]

Dragon Ball Z (memes) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Internet meme(s) with no reliable sources. See previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Over 9000. --- RockMFR 04:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non notable. The only minorly notable thing I see there is something related to Over 9000, which was deleted. G1ggy! 11:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Don't we have a list of internet memes? I'd say Its over 9000 warents an entry there but the rest can be deleted. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I had no idea we still had articles this bad. Delete as OR, unreferenced, failing WP:WEB, etc etc etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Would also recommend to author that they try adding, with references, any potentially valuable info to DBZ main article instead. Deramisan 22:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Deramisan[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is total BS, This is a Huge Web Meme. For the love of pete It's right up there with All your Base--Jack Cox 02:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lord Sesshomaru
  • Keep or at least Merge "Over 9000" is a widely used meme, it should at least be mentioned somewhere as so someone who is confused or curious could find more information about it and the origin. Flood of SYNs 07:36, 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. No argument showing that this meets WP:WEB (multiple reliable sources with non-trivial coverage). I will create a redirect to Something Awful where this can perhaps be mentioned, with the 2 apparent independent sources that exist (the ranking and the Slashdot entry, which do not an article make). W.marsh 20:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TV IV[edit]

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

No notability. No claims to notability except Slashdot and a large number of pagesW No sources. Has 25 times as many pages as the unspeakable wiki but less notability and sources.Loldramalulz 02:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - I was thinking this article might need to be expanded or deleted earlier, so I tagged it for expansion. If others feel it has already had its chances to improve and hasn't, then I agree with delete. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 04:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First two nominations for this page here and here. It seems the page has not improved. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 04:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Loldramalulz's only contribution to wikipedia is his suggestion to delete this page. It seems like he's just carrying on some petty internet grudge. Don't indulge him. Do we have to go through this every three weeks? --Stabbey 14:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merits of the nominator aside, shouldn't we focus more on the article, along with the fact this article has been kept before, but not improved? I'd say this is the third strike; let an expert come along and recreate it with real content. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 14:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet another non-notable bit of internet cruft which belongs in the trash can with all the other website articles we've deleted. 17:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC) (unsigned comment by Drennleberrn )
  • Merge to Something Awful Forums. It's just a wiki offshoot of one of the subforums. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it deserves that much merit. It's not even one among the more famous of the Something Awful spin-off sites. It seems to have lost popularity except with "North Carolina vandal" and various other dumb trolls. Drennleberrn 00:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is there a reason you seem to exhibit such hostility toward the wiki? In response to Night Gyr, while the wiki did originate from the Something Awful forums, it now exists as a separate entity with no connection to Something Awful, official or unofficial, aside from the similarity in name. --Wizardryo 20:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: He seems to know an awful lot about the vandalism that the site suffered from. DCEdwards1966 05:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand and Keep . According to Wikipedia's list of largest wikis, The TV IV has over 14 million views, making it one of the most-viewed wikis not related to Wikipedia. I agree with wizzard2k that the article should definitely be expanded, and I have done my part in helping flesh out the article a little as a result, but it should not be deleted based on what seems solely like a bad faith AfD. There is no strong compelling reason to delete, and by looking at the previous nomination for deletion, previous reasons for deleting this article have been shaky at best. --Wizardryo 17:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- Your efforts are appreciated in expanding the article, but what the article really needs is evidence of the subject's notability, not just more information about the service it provides. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 19:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: The TV IV has been on Slashdot and is linked to on more than 300 of TVGuide's biggest shows, including Grey's Anatomy, American Idol, CSI, and House, M.D., which make up the four highest-rated shows on television right now. I understand that the content of the article is a little lacking, but that in and of itself does not make an article worthy of deletion. If anything, it should be tagged for cleanup and expansion, which has happened, thanks to you. The issue of notability has been brought up before in the past two deletion nominations, and I have approached it again here with extra notability through TVGuide. --Wizardryo 20:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not entirely convinced that TV Guide, a source which exists to list all television content, linking to a site in its Related Web Sites section counts as a notability reference. To count something as notable and as a source, it needs to talk about the subject itself, not just a common 3rd subject. Slashdot is little more than a community blog, and things are posted there all the time without rhyme or reason of notability (I happen to be a regular Slashdot reader). The last AfD was merely procedural, as it was not listed correctly, so no real direction for the discussion was given. The first AfD resulted in No Consensus as it was believed the article could improve; it has not. Text merely describing what the website has on it is not an improvement on the article, as Wikipedia is not an internet directory. Content about the site would be a step in the right direction. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 05:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article has had plenty of warnings and opportunity to be expanded. If someone wants to take the time to write a good article about it, they can certainly post it in its place (new content doesnt violate WP:CSD#G4. The content up there looks like it would need a major overhaul to become an encyclopedia article. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 05:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Template Master 14:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand, it's already looking better than it did when this first started. A good kick in the ass seems to be what's needed. Can the article be expanded further? -- Lampbane 15:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete or merge. If the "unspeakable wiki" is the same as I think it is, then it has been mentioned on Slashdot and at least 100 other places, whereas this was on slashdot only. Pwned,loldongs.Riboflavinl0l 02:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC) — Riboflavinl0l (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep, or Merge into Something Awful until independent notability can be better established. If this doesn't strictly meet the WP:WEB guidelines, this ought to be an exception to those guidelines. DHowell 04:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THIS ISN'T SOURCED!! Either restore Encyclopedia Dramatica or delete TV IV, Wikinfo, Wikitrtuh, Yellowikis and the other less notable wikis that somehow are allowed here. Riboflavinl0l 14:35, 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 keep. DES (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Table of divisors[edit]

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

Unlike list of primes, which was correctly kept because it was not a numerical table, this article is a numerical table. Could maybe be transwikied to Wikibooks. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of prime factors. --Trovatore 04:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. An obviously computer generated table of totally useless data. It's a clear case of WP is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Silly rabbit 04:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Silly rabbit. Do not transwiki this useless data.  --LambiamTalk 06:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Similar to my comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Table_of_prime_factors, I feel this table is useful in its entirety, not so much for its individual entries. Definitely not "totally useless data", as far as I'm concerned. Doctormatt 07:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ot transwiki, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Kusma (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki or keep. This is no doubt a useful table, obviously verifiable, but hardly subject to revision by later editors. The simultaneous claims that this information is both mathematically trivial and "indiscriminate information" only shows that "indiscriminate information" is the new "I don't like it". - Smerdis of Tlön 14:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most of the mathematics articles on Wikipedia are inaccessible to beginners. This is one of the few that isn't. For many people it is helpful to see numerous worked out examples of concepts like Divisor function and, as Doctormatt points out, some are intrigued by the patterns and motivated to learn more. And there are possibilities for editing (I'd get rid of unqualified "composite" entries, for example. They just add clutter). Tabular information used to be an important part of mathematical literature. There is no reason to expunge it from an encyclopedia.--agr 15:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This entry contains sufficient explanatory text so that it does not fall into the "indiscriminate collection of information" category. Also, the usefulness of this table warrants its inclusion in Wikipedia. AlphaEta 17:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per the other Keep comments above. Newyorkbrad 20:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Encyclopedic information about numbers.--Patrick 23:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments First of all, this all needs to be referenced presumably, or at least the source code used to generate the page needs to be posted in order to conduct an audit of it. Otherwise, as a reference about numbers, it's unverifiable. Secondly, I find it a bit of a stretch to say that this is any kind of useful reference at all. But be that as it may, the WP:NOT policy specifically states:
9. Statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readibility and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic. Infoboxes or tables should also be considered to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. (From WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.)
This, it would seem, is exactly the kind of "long and sprawling page" that the WP policy warns against. If we don't draw the line here, then where do we draw it? Would the first million digits of π be considered "useful information"? The prime factorization of the first 100,000 integers? Why not? Silly rabbit 00:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"What do we include and exclude at Wikisource?
Some basic criteria for texts excluded from Wikisource are:
3. Mathematical data, formulas, and tables"
Also could I make a procedural comment?: since these two articles are very similar, and the cases for deletion are very similar, it might have been more helpful to consider them together so as to avoid having two parallel discussions. Geometry guy 09:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perhaps we should simply change that policy. Many very extensive non-mathematics tabulations find their home here--see Special:Longpages. This is one of the places where WP NOT PAPER might actually apply: having articles on every local politician can detract from the notability of those we include, but having this material detracts from nothing. That said, perhaps another wikiproject is needed, but that would be a while DGG 03:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some reasonable points have been given for deletion; but this is an unobjectionable look-up resource as far as I'm concerned. Charles Matthews 19:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful mathematical table which belongs in an encyclopedia. Also a great example of why "verifiable" should not always mean "attributable to a reliable source". Anyone with a calculator can verify much of the information in this table without having to consult any other source. DHowell 04:22, 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 Keep. DES (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Table of prime factors[edit]

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

Unlike list of prime numbers, which was correctly kept because it was not a numerical table, this article really is a numerical table. Those are not encyclopedic. Could possibly be transwikied to Wikibooks. --Trovatore 04:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Same comment as I made on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of divisors: This is a computer-generated table (I hope), easily reconstructed — for whatever reason — by anyone who could possibly find a use for such a table. It's a clear case of WP is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Silly rabbit 04:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Silly rabbit. Do not transwiki this useless data.  --LambiamTalk 06:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perhaps I'm old, but I remember, as a kid, looking at such tables in books, and being fascinated by the patterns and lack of patterns in such a table. This table has much greater value than simply being a place to look up the factors of a given integer (that, yes, can be calculated very easily). It has great value as an essentially graphic representation of the structure of the integers (or at least it gives a glimpse into that structure) and I think it's worth keeping for that reason. Doctormatt 07:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ot transwiki, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Kusma (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki or keep. This is no doubt a useful table, obviously verifiable, but hardly subject to revision by later editors. The simultaneous claims that this information is both mathematically trivial and "indiscriminate information" only shows that "indiscriminate information" is the new "I don't like it". - Smerdis of Tlön 14:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most of the mathematics articles on Wikipedia are inaccessible to beginners. This is one of the few that isn't. For many people it is helpful to see numerous worked out examples of concepts like prime factorization and, as Doctormatt points out, some are intrigued by the patterns and motivated to learn more. Tabular information used to be an important part of mathematical literature. There is no reason to expunge it from an encyclopedia.--agr 15:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments responding to Doctormatt and Smerdis: I agree that the table is useful, and it's not in fact the case that I don't like it. I don't think it's encyclopedic, meaning it's not the kind of thing you'd find in Brittanica, even if they had unlimited size and resources.
  • It's worth a few words here about what encyclopedias are for. They are reference works, but they are not almanacs or handbooks. That is, article content should not be pedagogical (that style is appropriate to a textbook, not an encyclopedia) but it should be at least partly expository (because otherwise the content would belong in a handbook or almanac). The content of these "table" articles is not at all expository; there is nothing to expound upon; or rather, it is expounded upon elsewhere. --Trovatore 17:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've got it wrong, the wording in WP:NOT is that WP is not primarily an almanac, and it goes on to state that it contains almanac-like elements. DGG`01:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I tend to think that math tables ought to be at Wikisource, myself, but they don't seem to want them. As you say, it isn't the sort of data that wants rewording or frequent revision. My 1957 Britannica has some basic trigonometry tables in it, and Wikipedia is still not paper. If Wikibooks will have them, move them there, but it ought to be kept somewhere, and to be easily linkable from related articles here. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. Your opinions on what "kind of thing you'd find in Brittanica, even if they had unlimited size and resources" and the purpose of encyclopedias are just that, your opinion. My dictionary defines an encyclopedia as a book "covering all branches of human knowledge." Take a look at the 1911 Britannica article on logarithm [27] and you'll find far more expository material than you'll ever find here. The two-volume Encyclopedic Dictionary of Mathematics has over 100 pages of tables in the back.--agr 18:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is, of course, my opinion, for which I think I have given a reasonable basis, with which others can agree or disagree. I don't get your point about the 1911 argument having lots of exposition -- so does our logarithm article, which is undeniably encyclopedic. My point is that tables are not encyclopedic precisely because they are not expository. It's a pity that Wikisource doesn't want this sort of material; it strikes me as much more appropriate there -- but the absence of a host for it there does not make it appropriate here. --Trovatore 19:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I should have said pedagogical to match your terms. The 1911 EB article has much more detail and worked out examples than our article has. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. But the normal meaning of encyclopedic is very broad and comprehensive. Can you seriously argue that this article is less worthy that Pikachu? As for this article not being expository enough, Wikipedia has thousands of lists that contain no exposition. See Category:Lists.--agr 19:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • List articles of that sort are not really articles so much as navigational aids, somewhat like disambiguation pages. I'm not a big fan of them but accept them as sort of an enumerated exception to the principle that articles in mainspace should be encyclopedic. I wouldn't cry if all the pop culture articles got deleted in one fell swoop, but at least those articles are about concepts (however banal), not simply data. --Trovatore 19:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • In February this year, I was involved in a series of AfDs concerning Category:Lists of films with features in common. An editor nominated every single article in that category for deletion. There was general consensus that list that were well organized and supplied additional information were preferred to lists that were merely navigational aids and many of the latter were deleted, while the well organized ones survived. My favorite example is List of films that most frequently use the word ****, which survived easily (it's sixth unsuccessful AfD nomination) because it is so rich in information. I think the key word in your last comment is "fan," the other F-word. These things all come down to popularity contests and "encyclopedic" is always interpreted in whatever way an advocate wants, not in its plain dictionary meaning. --agr 20:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This entry contains sufficient explanatory text so that it does not fall into the "indiscriminate collection of information" category. Also, the usefulness of this table warrants its inclusion in Wikipedia. Information can also be added to Wikisource. AlphaEta 18:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikisource has removed all mathematical tables claiming they lack the expertise to maintain that type of material. We, on the other hand, do have that expertise, so the material should be kept here.--agr 18:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The "explanatory" text is very worthwhile and covers many things not already covered at prime factorization. As for the table per se, 1 to 100 might be sufficient to illustrate the "explanatory" text. Anton Mravcek 20:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the "properties" section has been added since the AfD nomination. The properties section might very possibly constitute a worthwhile list article on its own (not committing myself on that as I haven't given it much thought, but offhand it seems reasonable). But that would be a different article, one that would not logically appear under the current title. --Trovatore 21:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not an indiscriminate list, for indeed, it is discriminated by being primes in a certain range. -N 23:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Encyclopedic information about numbers.--Patrick 23:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Regards, TimV.B.{critic & life & speak} 00:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I made the current tables and added the properties section. It shows prime factorizations have connection and usefulness to many topics we have articles about. Factorization is fundamental in number theory, much studied, and has important real world use in cryptography. We have a whole category about factorization: Category:Integer factorization algorithms. Table of prime factors is a lighter read for the less advanced. We have hundreds of articles about individual numbers which include the prime factorization. The tables show them nicely together and link the individual articles. It is 4 years old and has been translated to at least 10 other Wikipedia languages who copied the current or former tables. http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Mathematical_Table shows the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica wrote a lot about prime factor tables. It could be a good source for a very encyclopedic history section in our article. It says among many other things "The existing factor tables extend to 10,000,000", and about a factor table: "The arrangement of the results on the page, which is due to Burckhardt, is admirable for its clearness and condensation, the least factors for 9000 numbers being given on each page." I guess that if an encyclopedia writes so much about factor tables and mentions many details about the space they occupy, then it would also show them if space was not an issue. PrimeHunter 00:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The "properties" section might well be OK; my objection is to the table. (Of course with the table gone, the article consisting of the properties section would have to be renamed). So I want to distinguish here between the table and the properties section -- one of these things is really not like the other. Yes, factorization is important, but an article on factorization would explain factorization, not list the factorizations of numbers. I don't think your conclusion about what an encyclopedia would show is defensible -- factor tables are just fine; they just belong somewhere other than an encyclopedia. --Trovatore 00:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Silly Rabbit Feydakin 00:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That information may be correct, it may be useful, but it is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not the place for such information. It is more appropriate at Wikisource. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just a reminder to everyone suggesting to transwikify this article to Wikisource, Wikisource does not accept this kind of material. See s:Wikisource:What_is_Wikisource?#What do we include and exclude at Wikisource?:
"What do we include and exclude at Wikisource?
Some basic criteria for texts excluded from Wikisource are:
3. Mathematical data, formulas, and tables"
–Pakman044 04:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That such content is not acceptable at Wikisource does not mean we need to keep it here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, I fail to see anything encyclopedic in a verbose table of data. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be unreasonable to ask you to supply a sourced definition of "encyclopedic" that supports that position? None of my dictionaries do.--agr 14:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can't supply a sourced definition of "encyclopedic". Based on my common sense however, I believe that an encyclopedia as a collection of articles on certain topics. For example, prime number is encyclopedic. But this table of prime factors is a long, long list of data, and I don't feel it belongs here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I hope you can accept that your common sense is not a statifactory answer for some of us that diagree. We have thousands of lists on Wikipedia, many of them math related. In particular we have several that would seem to fll in your category of long lists of data. See List of mathematics reference tables. Should all of these go? Maybe this discussion should be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics.--agr 19:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd happily take out the 'Properties' section, but the table itself is OK as a look-up resource. Charles Matthews 19:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Charles Matthews, although I think the properties section is interesting in its own right. If this was a table of factorizations of polyhedra or automorphic forms, none of the advanced mathematicians would be voting 'delete'. linas 03:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful mathematical table which belongs in an encyclopedia. Also a great example of why "verifiable" should not always mean "attributable to a reliable source". Anyone with a calculator can verify much of the information in this table without having to consult any other source. DHowell 04:25, 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 speedy delete, CSD A7. Krimpet (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll murder that stupid eukaryote if it kills me![edit]

I'll murder that stupid eukaryote if it kills me! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song by a non-notable band. Contested Prod. No speedy category for this, or I'd tag it thus. Flyguy649talkcontribs 03:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Flyguy649talkcontribs 03:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Non notable song, with non notable band. Also could be promotional since the author might be in the band. --Random Say it here! 03:42, 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 01:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bootcamp (Fitness)[edit]

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

Part OR, part how-to. Nothing to suggest this exercise routine is in anyway notable. -- IslaySolomon | talk 03:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Per nom. --Random Say it here! 03:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Article appears to be nothing more than a colloquially-written fitness regime. AlphaEta 03:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:NOT#HOWTO. Flyguy649talkcontribs 03:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Daniel 5127 04:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Josh 12:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Although Bootcamp is a notable fitness regime practiced by many gyms; the article is poorly sourced and badly written that doesn’t even come close to what the Bootcamp regime actually is. ~ SEEnoEVIL punch the keys 14:04, 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 as per discussion below and as per Wikipedia:Contents. DES (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of terms in The Urantia Book[edit]

Glossary of terms in The Urantia Book (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary... or a pulpit. - ∅ (∅), 03:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per nom. --Random Say it here! 03:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom --Whsitchy 03:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article has already been transwikied and does not fit the criteria for Wikipedia. AlphaEta 03:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Transwikied? I thought even Wiktionary had some criteria for inclusion... - ∅ (∅), 03:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was merely pointing out the fact that someone else had transwikied the entry and that it should be deleted from Wikipedia. Whether or not it merits inclusion in the Wiktionary is not being discussed here. Kindest regards, AlphaEta 04:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Retraction Because glossaries are apparently commonplace on Wikipedia (thanks to Wazronk for pointing that out) and bias clearly played a role in the original nomination for deletion, I am retracting my vote to delete. AlphaEta 12:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Daniel 5127 04:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is a glossary not a dictionary. Glossaries are even listed on Wikipedia:Contents as acceptable.
The only actual wikipedia policy that has been cited so far is: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide":
  • Well, this isn't an article on a dictionary word
  • This isn't a guide to explain how to use slang
  • This isn't a guide to explain how to use jargon
  • This isn't otherwise a usage guide.
The article is a "list of terms with their definitions", exactly what Wikipedia:Contents considers a glossary. The deletion proposal is of one glossary in isolation when there's a whole category worth of others on wikipedia that are acceptable. See Category:Glossaries. See List of glossaries. And meanwhile, the nominator posted on the talk page of The Urantia Book article "Lol: This article treats the book as if it isn't two thousand pages of bullhockey. Wikipedia can be so funny sometimes." It's a deletion proposal from a bias, more than anything.
Being transwiki'd doesn't mean deletion on wikipedia, see Category talk:Glossaries. Wazronk 07:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are plenty of less notable glossaries in Wikipedia, including many video games and, oh yes, just about every letter (and #s--26 pages total) for baseball jargon--BASEBALL JARGON! Is Wikipedia Baseballpedia? "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" doesn't fly as an argument, otherwise ALL glossaries and definition articles should be wiped (which I think is stupid). Cite another non-hypocritical argument, if you can... ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 10:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think they should! And I'm dead serious. - ∅ (∅), 03:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why? This is a larger issue. It's annoying having to go to another wiki to learn about a basic concept when Wikipedia is sufficient in doing this. I just don't like the seamlessness of having to jump back and forth between websites (wikis) that may or may not have interlinks (links between sites). I made this case on the Second Life wikis, too (unfortunately, no one agreed). The point is, much encyclopedic knowledge can be obtained from dictionary definitions (and glossaries) that lead to other word meanings with relevant articles via disambiguation pages (or a "set index article", which hasn't seemed to've caught on). ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 11:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Due to it being a glossary and not a dictionary entry. There are many glossaries in Wikipedia. Josh 11:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A dictionary entry would only provide the definition of the subject. This article examines a subject by providing the definition of specialized words that are only used in relation to the topic. As for your concerns about Wikipedia not being a pulpit, well that goes both ways buddy. (H) 13:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor a golssary of terms. This belongs at the back of a book, not in an encylopedia. I know they say there are other articles out there that are like this, but that is faulty reasoning. Just because it exists somewhere else does not mean it should exist here. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Why not, if I might ask? Josh 17:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Either they all go or they all stay. (i'm fine with them all going also) Doc13mets 18:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Glossaries of notable topics appear to be perfectly acceptable under wiki-regs. There are no ground for deletion here. - perfectblue 15:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: glossaries are acceptable in wikipedia (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 02:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's still a list of dicdefs. Does it become acceptable just because the word "glossary" is included in the title? - ∅ (∅), 03:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • the glossaries in wikipedia from what I can tell all have the same format, and this article is uniform with them; the quesiton about dicdefs could be used on all the glossary articles in wikipedia ... List_of_glossaries (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 16:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Doc13mets and others, either all glossaries go or they all stay, and I'm fine either way. But AfD decisions are based on existing policy and so far there isn't a policy that excludes glossaries. In fact, they currently have the same stature on wikipedia as Portals and Timelines (Wikipedia:Contents). The policy "wikipedia is not a dictionary" has been misinterpreted in this AfD as meaning loosely and broadly "wikipedia articles can't include definitions or lists of definitions" when the policy is more specific both in letter and spirit. The policy is that you aren't suppose to write an article with the title being a specific word or idiom and the entirety of the article being what would normally be found in a dictionary or usage guide, ie "its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth." This article doesn't do that. A glossary is not a dictionary. The terms explained here aren't "dicdefs", and to think so is to narrow the understanding of what a dictionary actually does (where are pronunciations, entymology, pluralizations, alternate meanings, synonyms, antonyms, illustrative quotes regarding usage, etc?) If there's a concern about the legitimacy of glossaries in wikipedia, that needs to be settled first as a policy, it isn't something to be determined ad hoc in an AfD. Wazronk 20:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ... was undecided till List_of_glossaries. J. D. Redding 02:22, 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. This article has a snowball's chance in hell of being kept. Sr13 07:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental Chess[edit]

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

Borders on nonsense, clearly lacks notability, obviously made up in school one day. Prod removed without content. Might have speedy tagged this, but it doesnt quite fit anything, though it is close to several. Resolute 03:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • KILL IT WITH TOXIC WASTE! per nom. --Whsitchy 03:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Wikipedia is not for things made up one day at school. --Haemo 03:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious lack of notability. Article characterizes subject as being popular "among creator's family". Charlie 03:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Per nom. --Random Say it here! 03:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per nom. The article states itself that it was originally created as a joke.---=Elfin=-341 03:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. The article asserts only a local following and presents no reliable sources about the game. The likelihood of such sources existing seems remote. —C.Fred (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per everyone else above. Wow. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no longer an ad, but doesn't assert notability. NawlinWiki 03:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Farsipraise[edit]

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

Previously speedied this article was re-created with different content making it no longer so much an advertisement however it still falls short of notability requirements. A google search brings up only 1000 results and those are pretty much all directly created by farsipraise. The creators name also shows a clear conflict of interest in the matter Farsipraise (talk · contribs) –– Lid(Talk) 02:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Borders on speedy as it really does not assert any kind of notability. Resolute 02:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy kill CSD G11 and CSD A7, will tag --Whsitchy 02:43, 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 speedy delete (CSD A7). Krimpet (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Stewart[edit]

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

Delete as non-notable. Winner of a local photography competition. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 02:29, 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 20:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaykh Nazim al-Qubrusi[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Shaykh Nazim al-Qubrusi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:V, WP:RS as only sources cited are non-independent or non-reliable or COI sources. Fails WP:N...claims to fame are (near as I can make out in this article): Unsourced claim to being spiritual leader of Turkish Cyprus (a breakaway region of Cyprus), unsourced claim to being leader of Naqshbandi, even though the article doesn't mention him once and says "There is no single authority for the Naqshbandi order today". He is mentioned in Naqshbandi-Haqqani_Sufi_Order as the leader of an order, but this article is unsourced and curiously unlinked from this article. Article was previously stubbifed but this was reversed. Previous afd here. -N 02:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as copyvio (from the very first revision), wp:csd#g12, with no prejudice toward recreation if sources can be found. ··coelacan 06:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Linux[edit]

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

Stub on non-notable topic. Google has about 1000 hits. YALD, obviously going nowhere. Actually, I don't understand the website but it seems already dead. Chealer 02:10, 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 01:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medeix[edit]

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

Stub on non-notable topic. Google has about 13 000 hits for "Medeix", most of them are not about the article's topic, although I couldn't quickly find what's the other meaning. YALD, obviously going nowhere. Chealer 02:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not assert notability. No RS = OR. the_undertow talk 03:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of notability. Google searching only showed at most a few hundred pages that mentioned Medeix and linux, and the ones I looked at only mentioned Medeix in passing. Someguy1221 06:30, 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 redirect. Feel free to merge any relevant content. W.marsh 20:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ingary[edit]

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

This is a totally unsourced (other to the books themselves) article about a fictional country that serves as the setting for two short children's books. It strikes me that any useful content can be easily merged to the Howl's Moving Castle article, from which much of the info comes (I've read the books), and a small amount to the Castle in the Air article. Wehwalt 01:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to Howl's Moving Castle. Information is better suited there. 11kowrom 02:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge the article in its entirety? That is a big article to merge and Howl's Moving Castle is already big itself. What points do you think should be merged? --maclean 00:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect - Per 11kowrom. --Random Say it here! 03:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merge all that? why? The subject doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability's requirement of "coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I'm willing to reconsider if a secondary source can be provided. I'm ok with a redirect. maclean 00:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Howl's Moving Castle. Independant notability is not established, and the article is an in-universe exploration with no encyclopedic presentation. The Ingary section of the Howl article could perhaps be expanded a little, but this content does not need to be merged.--Kubigula (talk) 03:06, 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 per A7. Sr13 09:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jann gumbiner[edit]

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

Subject seems to be of borderline notability (gets some relevant hits on "jann+gumbiner" Google Scholar), so I don't think it can be A7 speedied. Also some conflict of interest concerns as creator's username (Janngumbinerezroj) strikingly similar to article's subject.

  • Delete: Non-notable human. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no RS. Assertion of tie-in to Reggie Jackson's daughter is an extreme reach towards notability. the_undertow talk 07:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Non-notable biography. --Ozgod 14:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The creator's name, User:Janngumbinerezroj, suggests a conflict of interest and the article is written in an informal manner so as to exaggerate the notability. Every doctor that treats a superstar athlete is not notable (there are a lot), and treating an athlete's child is even less of a claim to notability. Leebo T/C 14:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I agree with the above comments that this individual is not noteworthy. AlphaEta 17:42, 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. PeaceNT 07:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry and the Potters[edit]

Harry and the Potters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not sure they meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. Friday (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still debating. They seem ambitious, as do their "evil counterparts", Draco and the Malfoys. I regret having heard them over at the Crossroads Mall over in Bellevue, WA (in which I think the late King County Journal may have covered them, but the record seems to have been lost), but they're out there. The problem is that this seems to be the extent of their venues - malls, grade schools, etc. Not really all that notable as such. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - After reading up on the band, it seems they purposely play libraries and grade schools because it is fits with their 'hook' -- a band who sings from the perspective of a literary character. the_undertow talk 07:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are loads of bands doing the same thing. Nothing special about this. -ScotchMB 02:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. They seem to be just on the brink of notability. Found article about upcoming 3-month US tour: http://www.pollstar.com/news/viewnews.pl?NewsID=7959 HeirloomGardener 03:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable band. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep considering the huge amount of success these guys have had on the web, I'm not sure WP:MUSIC applies here -- it's not really fair to apply "traditional" standards to a very untraditional group. Plus they have gone on tour -- I can't provide sources for this but I have seen them in the local concert listings! =) (toronto, ON, CA) Rirririrririrri 06:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Squeaks by. Nationwide tour + many independent articles about the band satisfy criteria. the_undertow talk 07:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: Due to the fact they toured, and that the title could be connoted to other articles, only just recieves notability. Josh 11:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on sources: a google news search comes up with a small number of sources. One of them looks like it's actually about the band, the others mention it in passing, for what it's worth. Friday (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know I've seen at least a few news articles about these guys, and other responses seem to indicate they've found enough to meet WP:N. They've been active for years and a lot of their press coverage may not be readily available online. They're definitely well-known within the Harry Potter fandom. As Rirririrririrri said, they're an untraditional group, and shouldn't be viewed as just another band with standards about touring, record labels, etc. Propaniac 15:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per findings by other users. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough Doc13mets 18:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletions. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 15:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 15:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, irrespective of MUSIC which they appear to pass due to tours, they are IMO notable for playing in so many libraries [28]. John Vandenberg 05:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! As a 1st grade teacher and mom of a 1st grade student, I can say that KIDS LOVE THE BAND! The band builds a bridge to connect the love of music and the love of reading. Help spread the word. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.188.201 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 28 May 2007 UTC.

KEEP!! They are an awesome band and pretty much the founders of wizard rock! They're definetly notable.Potterprincess 20:52, 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 per SNOW. PeaceNT 15:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Krueger[edit]

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

Doesn't appear notable, and the article creator has the same name as one of Mr. Krueger's websites, suggesting the article may be autobiographical or promotional. ―Wmahan. 00:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable webmaster. the_undertow talk 03:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. HeirloomGardener 03:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. --Random Say it here! 03:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable human. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. Josh 12:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article does seem to be promotional, although if the article focused more on the books he wrote and any impact they had it may be worth keeping. --Ozgod 14:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject is not noteworthy. AlphaEta 17:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not have any notability. Checked google and could not find much/anything about this person. Checked Amazon and could not find any author Michael Krueger. With the creater of the page having the same name as the name of his website, this was created either by himself (COI right there), or an employee/friend/whatever, and could deem this is promotional. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 18:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN, fails WP:BIO. I'd be greatly surprised if this isn't a WP:COI case as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:09, 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. PeaceNT 04:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capitol years[edit]

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

Article was nominated for speedy deletion per A7, non-notability. The notability of the subject is claimed, but not yet verified, through coverage in a.o. the Philadelphia Weekly, Rolling Stone, the Boston Globe and the Philadelphia Inquirer. Procedural nomination, no opinion. AecisBrievenbus 00:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • While maintaining a 'no opinion,' I believe Aecis was simply asking you to expand on your contribution. Google hits can provide sources, but only you (as a user), can provide backing to your decisions. the_undertow talk 06:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. An AFD is not a vote, but a discussion. The closing admin needs to take the weight of all the arguments in consideration, but for that, he or she needs to know the arguments. Simply stating that a subject meets or doesn't meet our notability guidelines doesn't explain to the closing admin how the subject meets or doesn't meet the guideline, and it doesn't give the article's author the opportunity to improve the article, because it doesn't become clear what might need fixing. AecisBrievenbus 20:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that The Capitol Years is a common album title for compilations of Capitol Records artists such as Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, etc. Consequently, Googling this band's name yields many unrelated hits. --Metropolitan90 04:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunately I cannot find any sources to back up the claims in the article. The only review I read admitted they have little to no radio play, so I do not see how they fit WP:BAND criteria. the_undertow talk 03:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Unable to find source article detailing little to no radio play. Please cite.--Clintflint 11:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In any case, it doesn't matter: you realise that a group only has to satisfy one of the band criteria, not all of them, right? David Mestel(Talk) 21:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think that there was any indication that anyone thought otherwise, was there? If it was my mentioning of radio play, the reason I brought it up specifically, was because I felt it was the only criteria that was going to have a chance. Clintflint - the lack of radio support was from this. the_undertow talk 22:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, sorry, I misunderstood what you meant. See my comment below. David Mestel(Talk) 22:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Have been played on World Cafe, one of the country's most popular music programs, syndicated by National Public Radio. Online sources indicate the band charted on CMJ Top 100 which is a leading indicator of national airplay. Sources also verify top singles add according to FMQB.com which helps track modern radio programming. Darkbread23 03:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable band. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Band of the day in Spin. [32] Appeared on soundtrack for Richard Linklater's Fast Food Nation. [33]--Clintflint 11:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Apparently multiple US tours and tours of UK [34], Spain, Israel should confirm notable under WP:MUSIC [35]--Sultanlade 12:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't want to be a process wonk, but seriously guys, read WP:BAND. They meet criterion one (the most important) with this and this, and criterion four with this. I do think the article should be re-written to read less like an advertisement, though. David Mestel(Talk) 17:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A process wonk is what was needed here. I used your sourcing, and cleanup up the article a bit. It does pass WP:BAND at this time. the_undertow talk 23:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This band has gained some notability in the national media. However, the article needs to be cleaned up quite a bit. AlphaEta 17:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sincere care to help? I've got some time before the g/f gets off work. I'm giving up surf time for this! the_undertow talk 22:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: needs references and balanced perspective but otherwise OK. Deramisan 22:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly a keep. this band has several sources and has proven to be on a National Television show which is documented. Someone could legitimately search for this on their own and it doesn't seem to be shameless self-promotion to me. If this is deleted, there are certainly a lot of other band pages that should be. I think they are past the line of "non-notable local band" Barsportsunlimited 23:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as crap. Friday (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cerebytes[edit]

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

Unsourced neologism. Probably not notable. Probably self-promoting. Orphaned article. -- jsimlo(talk|cont) 15:24, 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 redirect to Universal Translator#Star Trek. Ezeu 19:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linguacode[edit]

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

Technical make-believe term that appears as a tool in a few episodes/movies but has no substantive role in any of them, and article makes no assertion of real-world notability. --EEMeltonIV 00:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Universal Translator#Star Trek. cab 01:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect this trivial in-universe item per cab. Mentioned a couple of times, but I'm a longterm Trekkie and I barely remembered hearing it, let alone where it was used. --Dhartung | Talk 07:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Hut 8.5 10:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Josh 11:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the same location described above. There is information in this article that isn't in the other, and as neither are currently well-sourced the introduction of unsourced information doesn't seem to be too much of an issue. JulesH 16:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for reasons stated above. Also I couldn't remember where it appeared in Star Trek and I saw one of those episodes recently. Doc13mets 19:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect per above. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 13:42, 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 at G12. AfD has been suggested a month ago on the talk page, along with copyvio, notability, and language (it was in Spanish) concerns. Sr13 07:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Ernesto Flores-Obando[edit]

Rafael Ernesto Flores-Obando (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is in Spanish but someone was nice enough to post the Babelfish translation on the talk page of the article. Now before we waste anybody's time with a proper translation, it's important to note (as pointed out on the talk page) that the Spanish text is a copyright violation in any case. Moreover, the notability of the guy is at best borderline and certainly not clearly established. I think that the combination of text in Spanish, copyright and notability concerns spells deletion. If this is a notable researcher, the article will be re-created eventually anyways. Pascal.Tesson 02:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No can do. The article does not exist on es.wiki. I've removed your db tag. Pascal.Tesson 03:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Just an awful article all around, per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete WP:CSD#G12 with no prejudice to re-creation should an article be written that does not infringe copyright. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 04:53, 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 Delete. PeaceNT 15:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Ellan[edit]

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

Non-notable model, all of her appearances and works don't have articles, and no source either. WooyiTalk to me? 22:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete I vote delete for a possibly debatable reason and I am willing to discuss. This seems like it would fall under Wikipedia:Notability (pornographic actors), even though the topic is a model, not necessarily porn star. By the guidelines there, this does not meet criteria. —Gaff ταλκ 03:06, 24 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, Fuhghettaboutit 03:27, 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. >Radiant< 09:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Roberts (politician)[edit]

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

Otherwise non-notable candidate for political office. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:03, 19 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, Fuhghettaboutit 03:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable politician; if he won, this would be different. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While referenced, he lacks any experience in holding any political office. --Ozgod 14:06, 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. >Radiant< 09:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Putnam Lowry[edit]

Houston Putnam Lowry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

autobiographical article. Nekohakase 19:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian, I prefer to see it as an indication of good faith. DGG 02:46, 27 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, Fuhghettaboutit 03:28, 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 Delete. PeaceNT 15:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Steel 44[edit]

Blue Steel 44 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band, contested prod MisterHand 17:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, seems to fail WP:MUSIC, all their albums seem to be self-released. Lankiveil 02:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete No external non-trivial references so failes WP:Music. A1octopus 11:41, 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, Fuhghettaboutit 03:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable band. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable band according to WP:MUSIC, plus a cancelled myspace page and little results for the band. Josh 11:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I spent about 30 minutes or more really researching this band. I wanted to find anything to assert notability, and even improve the page to make it look better. They have released a few albums, which you can purchase at Amazon.com, but it appears that the Label it was released under was also called Blue Steel 44. I really wanted to find something to get this article to stay, as I would have enjoyed improving this page. Unfortunately, after reading and re-reading WP:MUSIC it just doesn't appear they meet the criteria for notability. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 18:16, 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. >Radiant< 09:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juan F. Ramos[edit]

Juan F. Ramos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per WP:BIO. Non-notable local politician. No significant press coverage outside the Philadelphia metro area. No other sources to assert further notability. Just being on the council of a major city does not confer notability. DarkAudit 14:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, if he was the first Latino on the council, maybe. But not as the second. Lankiveil 02:00, 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, Fuhghettaboutit 03:28, 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 Delete. PeaceNT 15:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John P. Kelly (Philadelphia)[edit]

John P. Kelly (Philadelphia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per WP:BIO. Non-notable local politician. No significant press coverage outside of the Philadelphia metro area beyond a couple of stories about the foie gras ban. Very little local coverage found as well based on a search of Newslibrary.com for 'John P. Kelly Philadelphia'. Just being on the council of a large American city does not confer notability. DarkAudit 15:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, city councillors are a dime a dozen. Not notable as far as the position goes. Lankiveil 02:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete A quick skim through some search results revealed nothing usable. Adrian M. H. 15:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do believe that being on the city council of a large city confers notability. Abeg92contribs 19:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it doesn't "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." He's apparently done little besides getting elected. DarkAudit 20:05, 24 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, Fuhghettaboutit 03:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." - WP:BIO
  • Delete- fails WP:BIO Thunderwing 12:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per nom. --Ozgod 14:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and who in their right mind would want to ban Foie gras? Giano 22:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable. - Jeeny Talk 03:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GLUA[edit]

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

This is a non-notable organisation. They have not done anything and the article just seems to be a promotional piece for the LUG and the university. Localzuk(talk) 19:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: doesn't seem to actually have any notable achievements, beyond simply existing. David Mestel(Talk) 22:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article only asserts being known at the college that originated it, no assertion of wider notability. Someguy1221 08:02, 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 07:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LUGs in Portugal[edit]

LUGs in Portugal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List of links to external lists, Wikipedia isn't a link farm. Localzuk(talk) 19:54, 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. Non-notable. Sr13 07:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real Lives[edit]

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

nn-game, no refs Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 21:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom. David Mestel(Talk) 22:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The game doesn't seem to be notable, nor does it assert its notability. Probably qualifies for a speedy deletion under CSD A7.--Kylohk 09:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The game certainly isn't well known, I admit that. --Mrdie 12:44, 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_25&oldid=1081100900"