Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 7

< May 6	May 8 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

V. M. Johnson[edit]

Notability asserted, but without reference to reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 15:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC) *weak delete This is not where you expect conventional sources, but whether suitable ones of any sort can be found is the question: I do not know enough to find them. The tone of the article is not reassuring in this respect. DGG 05:16, 2 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, Mailer Diablo 12:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. She may well be notable. She's given a keynote address at a conference on master/slave relationships ([1]) and this search suggests that she's well known and even admired in the leather scene. Stammer 14:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. She appears to be notable in her realm of interestBalloonman 16:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a reference for the award from the National Leather Association. I think this is sufficient to establish the notability.DGG 23:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel 09:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast Leatherfest[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 19:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that I am doing this correctly but if I am not please forgive me. there is a wiki entry on IML and Folsom Street Fair this event is on par with these events and are fall within the Leather Culture.

A festival of no obvious significance, no evidence of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It might be of significance, but there is no way of telling without sources. If it is a major festival and the awards recognized generally, it would warrant an article. DGG 05:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is of significance, though it does indeed need expansion and cleanup. It will be put on the TODO list of the WikiProject LGBT studies if kept. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 16:32, 5 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, Mailer Diablo 12:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per DGG and Guy. Desperately in need of sources to demonstrate notability. bikeable (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete needs to support notability more with reliable sources.Balloonman 16:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Deleet own webpage and museum blog are insufficient. Needs inline citation as well. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mentioned in Damron: [www.damron.com/calendar/leather.html], needs to be added to the article but RS do exist, they just need to be found and put together -- a clean up job, not a deletion reason. Carlossuarez46 20:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep on the basis of sources incidentally noticed while finding a source for V.M.Johnson, just above.DGG 23:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add these sources to the article? I don't see anything inclining me to change my !vote. thanks. bikeable (talk) 05:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done a few. DGG 07:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now has refs -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Petros471 16:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Woods[edit]

Non-notable person. TV-VCR watch 17:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems like a busy guy, but I can't find enough about him to say he meets WP:BIO. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A well known TV, radio and newspaper personality. Embra2007 Embra2007 13:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article just needs more sources, but this guy appears to be notable enough. DickClarkMises 16:29, 3 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, Mailer Diablo 12:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another random sports/news dude. Mangoe 13:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Notability for persons: demonstrable wide name recognition, or the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field. The article asserts this: "one of the foremost writers on cricket in Scotland, contributing to a number of newspapers including The Sun, Scotland on Sunday and The Sunday Mail." Unfortunately it's still a stublike article, and doesn't have enough references perhaps, but I haven't seen a rule requiring that all stubs be killed off. Anyway, I feel that the USA isn't the whole world, and that sportscasters in other countries deserve as much space in Wikipedia as American ones, so I vote keep. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 21:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic Link}

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

The result was redirect to The Dutchess. MastCell ^Talk 16:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get Your Hands Up[edit]

Yet another Fergie song article. This song is a bonus track on the limited edition version of her solo album. There is no evidence that this is or will be released as a single and the U.S. chart information in the article is 100% false. Not notable - should be deleted or merged to the album page. - eo 20:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant crystal-ballism. The article's creator has a history of creating crystal-ball articles. Acalamari 17:54, 2 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, Mailer Diablo 12:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to album as is standard for individual tracks. This doesn't need AfD. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Per crystal ballism article. Eaomatrix 17:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to the album. Can always be reverted later if needed. YouTube tells me that this is actually a different song than "Hands Up" (also by Black Eyed Peas) which appeared in the soundtrack of NBA Live 2004. Good thing I checked because I was about to say "keep". — CharlotteWebb 17:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Crystla-balling at best. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Life Support band[edit]

Being nominated for an award does not confer notability especially for a relatively new award that has not been around long. Aside from that there are no independant sources to allow the information to be verified and the nomination is the only thing preventing this from being an A7 speedy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:04, 1 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, Mailer Diablo 12:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, fails WP:MUSIC. --Sable232 15:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Even though the ECMAs are a regional award rather than a national one, had they won, I might have been inclined to vote keep. But a simple nomination is not enough to pass WP:MUSIC. Resolute 04:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was a shonky merge and redirect. Daniel 09:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas (retailer)[edit]

Non-notable company per WP:CORP, consists of nothing but marketing-speak. I speedy deleted under G11 but after a complaint, I agreed to overturn and bring here. Mango juice^talk 21:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Limited ... there is no WP:A to establish WP:N for an article of its own ... a phrase like "Flagship store" implies that they have more than one outlet, but their own website says it's the only one ... WP:VSCA, pure and simple. —72.75.73.158 (talk · contribs) 22:28, 1 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, Mailer Diablo 12:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please see Talk:Ideas (retailer) for how the CSD became this AfD. —68.239.79.82 13:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced information as appropriate per User:Mangojuice. Not enough WP:RS for a standalone article, and would be better treated from a WP:CORP-compliant perspective as a subsection of the company's article. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge into Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Limited as suggested above. I don't like coming down hard on topics from non-English-speaking countries, since that usually would be an instance of English cultural bias - but in this case, nobody has provided significant references to make this article strong enough to stand on its own, and since it's a for-profit business I'm not particularly interested in seeing the rules bent for this article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Spielberg[edit]

I don't think she warrants an article any more than Suri Cruise did, however, I haven't even bothered prodding this since it's sure to be contested. By the article's own admission, her only achievement is "a miniscule role as Girl With Pink Suitcase". I don't see any way this could be salvaged, since the subject herself is patently non-notable (unless we plan to have an entry for every child of someone famous). So NN, I can't even find a suitable category to stub-sort her into — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable as an actress, worthy only of a mention in the Steven Spielberg and Kate Capshaw articles. Calliopejen1 13:09, 3 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, Mailer Diablo 12:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She doesn't need an article any more than Sam Raimi's kids do. The entirety of the article could be merged into a one sentence blurb on her father's page. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 14:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Lankybugger. Not notable enough for her own article. The info should be merged to the Steven Spielberg article (its already in the The_Terminal article).--Cailil ^talk 15:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - for what it's worth, she's actually appeared in 3 films -- also The Love Letter and Munich. I've never seen either film so can't state whether or not the role is significant. I think she warrants an article more than Suri Cruise, but since it'd be hard to expand the article beyond a paragraph (for now), I would see no harm in merging it into Steven Spielberg as suggested above. --JayHenry 17:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have revised article (adding appropriate stubs, categories, imdb external link template and a filmography). She is a minor actress, who is has additional heritable notability. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. She may eventually show similar promise as her half sister Jessica Capshaw. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC) (admittedly, this is not a reason to keep, but revised page should be kept, IMO)[reply]
  - Sorry Tony, I've still got to disagree with you. Per the Suri Cruise AfD and Harley Quinn Smith AfD, celebrity children aren't really notable outside of their parents. While some do move on to do more, others don't. Thus, until something more happens I've got to support deletion. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 18:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think in this case lineage may hurt because equally notable actresses abound on WP. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her acting career consists of such roles as "girl with sparkler" and "Israeli woman watching TV". When it comes to acting, it is pretty hard to get less notable than that. Resolute 04:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without prejudice to the parent's article. Her acting so far does not satisfy WP:N, and notability is not inherited. Edison 04:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge/Redirect Three roles of extras do not warrant notability, nor does relationship. Reywas92^Talk 00:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - movie credits are completely minor and fail WP:BIO. For most others, this would be an obvious delete. Being the daughter could be a factor in generating more coverage, but the fact is that doesn't seem to be the case, this delete. -- Whpq 14:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gia Getsadze[edit]

I'm not entirely sure if this guy meets WP:BIO criteria. I wouldn't be nominating him if it weren't for the fact that the article for the law firm he works under wasn't speedy deleted as well. I have no opinion for now until more evidence comes in, but I'm leaning towards delete because of the law firm. JuJube 22:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - His article and referenced sources back up notability. "Founder of the Georgian Young Lawyers' Association," advising lawyer to President, on and on... --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 23:24, 1 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, Mailer Diablo 12:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep There seem to be sources, so part of our problem may be unfamiliarity. But is he in the Georgian WP? I've listed this at the Georgian Wikiproject. DGG 23:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Beyond being a NGO activist, the guy served as a governor of one of the regions of Georgia and hence was a notable government official. We are never going to delete any of the articles about the Governors of Alaska, are we? --Kober^Talk 04:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the founders of a law association, helped create law for a constitutional court, a First Deputy Minister of Justice after the Rose Revolution, and a governor of Imereti? I'd have to agree with the probablility of his law firm not being notable, but the man is. Even if it's not that exciting. Aspenocean 09:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Chaser - T 10:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arkansas Razorbacks Baseball 2007 Season[edit]

An example of a single year in a college baseball team history. I am not sure this is encyclopedic at this level of detail. FrozenPurpleCube 23:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A good article. --Pupster21 Talk To Me my RfA 19:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I am a little bias..(I created the article)..I really don't think it should be deleted. It's done on a team midway through their season.(mastrchf91) 23:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you've failed to provide sources for anything, and I think you'd be better off concentrating on the overall history of this team rather than individual seasons. FrozenPurpleCube 01:31, 5 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, Mailer Diablo 12:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my nomination of F.C. United of Manchester season 2005-06 and what appears to be the general consensus on that AfD discussion; an individual season for a sports team — particularly one not at the top level — only warrants its own article if there was some kind of extraordinary achievement by the team that year — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is a source for the scores of the game [2]. At least the scores can be confirmed. --Cyrus Andiron 12:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There may be a case for Arkansas Razorbacks Baseball Team, but not for an article on one season, per Iridiscenti. That article could have the link to their scores. Drmaik 13:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the arguments of iridescenti. Edison 15:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge into the main article unless there's more than the schedule and roster on the page. Corpx 19:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - specifically because of the reason put forward by Iridescenti. I'd also like to point out, though, that Wikipedia does have an article on each season of the Simpsons. By that reasoning, if it was a top-level team, I'd personally be in favour of an article for every season. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; kept by default.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian Baverstock[edit]

Much as I love Enid Blyton's books, there does not appear to be sufficient reason to keep this article on her daughter. Connection to a famous person does not implicate notability. Icemuon 00:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can find sources that show she was actually published. I can't come up with any. the_undertow ^talk 01:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I found listings for the two books at the British Library. --Eastmain 03:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possible move relevant content to the mother's article. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 01:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Asserts no notability at all. Being the daughter of someone notable doesn't mean you get an article on Wikipedia. Sr13 (T|C) 03:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being the author of two books is an assertion of notability. I added the ISBN for each book (which I found at the British Library) in order to confirm that the books are real ones. She has also been the subject of independent coverage, albeit mostly in her role as Enid Blyton's daughter. --Eastmain 04:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. While being "daughter of" isn't grounds for notability by itself. In this case, it seems to be the tipping point. --Crunch 07:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while much of the writing about her focuses on her family relationship, together with her writing credentials they're a sufficient case of notability. If not kept, it could at least be merged into Enid Blyton. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeto the Enid Blyton article. Nothing to satisfy WP:BIO. Baverstock is only mentioned in newspaper stories about mother, so anything which needs saying about her can be included in that article. The Blyton article is a bit sparse in the personal life section, so it would benefit from a merge. She seems a very ordinary person other than being the offspring of a popular author, Baverstock's own books about her mother are extremely non-notable. Having written a book which has an ISBN number does not prove notability One has no sales rank on Amazon and the other is 2.7 millionth in sales, hardly earthshaking, and clearly a million other authors are more deserving of Wikipedia articles. Edison 15:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It simply isn't true that Baverstock has nothing to satisfy WP:BIO. She has been "the subject of published secondary sources"; an example of which is linked to on the page. She is well known in Enid Blyton circles and makes many public appearances at literature festivals (I've begun to add these on the page). The page does need to be expanded, but we'll struggle if it's deleted! --Richardob 12:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd heard of her, and I think the article can be substantially expanded. Deb 21:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imogen Mary Smallwood[edit]

Much as I love Enid Blyton's books, there does not appear to be sufficient reason to keep this article on her daughter. Connection to a famous person does not implicate notability. Icemuon 00:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. the_undertow ^talk 01:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is there any reason this wasn't done as a prod? Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 01:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wanted to give it the same treatment as Gillian Baverstock, for whom I thought there might be some discussion. Icemuon 09:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Asserts no notability at all. Being the daughter of someone notable doesn't mean you get an article on Wikipedia. Sr13 (T|C) 03:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Author of an autobiography and two readers. --Eastmain 03:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I added citations for all three books to the article. --Eastmain 04:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her status as Blyton's daughter alone doesn't ensure notability. In her own right, it doesn't seem she passes WP:PROF, as authorship itself isn't inherently notable. Recurring dreams 08:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain, people who are calling for deletion aren't taking into account her publications. At the very least it can be merged into Enid Blyton. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Enid Blyton article. Nothing to satisfy WP:BIO. Smallwood is only mentioned in newspaper stories about mother, so anything which needs saying about her can be included in that article. The Blyton article is a bit sparse in the personal life section, so it would benefit from a merge. She seems a very ordinary person other than being the offspring of a popular author, Smallwood's own books ther are extremely non-notable. Having written a book which has an ISBN number does not prove notability Her only book which shows up on Amazon has a sales rank of 3.5 millionth in sales, hardly earthshaking, and clearly a million other authors are more deserving of Wikipedia articles. Edison 15:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Ryan Postlethwaite 15:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Positive Vibrations[edit]

A bit of a funny one, this — I'm the creator & sole editor of it so could G7 it, but bringing it over just in case anyone sees any good reason to keep it. I created this incomplete & unreferenced stub a couple of months ago as part of a now-abandoned-for-the-foreseeable-future article on journalist & author Barb Lien-Cooper (then just plain Barb Lien), to fill in her back story, as I believe it was the first regular magazine she wrote for; however, having abandoned that article it kicks out the main reason for keeping this one, and noone else seems in any hurry to create an article for her. It's obviously a real magazine (although I think it possibly slips into the wrong side of the big fanzine/small magazine divide); however, pretty much all the significant links are redlinks, and aside from Lien (and possibly Vicky October & Pete Dooley) are never likely to warrant their own articles; I can't see enough people being interested in it without the other articles to act as feeders; it's a orphaned page at present; and the accompanying image has been deleted from Commons (to my extreme annoyance, as I went to the trouble of tracking down the artist & getting consent, but Who Am I To Argue). Can anyone suggest a reason to keep it? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - An AfD has never made me choke on my Cup Noodles. Referring to your own work as 'incomplete and unreferenced' is simply awesome. the_undertow ^talk 01:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It wouldn't be particularly hard to source - all it would take would be for me to search through Record Collector & Bucketfull of Brains back issues to find their assorted mentions of it, as they both had a bit of a love affair with PVs & regularly wrote about it; however, since neither has their back issues online & I'm not wildly keen to spend two hours in a copyright library wading through fifteen-year-old magazines, I left it for someone who actually has a stack of back issues in their basement to do the searching. Likewise, I could expand the article easily enough, but for a subject of such low interest there doesn't seem a great deal of point. If anyone actually does write Barb Lien-Cooper (who, with a very odd career ranging from music journalist to winner of Online Comic of the Year in 2004 undoubdetedly does warrant her own article; I only gave up as I could find so little about the woman herself as opposed to her work) I'd probably recreate this in a better form — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. I could see an argument for keeping if the magazine ever had a real public profile, but it seems it had a pretty limited distribution and audience. --Dhartung | Talk 03:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a fanzine that only ran for 5 issues?! Not even close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting nom... Delete this, and use the title as a redirect to Underwater Moonlight. Grutness...wha? 06:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands now. However, if the Record Collector award was properly cited, this title might be halfway toward notability. I am unable to find anything to fill the other half, but I am not closed to the possiblity that another editor with more research experience in the field might convince me otherwise. Serpent's Choice 11:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My opinion is similar to the above. —A • D ^Torque 12:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I would put the information about this magazine into Robyn Hitchcock since it started as a fanzine and continued to be largely devoted to him. Maybe if it acquired more expansion in the future it could be moved back to its own article. If its kept it should surely be linked to from Robin Hithcock as a fanzine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aspenocean (talk • contribs) 09:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Merge with Bob Marley I'd strongly suggest. "Positive vibrations" shouldn't go down the drain or to trashing machine. greg park avenue 19:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Robyn Hitchcock is notable, the zine won an award, therefore the zine is notable. I'd hate to see a good stublike article on a good zine disappear. As for it being incomplete and unreferenced - that's what new users are for, to add to existing stubs on notable but incredibly specialized topics. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete As per nom I agree that this magazine doesn't warrant an article by itself, but the page on said journalist should ever be written then this article should be recreated as a redirect to her. A1octopus 12:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Nimmo[edit]

Acticle about blogger fails WP:BIO; ongoing edit war with WP:BLP issues which may be sole rationale for this article's existence. He wrote a book, but its printer is a vanity press. Kendrick7^talk 00:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nominator's reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His only publication comes from a non-notable printing press. As a blogger/photographer, I don't see any evidence that he has made any significant contributions. the_undertow ^talk 02:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's not correct. See my comment below. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Would all contributors to a notable publication be considered notable? Or are you asserting that his particular contributions are significant? the_undertow ^talk 04:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A NPOV bio is invaluable in the case of any writer who's work is sometimes referenced and/or controversial in order to evaluate the credibility of their work (I always search for a bio in such cases); the "ongoing" edit war is no longer ongoing as one party (who was Kurt Nimmo himself) has accepted the current version, which involved changing only a single sentence, as NPOV. The current related "dispute" is that Nimmo's support for a deniers freedom of speech infers (without any other evidence) that he supports the deniers views as well, which is a WP:OR issue, not grounds for deletion. Wayne 04:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't speak to his popularity in the blogosphere. Are you suggesting his blog would pass WP:WEB? -- Kendrick7^talk 07:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The man's creative writings seem to amount to very little and the strangeness of his political opinions - that Auschwitz has "discredited gas chambers" for example - is no claim to notability. Nick mallory 07:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, as above. Drmaik 09:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He also wrote for Counterpunch which appears to be a notable publication. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is notable within the "conspiracy related culture" (Probably a bad way to say it, but I'm not sure how). He gets traffic from sites like Alex Jones' site(s), Jeff Rense's site, and whatreallyhappened.com, I believe. However, writing a biography on this person would be tough, as I see no independent reliable sources. He writes and has ideas about controversial things, which makes good sourcing imperative. If sources outside of his own blog turn up, I would probably decide to keep. BTW, the see also link to new antisemitism seems very POV to me. Keep in mind that if we were discussing Mr. Nimmo at a bar I may agree with you, but it just seems like inappropriate POV pushing. hombre de haha 11:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP about a blogger 'nuf said. Mangoe 13:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Someguy1221 17:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I'm not familiar with how notable he is, I'd like to verify Wayne's assertion that there is no edit-war, and to clarify that there is no BLP-concern. Any concerns were dealt with/were in the process of being discussed. Tewfik^Talk 06:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G12 as copyvio of [3] and [4]. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something Extra (American musical group)[edit]

Non-notable collegiate a cappella group. Previously prod-ed/recreated so brining it here. All info is from the group's website instead of independent sources. No claim to notability rising to the level of WP:MUSIC. Savidan 00:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC, student club at a single school. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per it is cut and paste directly from the Yale website. We want to build an encyclopedia, not reprint one! the_undertow ^talk 02:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete: A7, no assertion of notability, boredteencruft joke article. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Keohane[edit]

Contested prod: Fails WP:BIO; the only claim of notability is the part-time politician bit, which is not very convincing notability. Also, there are no sources to back up the assertion of notability per WP:V.Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 00:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to assert notability. Lacks references. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 02:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The article as its stands seems to imply he's NOT notable. No sources. Claims of "a bitter war of words" and that he "enjoys betting" on a WP:BLP, it should be speedy.
Speedy delete per CSD A7. Even without the WP:BLP problem, he's not notable. Placeholder account 03:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. He's a politician? Of what? Given his age, more likely to be running for class president than anything notable. Resolute 04:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Juggling Convention[edit]

No claim to notability other than what appears to be an OR claim to the highest juggler per capita ratio in the world (don't know how you measure that exactly). Don't see how it could be expanded beyond it's sub-stubby state since I don't believe there's much you can really say on the subject. If anyone can read Hebrew and fancies a stab at sourcing this, I'd be delighted if someone could find grounds to keep it — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OR. Also per the fact that, once again, I missed it. the_undertow ^talk 02:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Juggling convention eh? Delete per WP:N MartinDK 03:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure original research. Sr13 (T|C) 03:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs sources that rise to WP:RS to establish noteworthiness. Quadzilla99 10:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, does not appear to be fit for any encyclopedia. RFerreira 04:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, too much OR and not encyclopedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tim.bounceback (talk • contribs) 12:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 05:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrel fishing[edit]

Unsourced, no assertion of notability. —Ocatecir ^Talk 01:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does have sources; see Squirrel fishing#External links. — Quin 01:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it has some sources - but let's go through them:

A person website, by the fellows who invented this "sport", as per the article. This is not a reliable source, and doesn't support notability
A link to a BBC radio episode - this is a reliable source - however, it clearly states that the "sport" is "unknown". Not a strong endorsement for notability.
A link to an article in a college paper - this also doesn't assert that the topic is notable, though I would be inclined to state that it's reliable.
A link to a compendium of sports - however, this is openly submittable, and merely links back to the first source here.
A unrelated article about "people-fishing" which has nothing to do with this article.

So, I tend to feel that this is not "totally unsourced", but what sourcing exists is very weak, and doesn't endorse notability - nor does the article assert any. I'm inclined to believe this is either a very new, or very minor sport, and thus does not meet notability requirements. ~~Delete~~ - looks like it can be sourced now Keep. Haemo 01:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (formerly ~~Weak delete~~) Weak because the BBC radio source is pretty good, but as noted above that's not quite enough just by itself. Update: vote changed due to additional sources found. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a Google News archive search reveals a bunch of additional sources, including one from the Washington Post, that seem to indicate that this frivolous pastime is notable. Krimpet (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, yet silly. Good enough for Harvard so it's okay in my book ;) the_undertow ^talk 03:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The harvard page is a personal webpage for a Harvard graduate student. If you look at his/her main page here, you can see that he/she is a computer science graduate. The harvard page is obviously for fun, not serious research. —Ocatecir ^Talk 03:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was quite understood, as one might infer from the 'winky' emoticon. My reason to keep was simply that it is notable, as silly as it is. the_undertow ^talk 05:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Seems students at Harvard University started the trend in 1997 with a Web site, lately clubs have popped up at the Berkeley, the USC, Oklahoma. Strictly speaking not quite notable enough, but sometimes you've just got to WP:IAR and have a page like this in wikipedia.--Work permit 04:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as patent nonsense. Edison 05:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the Google news search shows sources and notability, but when PETA gets wind of this there will be hell to pay!--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 05:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Together with the BBC radio bit, the Google news articles show ample notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Watch that the language used stays encyclopedic but otherwise I have no problem with it being kept.--Alf ^melmac 12:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since there seems to be notable sources out there. --ImmortalGoddezz 19:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Humorous commentary on behavior of what are generally suburban, socialized squirrels. I've seen it done. Squirrels are funny. "Sport" is notable for its unconventional nature and the fact that the competition is not against one's self or other humans. Very simple equipment is required to play and it is on the whole non-confrontational as both sides eventually "win." Who wouldn't want to go to Harvard and fish for squirrels. Hopefully some one will tie this in with squirrel risk assessment behavior in another expansion.
Comment Arguments like "this is funny" do not satisfy any Wikipedia guidelines or policies for keeping an article. Edison 04:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't say "this is funny;" I said "squirrels are funny." Merely a personal observation. If you had read the opinion in its entirety you'd have read my notability argument along with a valid expansion idea. And guess what? "Delete as patent nonsense" is not a valid argument that satisfies any Wikipedia guidelines or policies for deletion. Aspenocean 08:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tangled Up In Blue[edit]

Non-notable band. At the very least, Tangled Up In Blue should go to the Bob Dylan song and this article should be moved mi km 01:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I think this group will pass WP:N. I've contacted them for help in finding references. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 02:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can provide how they satisfy WP:MUSIC. the_undertow ^talk 02:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending further sources. After a Google search for Yale+"Tangled up in Blue", I see lots of basic verification but it's not clear whether it establishes more than local notability. See WP:LOCAL. Possibly there's enough as long-term repeat festival performer to get past WP:MUSIC guidelines even if no magazine features, et cetera are found. Google search for "New Haven Folk Festival" seems to show only directory listings and a Yale Herald mention, so that long-time gig conveys only minor notability. Every college has undergrad music groups of various sorts; is this one noted in reliable sources as particularly special? Barno 03:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to the song per above. College singing groups abound. Yale just has more visibility than most, but that doesn't make the group notable. --Dhartung | Talk 03:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect to the Dylan song. Unfortunately I see no evidence to satisfy the "multiple, non-trivial" clause of WP:RS. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC or WP:ORG. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a Dylan song. If they are proven to be notable, which I doubt, the name should be changed to avoid confusion for the 999 out of a thousand users who'd be looking for the song. Nick mallory 07:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs sources that rise to WP:RS to establish noteworthiness; the only source I see is a dead link. Quadzilla99 10:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to pass WP:BAND, only brief insubstantial mentions in sources (how do Yale Daily News, Yale Herald fare per WP:RS?) Redirect to Dylan song. Murgh ^disc. 10:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Album Number Ones[edit]

Un-sourced, un-encyclopedic, and the creating editor is unlikely to bring the article up to standards as he/she was blocked earlier today for repeatedly deleting maintenance tags from 2006 Number Ones, which is also up for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Number Ones). Kralizec! (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I have no clue what these are number ones of. Resolute 04:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete there might be some use but I agree with nominee Bulldog123 11:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP does not even keep Billboard lists from my experience and they are the premier album list. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because having them would be violating copyright (and that probably goes for most "top hits" lists from any other source as well). —Resurgent insurgent 2007-05-08 02:01Z
  - Comment I'm inclined to support keeping here, inasmuch as I don't think lists of this sort are, or should be, necessarily be disfavored by WP:NOT or WP:LIST, and inasmuch as I think Virgin Radio to be a notable propagator of music, but I'll have to think more about the notabiltiy/cruftiness of a compilation as this. In the meanwhile, though, I would say that there is, at least to my mind, almost surely no copyright concern here; whilst the data are here are not public in precisely the same way as might be (uncopyrightable) album sales or sports statistics, they are plainly not creative products but essentially aggregates of readily observed facts and consequently are ineligible for copyright. We do, in any case, have many articles relative the charts of Billboard that comprise content not dissimilar from that here, most notably a list for every year since 1954 of number-one albums by week (see, e.g., Number-one albums of 2006 (U.S.)). Joe 06:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 01:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Radio Airplay Chart[edit]

Article is un-sourced, un-encyclopedic, and wildly ignores the Manual of Style. The creating editor has deleted maintenance tags from the article multiple times, and is unlikely to bring it up to standards as he/she was blocked earlier today for repeatedly deleting maintenance tags from 2006 Number Ones, which is also up for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Number Ones). Kralizec! (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unofficial record chart with no assertion of notability. Almost all the information here appears to be original research about well-performing works. ShadowHalo 01:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- practically spam for Virgin Radio. Thunderwing 19:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would have said "merge" to Virgin Radio, but am loathe to do so - this article doesn't mention the chart's significance and worse still, the text is self-admitted to be unsourced - "It Hasn't Been Confirmed If This Source Is True" just doesn't cut WP:V. Delete. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-05-08 02:22Z
Delete - unofficial chart, article looks awful. May also want to keep tabs on "what links here" as an editor is placing this information into numerous song articles. - eo 19:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unofficial charts would have to far more famous than this one to be notable. A1octopus 12:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ryan Postlethwaite 15:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Realgm.com[edit]

Very thin and unreferenced assertion of notability here. Major claim seems to be that Marcus Allen supposedly contributes to the site. Alexa doesn't help. Probably doesn't meet WP:WEB. Suggest we delete. ··coel acan 02:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet criteria at WP:WEB Stardust8212 02:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - New sources seem to indicate notability though it seems the focus needs to switch to the real notable item which is the trade checker rather than the non-notable forum and vague claims of notability for the site itself. Stardust8212 20:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no multiple, non-trivial, secondary sources. Fails WP:WEB. Sr13 (T|C) 03:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs sources that rise to WP:RS to establish noteworthiness. Quadzilla99 09:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added sources. I could add more. Here is an example article by Marcus Allen [5] I think the main notability of the website is its trade checker. Raguv2000 20:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Raguv2000 has identified two independent sources where the subject of the article is specifically about RealGM. -- Whpq 16:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - [6] Notable, several other Wikipedia pages reference info from website.

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

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

The result was delete. I hate invoking WP:SNOW but I seriously feel stupider after reading this. Loose interpretation of CSD G1 ("no meaningful content") might apply here, or possibly CSD G2/G3 as test/vandalism by a new user with no other edits. Pick your poison. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laura shaffer[edit]

As two editors already pointed out on the page, it looks like an obvious hoax. nadav 02:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete, obvious hoax Pete.Hurd 02:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as complete bollocks. —Cel ithemis 02:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, hoax bordering on nonsense.--Wizardman 03:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, hoax --Work permit 04:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete nonsense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant nonsense. Murdered by drunken hunters who mistook her for a walking dolphin? Resolute 04:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My favorite part is the use of IMDB pages as citations. nadav 04:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 York County School Division. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grafton Middle School[edit]

Contested prod. School that fails to establish notability, would fail WP:SCHOOL if it were policy, and is more or less an "i exist" piece. This is after I cleaned it up a bit too. Wizardman 02:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Butseriouslyfolks 02:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:V, as nom. --Butseriouslyfolks 02:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. "I exist" is not good enough. Resolute 04:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The mention in York County School Division is surely sufficient. Drmaik 09:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to York County School Division so people who search by the school name will actually find the mention Drmaik is talking about.- Mgm|^(talk) 10:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to York County School Division per above. Fails to establish notability, and a claim that "all schools are noteabel" [7] is obviously false. Hut 8.5 10:54, 7 May 2007 &(UTC)
Delete per nom Bulldog123 11:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to York County School Division as suggested by WP:LOCAL and various proposed school guidelines. RFerreira 06:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above. --Myles Long 14:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to York County School Division. All school districts are notable; most high schools are notable; some middle schools are notable; this one does not seem to have adequate evidence of notability. A review of the school website, a Google search and a check of Google News/Archive did not uncover adequate evidence of notability. Consensus seems to be building that a redirect (with a merge, if appropriate) is the better way to deal with these situations, rather than the far more destructive delete option. Alansohn 14:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to York County School Division. Keep the limited information. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect as above. Georgewilliamherbert 23:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to York County School Division which already contains the only reliably sourced information we have on the school. JoshuaZ 01:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's Cooking? (TV series)[edit]

This is a series that Klasky Csupo were planning in 2003. It was canceled before it even went into production, and there has been no news for years. There's not much else to say about it. Non-notable non-starter. Pufnstuf 03:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for lack of content and notability issues. TV programs are not notable if they haven't started production. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:Crystal. --Nehrams2020 20:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - program in production that may never see the light of day. -- Whpq 16:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Could be recreated once the song is released, assuming it meets WP:N or the proposals at WP:MUSIC. Already mentioned in the album article. MastCell ^Talk 16:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You Can't Deny It (Ridah)[edit]

Crystal-ball-ism regarding an Ashanti song. Nothing but rumor - at least the parts I understand seem like rumor, the prose is so jumbled I don't know what's going on with this one. - eo 19:12, 2 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, — Scientizzle 03:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Crystal ball as noted. It's hard to understand what the song is even about. Placeholder account 03:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The album is crystal ballery. If I understood the article correctly, the song was already played on the radio, so that can't be crystal ballery. Aren't songs that are released as a single to promote an album keep-wirthy under current policy? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even the article states " It's yet unknown if the song will be released as a single " EliminatorJR ^Talk 11:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice to recreation should it be released as a proper single. EliminatorJR ^Talk 11:11, 7 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, Mailer Diablo 11:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve drastically - "Crystal-Ball-ism isn't the best quality in an article, but may assert some notability if improved. R_Orange 18:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge it into the album article. WP:MUSIC makes the album notable but nothing is said there about an individual cut. JodyB_talk 00:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as A7. Sam Blacketer 09:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Sharma[edit]

Non-notable, no sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:BIO. —Ocatecir ^Talk 03:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No external sources, claims of notability in article such as Gyanvihar universe is counted in one of the top institute in the field of technical education highly suspect.--Work permit 04:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Or speedy delete. Whatever. RFerreira 07:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chaser - T 10:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network After Dark[edit]

Non-notable programming block. Only one Ghit, excluding Wikipedia mirrors. Pufnstuf 03:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really don't care since this is hardly an article and fails to provide any reliable sources to speak of, but your Google search is severely malformed. I get 30,600 (that's thirty thousand six hundred) unique matches over here. RFerreira 07:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contrary to RFerreira, I see only 83 Google hits, of which only 11 are unique. [8] But regardless of the number of Google hits, this was merely a block of television programming which lasted only a few months and consisted primarily of decades-old cartoons, not original programming. It would take a lot of evidence to convince me that this programming block was notable. --Metropolitan90 09:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Cartoon Network. Probably not useful as a separate article, but since it's a part of a notable network, I'd say merging would be useful. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Mgm. Hut 8.5 10:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per comments above Bulldog123 11:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.C. Bailey[edit]

Non notable independent wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources, so it isn't notable--Sefringle 05:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so Hugh Heffner wasn't notable three weeks ago? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even with sources this wouldn't be notable. RFerreira 07:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs sources that rise to WP:RS to establish noteworthiness. Quadzilla99 09:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sportsman with multiple awards and won championships. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RFerreira. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and others, the comparison to Hugh Heffner is far out in left field. Burntsauce 17:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Promise of Philosophy and the Landmark Forum[edit]

This article concerns a single philosophy paper, which is apparently also the guide for some sort of Education course. The article is minimally sourced; really, I'm just unsure how to go about evaluating notability for a single academic paper. Delete as unencyclopedic, pending other opinions. Xoloz 04:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability. Landmark Education, btw, is more or less what used to be est. Lots of people like the courses, but they're expensive and come with allegedly high-pressure sales tactics (call it the personal gym approach). In other words, I'm comfortable classifying this as spam. It is certainly not an ordinary academic philosophy paper. --Dhartung | Talk 05:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete no evidence of notability. An academic paper with 100 citations in a citation index is known as a "citation classic". I'd accept a large number of citations in the Arts and Humanities Citation Index as adequate evidence for notability of a paper, but I rather doubt this one gets there. Pete.Hurd 06:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
McCarl SR has five publications listed in Web of Knowledge, only one of which has ever been cited (four times), This article is not listed in WoK (which includes the Arts and Humanities Citation Index), which raises questions about the status of this on-line journal, to my mind. Pete.Hurd 17:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI don't think the Arts and Humanities Citation Index part of WoS is supposed to be used that way. it's a citation index for journal articles only, and if articles in a journal have been cited in books the citations will not be included--and this will probably be the case with almost all humanities papers. The citation counts are therefore much lower. The idea is to use it as a supplement to fill in the gaps. Similarly, the list of journals covered is very sparse as compared to the depth of coverage in the sciences. I would certainly say that any biochem journal not in WoS is barely worth mentioning, but it isn't true of philosophy. (not that it is relevant in this case where the article is as unnotable as you can get--& so is the journal)

strong keep I just created this page. Give me a break. I marked it as a stub. It is better sourced than many pages . Please hold on. This paper is referenced in multiple articles and a template and thus is more notable than many other pages that get created on Wikipedia. This is not a case of a junk page. This is a legitimate page and I just need a week or two to flesh it out and add the proper citations. Alex Jackl 07:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Landmark Forum is a self perpetuating 'self help' cult which has everything to do with making money and nothing whatsoever to do with any philosophy beyond cashing in on the fact that 'there's one born every minute'. This article will just be a naked sales pitch disguised with a thin veneer of psuedo-academic validity and has no place on an encyclopedia. Nick mallory 07:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the source of that vitriol but please try to be a little objective here. A lot of people with an axe to grind have written a lot of vitriolic stuff that is frankly utterly untrue and the bias of the Dhartung and Nick mallory is par tof what this article is about to bring some clarity about what is actually happening there. Please do not repeat uncited hearsay on a page like this - it violates WP:AGF and WP:Civility. Wikipedia is supposed to be place where multiple viewpoints can co-exist so longas they follow the policies in place to allow for that. This is not an attack article, it is an article about a real, well-cited paper and I KNOW it is NOT cited enough yet. Just give me time - it's existence is measured in hours. This page does not deserve to be deleted.Alex Jackl 07:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, AJack, but an inanimate object such as a purported philosophy paper is not actually covered by any libel law that I know of, and WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL apply to interactions between editors. I'm sure you had good intentions, but the reputation of Landmark, to say the least, precedes it. --Dhartung | Talk 08:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The basis of my 'vitriol' is my recent experience of actually attending a landmark forum evening in Sydney at the behest of a friend. I had no idea whatsoever what it was before I went and had no preconceptions. This evening consisted of a series of gushing, if entirely content free, testimonials from hand picked volunteers interspersed with endless hard sell of intensive 'courses' for large sums of money. Whatever your problems in life, be they personal, financial or professional, Landmark forum promised to solve them for you. The main job of those who've paid for courses in the past is to recruit new people for new courses in the future. Despite declining any further participation I was subjected to several phone calls after the event from its volunteers wanting 'clarification' of why I wasn't interested. My views are based only on my own experience of the Landmark Forum, a view I'm perfectly entitled to hold and to remark on here. My contribution wasn't 'uncivil', merely to the point and my opinions aren't 'hearsay' if I'm the one giving them. I studied philosophy at the London School of Economics and I doubt anything from the Landmark Forum would get on any syllabus. It was about as 'Socratic' as a cold call from a double glazing salesman. To quote from the paper up for deletion "the Landmark Forum - a forty-hour course sponsored by the employee owned Landmark Educational Corporation - provides a model of philosophy as the practical art of uncovering and expanding self-knowledge and thereby generating unforeseen ways of being in everyday life." That's not an objective analysis, that's an advert claiming academic validity without any academic rigour, therefore it should be deleted. Nick mallory 08:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems somewhat hysterical for any article to be listed for deletion a mere 12 hours after its creation. Surely it makes sense to at least give it a couple of weeks to see how it develops. I should have thought that any paper co-authored by two professors of philosophy and accepted for publication in a reputable academic journal has at least a primie facie case for being a worthwhile subject for an article. Are there any accepted guidelines on this? I can't help noticing that two of the three of the voters for deletion (though not the proposer) reveal strong hostility towards Landmark (and seem to have arrived at their conclusions without bothering to read the paper) - could it be that they are more motivated by their animosity to the subject matter than by the notability or otherwise of the topic? DaveApter 08:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as your edit history [9] on the Landmark Education discussion page shows Dave, few people are more interested in the Landmark Forum than you, or more committed to writing about its wonders on Wikipedia, so I'll bow to your long standing involvement in the matter. I'm sure your involvement in the organisation means you know a lot more about it than me but if I'm motivated by my animosity to it, and should therefore be ignored, does that mean your long standing and tireless advocacy of it also renders your contributions suspect? Nick mallory 08:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Seems like a lot of assumptions and insinuations to derive from the fact of my having made fewer than 5% of the edits on the LE Talk page over the past four months. I'll respond to the unnecessary personal attacks elsewhere. DaveApter 11:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine the fact that an article is co-authored by a couple of professors, and published in a reputable journal is sufficient grounds for an independent WP article. Plus, the journal's status as a reputable journal is in question, it does not appear to be indexed by any of the standard citation indices. Pete.Hurd 18:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That an article is published in a reputable journal qualifies it as a reliable source. It does not, however, confer automatic notability. Worthwhile subjects for articles must qualify as notable, meaning they should have been commented on by reliable and independent sources, such that we might possibly write a balanced article (rather than one that sings the praises of the subject). --Dhartung | Talk 19:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability Bulldog123 11:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its present state as non-NPOV apparent advertising, but the deletion process here seems decidedly iffy (tagged {{nn}} within three minutes and nominated for deletion within 3 hours); - yes, Landmark may well be a dubious cult but we don't delete Xenu, The Theories of David Icke or The Turner Diaries. If (big if) this can be expanded/cleaned up to an explanation of why this particular paper's important, change to keep. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one is suggesting we delete the Landmark Education article itself. I think that would be the course of action analagous to deleting the examples you provide. I can imagine someone wanting to merge this article with Landmark Education, but to support what thesis? Pete.Hurd 16:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability, no sources at all besides the paper itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Spam advertising. Per last "delete" comment above, I agree, no evidence of notability, no referenced citations to this work other than the paper itself... Smee 14:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: - To closing Admin, if this article gets deleted, its redirect, Promise of Philosophy and the Landmark Forum, will also have to be deleted as well... Smee 17:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Citations or not, no evidence of notability. Someguy1221 17:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for a whole bunch of reasons: spam, NPOV, lack of notability plus a BIG conflict of interest (the author works for the Landmark Forum). andy 20:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you mention WP:COI, andy, for that issue was previously brought up by User:Nposs, for more on that see archive. Smee 21:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If you are referring to myself I do not work for the Landmark Education. Alex Jackl 05:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AJackl, it depends what you mean by 'work' doesn't it? Not that I'm accusing you of bad faith, but your user page openly states 'I am, as a volunteer, a Seminar Leader for Landmark Education'. So you do work for them, don't you? And at quite a senior level too as a Seminar Leader, you're just not paid for it. One of the reasons Landmark makes so much money is its tactic of using as much volunteer unpaid labour as possible. Smee is quite right to point out a possible conflict of interest here and calling his arguments 'weak' and 'smug' below does little to counter them. Nick mallory 08:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smee Give up your weak smug WP:COI accusations. It got you nowhere before it will get you nowhere again. I don't accuse you- who is a single-subject-editor with a radical POV- of WP:COI I certainly don't apply. My positions are public and my history as an editor speaks for itself- as does yours. Please lets be civil here...Alex Jackl 05:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

AJackl, I am not making any accusations whatsoever. Just like initially, the WP:COI issue was first brought up here by a neutral previously-uninvolved editor. All I have done here was add the prior instance in which this was brought up by a different neutral previously-uninvolved editor. Smee 06:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Spamalicious. Very few articles in academic hournals will rate their own Wikipedia article. The X article does, but there is no evidence that the article in question here is notable. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any discussions of this, but I would set the bar very very high for articles about individual papers in even the best journals. In almost all cases the truly significant discussion will be of the concept, to go on the page for the subject. (There are of course exceptions, as forExperiments_on_Plant_Hybridization). ~~I cannot imagine that a paper written by a scientist could possibly be notable more than the scientist himself, or the scientific concept, and~~ We do not include an article about even the most significant paper for 99% of the scientists whose work overall warrants a WP article. I'd consider this inclusionism run mad. (Books normally cover a much broader perspective and are much more likely to be individually notable--though still not one for every author in WP--not by a long shot.)

and for this particular paper, furthermore: 1/the journal is not peer reviewed or indexed-& I get a "Can't find server" error when I try its link. 2/ Nor would a paper specifically devoted to advertising the forum be likely to appear in any journal that was peer reviewed and recognized by an index. 3/None of the authors are notable by WP standards 4/Not counting title or links, the article manages to mention "Landmark" 5 times in 133 words-- which is spam by any standard--it would be equivalent to an article about each published product review for a loudspeaker manufacturer. (Sorry about the over-kill) DGG 00:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. Sm1969 01:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: If you end up closing this article (which the current trend would indicate ) I request that the article be userfied to a subpage in my userspace. Thank you! Alex Jackl 05:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Most if not all of this article can and arguably should be dropped into the Landmark Education page with a bit of cleanup. It should be moved with its content and external link to the abstract. It would make more sense to find it there since it's really only about Landmark and its just one paper talking about the ideas of Landmark. Letting people read more Landmark papers off-site to reach their own conclusions helps Wikipedia remain neutral. Most of the discussion here is inappropriate to Wikipedia. Dhartung's statement about Landmark being close to Est is interesting. Unfortunately, I don't think there is an article here on Est. If anybody had an interest, and could make the connection with reliable sources to back it up, it would make an interesting edition to the Landmark discussion. Pete.Hurd makes a reasonable and fairly succinct delete argument. Aspenocean 20:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erhard Seminars Training is the est article, Werner Erhard and Associates is a closely related topic. Both those articles mention the relationship to Landmark Education in their lead sections. Pete.Hurd 05:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, I was lazy and did not link to Erhard Seminars Training in my comment. If I had, Aspenocean's confusion could have been averted. --Dhartung | Talk 02:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the links guys. I had forgotten all about the Scientology connection as well. I remember seeing that Larry King in '93 now. (I guess that tells you how long its been since I've made any study of these folks.) It looks like most of the information in this article is in the Landmark article now and there is an external link to the paper there as well. Maybe the Landmark page could use a section called "Papers by Landmark detailing central philosophy," or something like that. (If there's more than one that's pertinent.) Then any expansion can occur there thus making this separate article unnecessary. Of course all such papers should be prefaced as coming from the subject in question. ("Landmark states as central to their philosophy...") Aspenocean 07:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by me. J Milburn 12:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appolyon[edit]

No sources, "about to be releasing demo" cohesion 04:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not notable. Maxa megalon 2000 05:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: A7. It's a band, they spent some time coming up with their name, they're going to come out with a demo eventually. Zero assertion of notability, probably WP:NFT. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7, no assertion of notability. The fact that they have not even released their demo tells that this band is not notable. WP not a crystal ball. —Ocatecir ^Talk 08:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Okay, I don't know what's up with you guys, but I've heard a LOT about this band so far. It is completely legitimate, and it deserves to stay. It will just be recreated in the future, anyway. -- Silva Storm
Delete Needs sources that rise to WP:RS to establish noteworthiness. Quadzilla99 09:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates all the guidelines at WP:MUSIC. A newspaper search only found mention of a book by the same name, so they're not covered in the media. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Butler[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Recurring dreams 09:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This person fails notability, and reliable sources have not been added after 2 months Sefringle 05:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the news recently and in the past. John Vandenberg 09:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Amir Butler is consistently a news-maker in Australia, and his views on Muslims are significantly employed. Abureem 17:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Jayvdb. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 20:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable figure in Australia's Muslim community as per Jayvdb. Capitalistroadster 03:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Here is another article where ABC Australia contacted 11 prominent Muslims of Australia for their opinions. Amir is included: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/muslim.htm . It's amazing we are arguing about his prominence when he is routinely called onto by media sources re:Muslims in Australia. Abureem 18:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. That's a great primary reference. Thanks. Finally, a journalist who regards Butler as a peer journalist to be quoted and therefore meets WP:BIO. If somebody could update the article to reflect that, I'll go with a Keep. Well done everybody in improving the article. Assize 22:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Update: Golden Wattle has added this to the article.[10] John Vandenberg 03:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - references now provided to support notability claims--Golden Wattle ^talk 03:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Thanks for the additional references. In my view, being referred to in Parliament once or twice, and being referred to in a few articles doesn't necessarily makes you notable under Wikipedia polices. Assize 07:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment in response perhaps if you actually reviewed the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (people) it might help. The guidelines mention secondary sources independant of the subject and cited by peers. Butler has been cited by his peers (see for example the ABC PM external link provided). He has also been cited in parliaments in two different countries as somebody who has something notable to say on a high profile topic. Seems to me to pass the pokemon test. He is also a published journalist is more than one publication.--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No substantial secondary sources, therefore not notable according to Wikipedia policies. The only substantial source is an article in The Age written by Amir and is not about him. The article really needs more secondary sources to be considered notable. Otherwise, article needs to address "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" under WP:BIO. The article doesn't really address this. Assize 07:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Jayvdb comment appears to be in the edit history of the page and is "suitable sources are already on the article and reasonable notability can be inferred from google news".Assize 12:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further Comment. Looking at the sources cited by Jayvdb, Muslimmatters, Austrolabe, Antiware.com, Iviews and SpikedOnline are all blog sites and I would suggest not acceptable secondary sources. AmirButler.com is the subject's own website which cannot be used as secondary source. The last reference is an article written by the subject, not about him. At this stage, there are no secondary sources which support notability. Assize 22:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Response to lack of secondary sources - John Vandenbuerg provided a Google news search. This has an article in the Herald Sun from 10 April this year also he wrote for The Age in 2005 and he has written for Asia Times Online. He has been cited in the UK parliament as an authority on matters to do with legislation about religious hatred [11] and similarly in the NSW parliament. Not all sources available are blog sites. I find it surprising that we would consider not having an article for somebody who is cited as an authority on matters of religious vilification and muslims.--Golden Wattle ^talk 00:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sadly, I dont have a castle; merely an ant-hill. :-) John Vandenberg 00:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. My comments about references was in respect of those quoted in the written article. I understand that it is practice that a "keeper" should update the article and include the relevant references if they really want to keep the article. Looking at the additional references quoted above, they show that Amir has written a few articles for some newspapers. I don't think that makes him a journalist of the required fame under the Wikipedia guidelines. Assize 07:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jayvdb. Tim.bounceback^{(talk | contribs | ubxen)} 12:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we don't have reliable secondary sources, then we can't write an article about him, regardless of notability. Andjam 03:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Since when is Hansard not a reliable secondary source - have you read neither the article nor the links provided in it?--Golden Wattle ^talk 03:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I tend to regard Hansard as more of a primary source, with minimal editorial oversight, and yes I did. Andjam 02:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable enough, given cites in two parliaments, as well as the other commentary provided. Lankiveil 03:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, I've just added another secondary reference. --Takver 12:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Chaser - T 10:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

100 Most Beautiful People[edit]

Subjective list of links to celebrities Clicketyclack 06:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and sternly chastise creators of such lists. RFerreira 07:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a feature of People Magazine, not the personal POV it appears to be. It does get widely reported on outside People, so I suppose it might be encyclopedic, if it had some context to explain what it is. —Cel ithemis 07:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into People Magazine. This is not just some subjective list but a report of People Magazine's annual list. As such, merge or tag for significant cleanup to make that fact clear.--Crunch 07:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and send to the cleanup taskforce. I don't think merging something as detailed as this in the main article is a good idea. Having a lead explaining the list would be a good idea thought. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR (it is not up to Wikipedia to keep statistics of cover pages etc.); even if not deleted, it must be renamed, because these stars are surely not the "most beautiful people" in an absolute sense, but in fact only the "most beautiful Hollywood celebrities according to a US magazine".--Ioannes Pragensis 10:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ioannes Bulldog123 12:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Delete ~~to People Magazine.~~ I don't believe this particular feature merits its own article. This is something that they they do once a year. There is no reason why it couldn't be merged if there is something worth keeping. Most of the pages that link to 100 Most Beautiful People are not articles about the person on the cover, but people that were mentioned elsewhere (like say #42). What is the point in linking someone to a list of cover people when they were not on the cover? --Cyrus Andiron 12:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Didn't this use to be 50 most beautiful people. There should be some explanation about when it went to 100. If Sexiest Man Alive exists so should this. Should not be merged unless SMA is also forced to merge. Equally credible fork. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem is that you're right - SMA is pretty much the same. There may be some credibility, but as it's pretty much the same, I'm inclined to think it should be brought here to AfD. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well spotted. ~~Sexiest Man Alive should go to AfD too, for the same reasons as this one. I'll get onto that now. Clicketyclack 09:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)~~ Sexiest Man Alive now also has an AfD debate going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexiest Man Alive. Clicketyclack 21:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's no context here, or sourced, whether it is from People magazine or something though up in school one day. It is also not about 100 anythings; it appears to be the ONE person thought by somebody to be the most beautiful. If kept it should be cleaned up, sourced, and renamed to reflect what is: Most beautiful person annually selected by XXX, now that we see what the article really is, still wanna keep it? Carlossuarez46 20:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sourcing, little more than a list with a distinct lack of context. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing to discuss. No criteria are given, no context is provided, and no references are added. Placeholder account 22:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If you read the People Magazine article you will see that 1. it is not a random list thought up by one person and 2. in answer to TonyTheTiger, it did used to be 50 most beautiful people. I think it's helpful to do a bit of background research like this before casting a vote here. --Crunch 23:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)23:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What happened to 50 most beautiful people? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNo sources. Is this from a magazine? Doppelganger 01:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into People Magazine. This is a feature of a magazine, and as it stands now I don't see any real reason to give it its own article. Clean it up, add sources, and make it a section or sub-section of the main article, says I. TommyP 04:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This begs the question: should we be a mirror of data from People Magazine? I mean, yeah, it's a fairly reliable source for some information (if anything, I'd consider it to be tertiary in its nature for WP:RS reasons). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't make any sense as it stands. Deb 21:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is about the 100 most beautiful people, the magazine 'People' already has this list compiled on their website, by publishing it on wikipedia, thats obviousy a blatent copyright infringment.
Delete No explainations given as to what this is from, if it is indeed from people then its possible copyvio. Russeasby 11:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the biggest problem is the lack of perspective this article brings. There is no text explaining the rationale behind the list (and the source brings up a 404 error). -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horgan´s[edit]

A local restaurant of no explained notability and no sources. Weregerbil 06:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per notability guidelines. Doesn't seem to have a page even in the Norsk wikipedia (redlinked in the following [[12]]. Recurring dreams 09:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs sources that rise to WP:RS to establish noteworthiness. Quadzilla99 09:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently appears non-notable, and could use some sources to establish the verifiability o the statements found there. --Nehrams2020 20:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The article is really a spam and also per wikipedia is not a yellow page. To pass the notability criteria, secondary sources must be provided per Primary Criterion of WP:CORP. — Indon (reply) — 07:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Threat (Wrestler)[edit]

Contested prod. Non notable wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete User:One Night In Hackney has no experience with pro-wrestling until tonight where he is obviously helping his buddies who tried to get my other pro-wrestling article deleted. Threat's Official News Site and SocalUncensored.com are both independent reliable sources as both have been around longer than Wikipedia and are both manned by experience pro-wrestling sports writers. Not only does Threat's Official News Site have news articles as a source, it also has photo and video coverage of the content included in the article as well. This nomination for deletion is a favor merely by someone who normally doesn't contribute to pro-wrestling articles to help everyone who flocked to Demonica Deadwater and even boasted on the AfD's talk page about specifically wanting to keep me around to get a reaction out of me. This nomination is veiled trolling. The article speaks for itself and is cited more than most pro-wrestler articles. I have no further statement.Kotterpin 22:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Kotterpin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kotterpin (talk • contribs). — Kotterpin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Has multiple records and awards, was part of WWE and participated in televised match. This wrestler can't possibly be non-notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps you can find independent sources for any of the claims, and I don't mean his news site? An unsourced claim of notability is not a claim of notability. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No - he was never part of WWE, he auditioned for a WWE reality show (and didn't succeed - no sign of him in the programme's main article). EliminatorJR ^Talk 11:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable secondary sources are made available, looks NN. EliminatorJR ^Talk 11:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mutltiple official articles (which are NOT independent as called for by WP:BIO) and an interview all fail WP:BIO, WP:V and WP:RS. DarkSaber2k 17:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Fails WP:A and every other policy I can think of. Burntsauce 17:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only references are from the wrestler's own site. Fanclubs for external links are fanclubs, myspace doesn't hold much, no notability beyond this. Being a pro wrestler isn't automatically notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Whatever You Want I dont' care anymore. I see why the people I know online told me to become a Wikithief or a vandal rather than try to participate by writing an article. I know, I know, this statement is somehow a Wiki-cliche and someone will post a link to an article detailing that to earn e-points with his fellow Wikipedophiles. If it gets deleted, I don't care. I don't see why anyone would want to be a Wikithief or a vandal anyways, associating with this nerd site is just asking for negative vibes. Goodbye. I was just someone who wanted to make some articles about a pro-wrestler I met on myspace. Nothing more, nothing less. I had no clue I'd have to deal with nazis with double standards. I don't see any WP:RS on many of the other wrestler's pages so I thought citing the official news site was better than that. Leave me alone and if you delete the articles, delete my account because people are now commenting my talk page with jerkoff wiki-cliche links. This place sucks. Leave me alone you are just attracting Wikitheives and vandals with proxy servers who told me not to write articles in the first place and are probably bookmarking all of your pages as I type this to have fun and use your name and likelyness in the process. Goodbye. Kotterpin 23:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Kotterpin[reply]
- How very mature of you. Burntsauce 23:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, it looks like the other stuff exists argument, coupled with calling all the editors here paedophiles. Classy. In any case, delete due to a total dearth of proper sourcing. --Haemo 01:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and good riddance to cliche vandals. RFerreira 04:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was told that the term Wikipedophile is seperate from child molesters and is the correct term for power-tripping Wikipedians, thank you. I'd like to direct the attention of whoever has the power to delete this article to Demonica Deadwater discussion and my response there. If any of these naysayers edit unsourced articles or have no experience in AfD discussions pertaining to independent pro-wrestling, then their opinions and Wiki-cliche rebuttals should be taken with a grain of salt because they shouldn't be here in the first place. Thanks. I'll be back next week to see if this article is the victim of hypocrisy. As for the Wikitheives, I am not a part of that and any admin who can view my IP address can easily see that. I am not into negativity but this experience with hypocrites was an eye-opener and I'm not going to be writing any more articles on this site. Kotterpin 06:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Kotterpin[reply]
- Perhaps then you should be referring to "wikipediaphiles"? A pedophile is entirely different, regardless of whether it's a "wikipedophile". be more selective in your verbiage please. BTW, I thought you were leaving? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 10:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unopeneddoor (talk • contribs) 03:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, userfy per Jayvdb's suggestion to User:Stokesdean/Big Dave (Australian rapper). Orderinchaos 04:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BIG DAVE[edit]

Some claims to notability are present, but no direct citations provided for our perusal. "Big Dave" is a name used by many different people, and it's very difficult to distinguish which google results apply to which people. Overall, I see an unsigned musician claiming to have his own record company. Sounds like the sort of thing we delete. ··coel acan 07:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, I see what your saying.:-) Added a few direct links for notability purposes which should fix the problem. Hope its up to standard, thanks guys. Dean.

Delete the one thing in the article that looks like it might actually be a real reference (to news.com.au) goes to a "Page Not Found" error message. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and Andrew Lenaham, not yet notable enough for our rather low standards of inclusion. Burntsauce 17:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 20:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I've tidied it up a bit and found the correct link for the print article, but Im not convinced of any notability. John Vandenberg 20:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an up and coming artist, but not quite notable. Delete, with no prejudice to recreation when it happens. Good luck, Dave. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Move per John Vandenberg's statement, below. Good points made. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Even if this article is kept I would suggest a rename to avoiud confusion with Big Dave. Artw 23:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear notable - although the business does appear to exist (that being said, so do nearly 800,000 others). Orderinchaos 04:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the numbers say delete, as you would guess I am biased as Big Dave is from the same area of Canberra as me I like to support local talent that breaks on to the national scene. I am aware of two radio interviews and two filmed interviews taking place over the coming weeks perhaps if you could possibly archive it until that time and I can add the links for more notability. What do you think guys? Dean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stokesdean (talk • contribs) 06:06, 8 May 2007

Move to User:Stokesdean/Big Dave (Australian rapper). Notability appears to be just around the corner, so I think it is reasonable to let Dean take this article and expand it as a sub-page of his user space (see WP:UP#SUB). John Vandenberg 07:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One newspaper article as a source does not make you notable. Maybe later. Sorry. Assize 07:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Zero[edit]

Since I already saved two articles on wrestlers in notable leagues prodded by the same user, I thought I'd bring this one to AFD for some more discussion. I know next to nothing about wrestling, but if the wrestling federation he's part of is notable, he's not blanketly non-notable. Procedural nomination. Mgm|^(talk) 08:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. Wrestling in front of 300 people does not a notable wrestler make. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources, and what's in the article sounds pretty non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mister Zero has exactly that number of reliable sources for his article, failing WP:A policy. Burntsauce 17:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, non notable wrestler--Unopeneddoor 03:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 16:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truth Martini[edit]

Contested prod. Non notable independent wrestler, no evidene of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs sources that rise to WP:RS to establish noteworthiness. Quadzilla99 09:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news mentions on him, He trains a one-legged wrestler. To reference everything I'd need some help from wrestling experts, but training a one-legged wrestler is notable enough to keep an article about him in my book. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first set of Google News items are either his name on a preview or a list of results, trivial mentions. I don't see what relevance the second set has either, please provide non trivial sources for Truth Martini. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, looks like spam to me. Burntsauce 17:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Shaken, not stirred; extra dirty. RFerreira 06:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Dan McGuire[edit]

Contested prod. Non notable independent wrestler, no evidene of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs sources that rise to WP:RS to establish noteworthiness. Quadzilla99 09:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject to multiple independant sources. Current lack of sources in the article is something that can be remedied by cleanup rather than deletion. There's only an urgent need for deletion when unreferenced material is negative in such a way it violated WP:BLP. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please provide non trivial sources, not search engine results filled with his name on a list of results. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Porn stars, like pro-wrestlers, turn up millions of Google hits due to Google bombing, but that does not automatically make them notable enough for an encyclopedia. Show me the non-trivial third party references or get out. Burntsauce 17:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, article lacks sources which meet our standards set by policy. RFerreira 18:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haythem Noor[edit]

Possibly self-promotional article of an actor resembling his IMDB entry. Not much else to be found than some passing references. Tikiwont 09:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:AUTO. See the license on the inserted picture. It ties him directly to the creator of the article (as does the username but I assumed good faith until I looked at the image license). MartinDK 09:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and notability guidelines for actors. While I have no problem with people writing their own biography articles when done right (it's discouraged, not forbidden), this person doesn't seem to have had anything but minor roles. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Let me clarify that above nomination was for the lack fo reliable sources (for which I also searched) about the person himself.--Tikiwont 10:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Speedy tagged A7. Obviously non-notable regardless of who created it. Autobiographies are strongly discouraged and often violate WP:SPAM as well. It is also recreation of deleted material. See the pagelog. It's been deleted before under G12 (copyvio), see here. MartinDK 11:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The originator has contested the speedy deletion. You may want to consult also his comment on the article's talk page. Tikiwont 16:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Thanks, I have replied on the talk page. MartinDK 17:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MastCell ^Talk 17:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPI Armor[edit]

fictional technology/body armour - no sigificant real-world impact, it's just an invisibility suit - 100s exist in fiction - needs a line in the revelent article. Delete as per WP:NOT. Fredrick day 09:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Real world impact isn't a requirement. Having this as a separate article, though, appears to violate WP:FICT. I'd suggest shortening the text and merging and redirecting it into a List of Halo weapons [sic], an article on the technology in the game, or simply the novel it appears in. The last one clearly exists, so that's probably the best merge target. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shortening the content and creating a List of Halo weapons with all the similar articles seems like a good idea. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong but I *think* that the current move is to delete articles like List of Halo Weapons and I think that article (or something very similar) did exist in the past and was deleted. --Fredrick day 13:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Halo 2 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Halo: Combat Evolved Both delete. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for the info. taking my comment back then :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Articles on fictional topics are only supposed to be made when there are sources detailing real world information. These types of sources are not presented here, and are unlikely to be found. Jay32183 22:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* it's part of a series. Are we going through every category for (what we think are) obscure stories and deleting everything we don't care about? -Rebent 03:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to try and delete everything that does not match policy? yep. (well no actually there is too much of it but we can at least try to keep a lid on it) --Fredrick day 08:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N's "multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic" criteria. Even a list of them would get deleted per Night Gyr's examples. --maclean 06:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I couldn't see where it would fit, nor where it was needed as an unsourced textdump, into the main Halo 2 article, so I didn't merge it. If someone could merge it (if they want to), please feel free - the content is still in the history behind the redirect. Cheers, Daniel 09:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guardians (halo 2)[edit]

Discussion about how a small part of the HALO game works. WP:NOT. Fredrick day 09:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hut 8.5 10:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect a small mention in Halo 2. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Merging would be unneeded due to the useless and unsourced nature of this article. A line in the base article will be enough, unless someone has written about them for some reason. J Milburn 11:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with halo 2 article. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 12:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Halo 2. Add redirect to Halo 2. —A • D ^Torque 12:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Also, reword. It's quite informal, and a tiny bit manual like. —A • D ^Torque 12:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, despite Charles' valiant attempts at rewriting it into something resembling English prose. It's still unsourced, at any rate. Sandstein 19:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Eastern Turkestan and Axis Powers Links[edit]

The article has it's problems, but none of them are reason for deletion. I'm doing this procedural nomination, to see if the problems are fixable or if this really should be a deletion candidate. Mgm|^(talk) 09:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close AfD. AfDs are not meant as improvement drives.--Ioannes Pragensis 11:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, in that case I oppose the prodding of this articles as none of its reasons were valid reason for deletion. I'm now nominating this for deletion for it's NPOV violations and attempts to discuss similarities of two unrelated entities. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced content-fork of First East Turkestan Republic and Second East Turkestan Republic — iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Barely coherent and unnecessary. Salad Days 16:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - so badly written it's almost impossible to understand. In need of a complete rewrite, otherwise valueless as an encyclopedia article. andy 20:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll do some rewriting. Charles Matthews 06:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into First East Turkestan Republic. There is something here, but not really enough to stand alone. Charles Matthews 07:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without prejudice toward him personally, this is vintage Torb37, a user well known for contributing articles that are dramatically sub-par: atrociously written, no references, no context, no response to messages placed on his talk page ever, and so forth. Biruitorul 22:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you care to express that comment in terms which bear at least some marginal relation to deletion policy, rather than in words expressing your opinion of another editor? By the way, said editor has contributed much of interest. Charles Matthews 20:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes: "dramatically sub-par: atrociously written, no references, no context" applies to this article as well. And I have yet to see anything of interest from him; I would like to be proved wrong. Biruitorul 17:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've certainly seen things of interest from him/her - e.g. - but of all the interesting-if-true things s/he adds to articles, they invariably get reverted/rewritten due to the wild, unsourced claims. I don't see how this one's any different — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Right, that was my point: he's a good-faith editor whose contributions need tons of cleanup work, and even then sometimes remain indescipherable. Biruitorul 23:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is barely coherent, and badly written. I guess anything is possible, but realistically speaking, I don't see how it could be salvaged. Turgidson 16:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 04:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Alves Arbuthnot[edit]

Non notable. Being a businessman, the son of a baronet, or part of the Arbuthnot family walled garden does not make someone notable, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Arbuthnot family being a walled garden is unfortunate. But peerage and baronetcies do convey notability; see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Peerage (part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Baronets and peers may be notable, but that's a seperate argument. However this person is neither a peer nor a baronet, please read the article and the nomination. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After talking to Vintagekits, I've come to the conclusion I've mixed up Baron and Baronet. Since he couldn't have inherited the second title, he's not nobility and thus not notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the fact I support keeping the articles on baronets, this person is just a businessman, and their are no decent sources cited. Perhaps a mention in his father's article. J Milburn 12:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OK so the article tell us he worked for a living and had children, fails WP:BIO. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 13:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- disruptive nomination as part of a campaign against the Arbuthnot family. Astrotrain 13:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Please comment on the notability not the nomination.--Vintagekits 13:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only possible claim to notability is being a JP, but nothing to indicate he was involved in any high-profile case etc that could raise him over the bar. BTW, he was definitely not a baronet (although personally, I think there's nothing at all notable about baronets either, given the sheer quantity of them and the meaninglessness of the title) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In light of BrownHairedGirl's digging, escalating to Strong delete — this also seems to cast doubt on the truthfulness of a number of other Arbuthnot articles — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Arbuthnot Latham & Co. the individual is not notable but it is possible that the private bank is however the sources are poor and carry only trivial information with no depth of coverage which if unimproved therefore fails WP:V.--Vintagekits 13:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--padraig3uk 14:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a non-notable 19th century businessman. Being named Arbuthnot is not enough to achieve inherent notability on Wikipedia. Perhaps someone could create an "Arbuthnotpedia" to provide a place for complete details of all persons in that distinguished family tree. Edison 15:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It already exists - where do you think all these Arbuthnot articles are coming from? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Notable for having founded a successful merchant bank. - Kittybrewster (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as this is a member of your family I am not sure you should be !voting in this AfD due to WP:COI.--Vintagekits 18:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a member of that family, User:Kittybrewster should comment and should provide any relevant information that isn't in the article nor earlier in this discussion, so long as she identifies her conflict of interest. However, simply providing a keep not-a-vote and an assertion (without identifying herself as a family member) is not useful and is frowned upon under WP:COI. Providing sources of independent non-trivial coverage would be far more useful. Barno 20:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That bank he founded exists since 1833. That makes the bank notable by sheer age, and founders of long-standing corporations and organizations are notable too. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not convinced that old companies are inherently notable, and the article on the bank currently holds a notability tag- show me some sources that prove this bank is notable, I will change my mind about this person. JMilburn 17:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The fact that Arbuthnot Latham was one of the accepting houses shows its status. - Kittybrewster (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, simply not notable. Burntsauce 17:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mgm. This is is the biography of the founder of a merchant bank which still exists after 170 years. Yes, it would be nice if it was expanded, so I have tagged it with {{UK-business-bio-stub}}. It's a pity to see the discussion on Kittybrester's talk page, which makes it clear that this is part of a pattern of bad faith nominations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment evidence of self-referencing sources, below, has persuaded me to change my vote to a strong delete. For further details, see below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think its pretty pathetic that you are attacking the nominator instead of focusing on the notability of the individual. If Kitty is going to create a stub article for every single person in his family then he is going to get this attention. The is no evidence that the bank was notable then or what size it was or or the link to its current incarnation so everything you have just said is WP:OR - try being objective in future rather than blindly sticking up for your mate from the Baronet Project - you are becoming like some of the other editors!--Vintagekits 19:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CIVIL, please. I have given my !vote on the basis of how the article, not out of any loyalty to anyone. As I have said before, you and Kittybrewster and a circle of others are engaged in an increasingly disruptive dispute; please desist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per Mgm and BHG. This stub could be developed but the subject has notability as a founder of a merchant bank.--Bill Reid | Talk 19:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is disgraceful that some editors have, in a bad faith manner, appear to target every stub article that this well respected contributor has created.--Bill Reid | Talk 19:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I didn't say he was the founder, I said he was a founder. --Bill Reid | Talk 19:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Your knowledge of the history of banking is regretably very poor. Please read Merchant bank --Bill Reid | Talk 21:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comments/arguments by User:Vintagekits which were rebutted by User:Billreid have been deleted from the immediately preceding dialogue. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per arguments put forward by Vintagekits, padraig3uk, Edison et al Cloveoil 20:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article is more about his abilities in the procreative department than about anything else. And here on this side of the pond, one got the impression that being a titled nobleman meant you didn't have work for a living. I guess inflation has hit the titled lords as well. Carlossuarez46 20:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Quite simply is not notable. --Domer48 21:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the two sources cited in the article, one is a family memoir (not independent) and the other is a directory listing in a peerage guide (trivial). Arguments of type "All X are notable," reflect a misunderstanding of the notability guidelines. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The family memoir was published Allen & Unwin, a major publisher. That makes it a reliable source. Tyrenius 04:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's reliable, but it's not really independent of the subject. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher is independent of the subject, and the publisher endorses the material. This is entirely different to a self-published source. Tyrenius 04:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What I'm getting at is that WP:N calls for coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, which I take to mean completely independent, ie "that person is important, I'll write about him", whereas with the book being written by a member of the family the independence is diminished. Even ignoring that, apart from his offspring there isn't much in the way of non trivial coverage. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What Hackney said. Moreover, a publisher most certainly does not "endorse" all the material it publishes. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 14:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mgm, Billreid and BHG. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of non-trivial independent sources. Yes, the firm is old. That may even make the firm notable. It might even justify a redirect. But it does not justify this article. Wikipedia is not the Arbuthnot family's private genealogy site. Guy (Help!) 10:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arbuthnot Latham & Co. Catchpole 11:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a very poor and hurried biography which provides virtually no useful information on the subject to substantiate the claim of notability. However the bank he co-founded is long established and does still exist [13] and is certainly notable if only in the rarified echelons of finance in the City of London. Therefore the limited information given just (and only just) permits this man to be encyclopedia worthy. These Arbuthnot pages are for the most part very limited in the information they provide. We clearly have amongst us a person very knowledgable on the subject of the Arbuthnots but if s/he does not soon to decide to share a little more of that knowledge with us we are going to see a lot more pages such as this nominated as candidates for deletion on the grounds on non-notability which, at the moment, is a natural conclusion to draw from the information given. I would suggest if the author wishes to see these pages retained he finishes one page properly and thoroughly before moving on to the next in future. Giano 11:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and per Giano.--Doc^g 11:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Merge into the bank, noting else is notable.--Doc^g 15:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteyet per Giano. There does seem to be somewhat exaggerated/tendentious sense of notability for members of this family. (e.g., Ernest Kennaway Arbuthnot). To move forward a civil discussion, perhaps Kittybrewster could explain their criteria for deciding when to not give an Arbuthnot a separate article. Perhaps the User would agree to a voluntary moratorium on new stubs until this is sorted out? Otherwise, this could lead to a problematic precedent. Personally, while I might agree that John Alves is notable, I'd recommend merging a slew of these smaller biographies into a broader yet still respectful article, e.g. "Arbuthnot family: Less prominent members". Were this not in dispute, I might boldly merge some of these stubs together myself. HG 12:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Data analysis: currently there are 86 entries under Arbuthnot family Arbuthnot family. Compare to 13 in Fairfax, 12 in Haldane. Consider Webster's Biographical Dict as a benchmark. Webster lists 2 Arbuthnots (John b.1667, Robert Keith) yet 5 for Fairfax and 7 Haldane. Were we to assume that Webster's has a fair ratio of notability, then either Arbuthnot should be cut back to about 5 (i.e., 2/5 of Fairfax). Otherwise, holding Arbuthnot steady at 86, then Fairfax and Haldane should be expanded to 215 (5/2*86) and 301 (7/2*86) articles respectively. In any case, something is amiss and the criteria for Arbuthnots needs to be tightened up. HG 13:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While this subject here just qualifies as notable, I agree with much of HG's comments above but people are either notable (worthy of an article) or that are not. We do not want to start having pages entitled the "Higginbottom family" detailing the lives of numerous people of no consequence because one second cousin was momentarily a Member of Parliament in the 1880s. I was reading one of the Arbuthnot pages earlier (Ernest Kennaway Arbuthnot) in which one member of the family had done nothing of interest except become a Chief Constable in the 1920s, marry a glorified chorus girl and gain a couple of less than rare medals. At that time Chief Constable was largely (I believe) an honory position given to any upstanding member of the local gentry - note I say gentry not the higher aristocracy - not that that should make a difference to notability - but I know to some here it does! I think someone needs to "sit down" with Kittbrewster and reasonably say look - some of these pages can be improved and are of use - the others - well frankly they are not of use, these people are not notable lets have a sort through them and decide which can be dispensed with. Every British titled family has hundreds of lesser members who were/are awarded medals and various honory positions because of their connections and name rather than their rank and notability. Ivor No-Chin-Faceache, great grandson of the 14th Earl of Scrotum and was one of 1000,000 soldiers mentioned in despatches during World War I was doubtless brave, that he dragged a child out of a swimming pool in 1926 is commendable, that he was chairman of his local Rotary Club is admirable but none of these things make a man notable. Its a fine line but it has to be drawn sooner or later so it may as well be sooner. Giano 14:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless he is not in DNB, which is the test of notability in this area, not some high schooler's pov. Remember, every drummer of every garage band of the 1990s is "notable" at Wikipedia.--Wetman 22:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Where do you get that he's in the DNB from? It takes all of ten seconds to see that he isn't — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'd say keep as the guy is notable for being a founder of Arbuthnot Latham & Co., which aside from being founded in 1833 is an accepting house, but there is very little information here and it could easily be put in with the bank page. With only two founders, the list is pretty short. A redirect could then be made to point to the bank page. Aspenocean 19:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do we actually have any evidence that this is the Arbuthnot who founded the bank? I can't find a single source for it — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[14] [15]- Kittybrewster (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, seems legitimate — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Changing my !vote on the basis of the exchange above. The second reference cited there, is http://www.thepeerage.com/p12400.htm#i123993 ... but when I check that, the source turns out to be http://www.thepeerage.com/s1.htm#1438 which reads "[S1438] Arbuthnot, Sir William "re: Arbuthnot and Duff Families." E-mail message from <e-mail address> at unknown address. 29 August 2005 and 11 January 2006."
User:Kittybrewster is Sir William Arbuthnot, so Kittybrewster has just cited himself as a source. On that basis, I have to assume that the other sources cited cannot be taken to be reliable. Assuming good faith, the self-reference may have been an oversight, but it calls into question the independence all of Kittybrewster's sourcing, and without WP:RS reliable sources, the article has no place on wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it your contention that Kittybrewster is also Charles Mosley, editor, Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage, 107th edition, 3 volumes? Aspenocean 00:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course not. But if you check http://www.thepeerage.com/p12400.htm#i123993, the only source for his involvement with the bank is Kittybewster; Mosley is a source only for the birth, marriage and death details. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but do you think that the editor of Burkes Peerage added it without being more than reasonably sure the information was correct? I have found a source for John Alves Arbuthnot being the Sub-Governor of "THE LONDON ASSURANCE INC. A.D. 1720"[16] John Vandenberg 04:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have seriously tried to see the possibilities of these Arbuthnot pages, but I am forced following discussions with their creator, and the comments by BrownHairedGirl above to concede that Wikipedia would be better off without them. When more information and more importantly references are available then someone can always recreate them with sound and reliable proof of notability. Giano 13:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Wikipedia must not be a joke. Kittybrewster is the source of the source he is using per BrownHairedGirl research. Aatomic1 13:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this whole discussion was initiated on the basis of notability (not references, conflict of interest, personal attacks, or assumptions) and it's looking like this will be deleted on the basis of votes not dealing with notability,. The article is about John Alves Arbuthnot not Kittybrewster. My vote above for a Merge still stands.Aspenocean 14:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Unfortunately, I no longer that it is entirely appropriate to separate the editor from the sources. The baseline test of notability is multiple independent, reliable sources, but the originator of this article has now confirmed the only apparently independent source is in fact a self-reference back to the subject's own family. The conflation of the issues is unfortunate, but I fear that it is inevitable when there has been so much editing in breach of WP:COI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not convinced that the sources are unreliable. "Independent sources" can refer to anyone who is not the subject in question, and the subject in question is certainly dead. (No pun intended.) Biographical information almost always has to originate with some one related to the subject in some manner (friends, family, co-workers). Biography is almost always tinged with the subjective because of the nature of these sources. You could argue that the article needs more references as many others have, but you still haven't argued that the man's accomplishments are not notable (or shown that this is not the same man who accomplished these things, or that the sources are unreliable.) Relation does not equal unreliability, and you don't provide any other argument against reliability. Further, I doubt that the source in question would have known the subject personally. Aspenocean 15:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Citing a publication that uses your e-mail as a source is original research, which is right out, however. I did notice that the source relies on other sources as well. It's still a directory listing, and thus trivial, however. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The content of the email cited is not available to us and as such it is speculation to claim it as being original research. The content of Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage, 107th edition is available to us, and [17] connects him with Alfred Latham and subsequently Arbuthnot Latham & Co. It was one of the accepting houses and has unusual longevity (founded 1833). The bank is notable, and its founder is notable. I still say they can be merged and a redirect added.

Keep: The founder of an old established merchant bank is of course notable. I suggest efforts be made to research and expand the subject/article. Can't help thinking this is just another bad faith AfD nomination. David Lauder 14:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The assertion of notability needs to be backed up by references. Unfortunately, the only sources in the article are not reliable and independent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The on-line peerage is pretty reliable and I have added another on-line source as well as a paper one. Being a Justice of the Peace, a county High Sheriff, and founder of a major and well-known merchant bank must surely rank as notable? David Lauder 20:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this is interesting Kittybrewster uses as a ref: Mrs P S-M Arbuthnot "Memories of the Arbuthnots" (1920). George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

Yet the same publishers in the same year published "Memories of the Arbuthnots of Kincardineshire and Aberdeenshire" by Ada Jane Evelyn Arbuthnot [18]

Odd that two Arbuthnot wives should simultaneously publish works so similar - very odd! There is the possible explanation that Kittybrewster forgot to add the last part of the title - but would those qualifying Scottish counties include the Irish branch which it seems to? Then the name Ada Jane could have been Mrs Peter Arbuthnot - but why change the author's name. Too many questions? Plus the fact the wretched woman seems to be able to rmemeber people who died almost 100 years before she wrote her book - Amazing. I would like an answer.Giano 16:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Ada Jane and Mrs P S-M are one and tha same person - and the book is online on Kittybrester's own site with Kittybrewster owning the copyright of this 87 year old work. Giano 17:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That probably is legitimate - copyright in Scotland is 70 years after the death of the creator, so as long as she survived 17 years after writing the book her descendants would still own copyright. BTW, what the hell is Arbuthnot Latham - a minor bank that doesn't even exist - doing on {{UK banks}}, especially given that the company that now owns it isn't there? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:This is a major merchant bank which raises in excess of 20 pages of hits on Google. David Lauder 17:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeinto the bank. I have checked DNB, and there are only 15 Arbuthnots with articles, all listed below, all with articles in WP. However others are mentioned, sometimes in substantial paragraphs. I would not limit the Arbutnot articles to those 15--some of the successive baronets are included only as paragraphs. (This John neither has an article, nor is he mentioned.)
Arbuthnot, Alexander (1538–1583), Church of Scotland minister and college head
Arbuthnot, Sir Alexander John (1822–1907), administrator in India
Arbuthnot, Charles (1767–1850), diplomatist and politician
Arbuthnot, Sir Charles George (1824–1899), army officer
Arbuthnot, Forster Fitzgerald (1833–1901), orientalist
Arbuthnot, George (1802–1865), civil servant
Arbuthnot [née Fane], Harriett (1793–1834), diarist
Arbuthnot [Arbuthnott], John (bap. 1667, d. 1735), physician and satirist
Arbuthnot, Marriot (1711–1794), naval officer and colonial governor
Arbuthnot, Robert, of Haddo (1728–1803). See under Select Society (act. 1754–1764).
Arbuthnot, Sir Robert (1773–1853), army officer
Arbuthnot, Sir Robert Keith, fourth baronet (1864–1916), naval officer
Arbuthnot, Sir Thomas (1776–1849), army officer
Arbuthnott, Robert, first viscount of Arbuthnott (c.1618–1655), politician

The article in British Journal of Sociology mentions a number of Arbuthnots: Col. George Arthbutnot, & Gerald Arbuthnot, both of who went into Parliament; Charles George Arbuthnot, a director of the Bank of England, and F.S and A.H, as pat of a list of those attending Eton. It does not mention this one at all. Nothing in JStor does. Nothing substantial in Google Scholar does (he's included in 4 lists in Notes and Queries). DGG 20:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources: the DNB is supposed to be available at every UK public and academic library. This has the potential to upgrade the quality of our UK bios. A list of the persons included with full articles is now available free as Oxford Biographical Index. To find the ones with paragraphs you need to search the real thing. Outside the UK, large & medium-sized academic libraries should have it. DGG 20:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Not sure what you're trying to say here but if you are citing the DNB as a yardstick of notables it is a mistake. It is far from inclusive, just as Who's Who is far from inclusive. I was asked to contribute to the latest DNB and did so, with six articles. In the final event, none were included and no explanation offered. I know another who was also asked to contribute (he works at the National Library of Scotland) and of his four biographies none were published. The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia is a new encyclopaedia, not a mirror of an existing one. It is good that we have biographies/stubs to be built upon here which have yet to appear in the DNB. My other question is: will the thousands upon thousands of Wikipedia stubs all be treated like this one? David Lauder 17:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment David I don't know who who you are nor realy care, but to me notable people are people are one's that have contributed something to benefit mankind in some way, either through medicine or science or some oher way, not self profit for profit alone, so onless this person did something other then for self profit then he is meaningless in my opinion.--padraig3uk 01:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paidrag, notable businessmen are also notable. Even politicians are. Even generals. For that matter, even murderers. The question is whether his commercial activites are notable enough among bankers, and whether enough reliable documentation exsists.

As for DNB, I would say as a minimum that everyone with a full article or a section in DNB is notable. A great many other people are also. I certainly would not limit WP to them. But it helps to have some accepted point. If someone were to say that none of that name were notable, we can show otherwise. Similarly all members of the Royal Society are notable. and so are many thousands of other scientists and scholars. I was primarily pointing at the wide availability of this references source, as a way of upgrading the biographies of those people who are included. But I'm glad to here from a contributor--if you have any comments about the reliability of either the criteria or the quality, I'd very much like to here them, and the talk page for the article on it would be the place. DGG 06:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into the bank. Montco 15:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. So far in the two Arbuthnot family Afds I have see in the last 24hrs, accusations of "walled garden" and lack of sources are primarily because the articles are developed by one person, using the sources they have at hand. Each time I have been able to find other credible sources to verify the facts, and adding appropriate incoming links to the articles was not difficult. If this Arbuthnot is really not as notable as the rest of the chaps, then a merge into Arbuthnot family would be an appropriate way to not loose the valuable contribution. John Vandenberg 04:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 of the references seem to be connected to the primary author of this page a fourth reference does not cite its own sources. Giano 08:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per editors Astrotrain, Mgm, Bill Reid, Bastun, Wetman, David Lauder, John Vandenberg and WP:NOTPAPER. — Athaenara 15:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the article on the bank, per DGG. Most of the info in the article is the list of his eleven children, none of whom have their own WP articles. If the article is kept, I believe the list of his children can be omitted as mere genealogy. EdJohnston 01:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changa Karn[edit]

I'm afraid I am unable to figure out what this article is really meant to be about. It consists entirely of essay-style ramblings, all of which are OR. Latebird 10:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Beyond even the OR, this is a fairly bizarre POV fork of Genghis Khan, attempting to re-envision him as a Nepali warrior-saint and Hindu convert. Serpent's Choice 10:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Attempts to promote writer's theory. Clear after reading the first paragraph. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and a personal essay. Bridgeplayer 17:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Rambling, OR, slightly nonsensical, and a statement such as the following: "This might be one of the reason why Genghis Khan never attacked India the Holiest nation in this world..." reeks of WP:NPOV. Sheerly speculative about...well, about why GK never attacked India. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Text book case of fringe, unsourced, non-neutral original research. The only redeeming factor that I can see is that it does not violate WP:BLP :-) Abecedare 05:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete early per WP:SNOW. WjBscribe 05:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with fruit in the title[edit]

This is a wholly incompetent list. Why would anyone care about a list of songs with a fruit in the title?! Most of the Category:Dynamic_lists_of_songs are useless collections of dust and trivia anyway, but I can understand why something like List of songs about suicide could be useful for someone studying the topic of suicide. I really doubt someone researching fruit is going to look this one up. - hahnch e n 11:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, trivia. >Radiant< 12:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why does this subject matter? It's useless trivia. I can't fathom someone looking for this information. Ever. --Cyrus Andiron 12:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At least until Bob Dylan uses this idea in about series seven of 'theme time radio hour'. Nick mallory 14:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this list is B-A-N-A-N-A-S. Per nom, there are song topics which are not just interesting but notable (e.g. topics of discussion), this is not one of them. --Dhartung | Talk 19:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like a truck squashing a tomato (disregarding whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable) primarily as unattributable, as I see no indication that books or magazine articles or TV shows or other reliable sources have covered this topic. Delete secondarily as an indiscriminate collection of facts; the only criterion is one not shown to be notable or even meaningful. Barno 20:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Now THIS is listcruft!!! MartinDK 21:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from non-notability, this list suffers from a distinct lack of 30,000 pounds of bananas. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...come to think of it, so does Wikipedia - but alas, WP:ILIKEIT. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, that's funny. Send it to BJAODN titles, maybe? Placeholder account 22:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "BJAODN titles" is called WP:DAFT, and this is exactly the sort of reason it was created. 'WP:DAFT and delete. Grutness...wha? 01:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Who comes up with this stupid crap? RFerreira 04:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meh while we arent running out of space anytime... we certainly are running out of competant list creators/editors. Delete it... find the guy who initially created it and ban him for idiocy, then when your done with that, burn him at the stake to prevent future morons from following in his footsteps. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 articles delete obsolete category. I am redirecting the articles for now, so the old versions are still there should people want to merge specific content. W.marsh 00:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Paul is Dead" clues from Abbey Road[edit]

And also, "Paul is Dead" clues from The White Album, "Paul is Dead" clues from Let It Be, "Paul is Dead" clues from Magical Mystery Tour, "Paul is Dead" clues from Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Beatles albums with few "Paul is Dead" clues and finally Category:Paul is dead

A lot of speculation regarding the Paul is dead urban legend (which states that one of the Beatles died halfway through their career and was replaced by a look-alike). This article is unsourced and appears to be original research. Note that all of these articles are redundant to Paul is dead, the article actually describing the urban legend. >Radiant< 13:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any important information into Paul is dead. There is some really interesting material (albeit unsourced) in the article that could be salvaged and sourced. --Cyrus Andiron 12:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. Unabashed OR speculation from start to finish. If an article can't make it through three sentences without using phrases like "it could be interpreted as" or "it might represent" then it's a good indicator that the article probably ought not to be on Wikipedia. Otto4711 12:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of series of "Paul is Dead" clues articles. Although in the same class as Ufology and 9/11 conspiracy theories, the rumors surrounding this band can become notable if it gets big enough. —Tokek 13:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that a reason to have seven articles on the topic, six of which rife with speculation and original research? >Radiant< 13:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, chock full of original research. Axem Titanium 14:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge to Paul is dead any "clues" which have been sourced to coverage in publications satisfying WP:A. The clues do not have to be valid to be notable. These claims are not original research, since at the time of the "Paul is dead" urban legend there were numerous articles about the "clues" written up in mainstream press. Thus references exist and could be added. This is a bit pre-internet, so it might require hitting the physical library and using Readers Guide to Periodical Literature to find old magazines in the stacks with the relevant articles. The hoax was widely discussed back then, and many of these "clues" were written about. I consider it all a publicity stunt by the musical group or their promoters. Edison 15:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Once more, is this a reason to have seven articles on the topic? We're not suggesting deleting all of them, just six of the lists, keeping the main article. I have serious doubts about sourcing all of that, and one might argue they are rather trivial in any case. >Radiant< 15:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment the non-triviality of the "Paul is dead" hoax is shown by the widespread press coverage over decades. See for instance Edward Rothstein, "Review/Music; McCartney's 'Liverpool Oratorio'" New York Times. New York, N.Y.: Nov 20, 1991. pg. C.20, which said that the "Paul is dead" rumor was: "the hottest rumor in the politically charged youth culture" twenty years earlier, and which lists the "clues" including Paul walking barefoot on the "Abbey Road: cover with a "coffin nail" (cigarette) in his hand, the flower covered grave on the "Sergeant Pepper" cover, and the "deadman" utterance heard when Revolution numer 9 is played backward. Proquest provides 8 such references to the hoax from the NY Times, Variety, USA Today, and other reliable publications from 1991 to the present. I do not presently have access to older publications, but I read press coverage of it back in the day. Edison 15:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one is suggesting deleting Paul is dead. Whether or not "Paul is dead" is notable is irrelevant to this nomination. Otto4711 16:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong merge all to Paul is dead. This is fancruft and belongs on a music or even Beatles wiki. It is not of general interest. The legend is notable, but it does not require or deserve more than a single encyclopedia article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge- agree that these rumours/incidents are notable- but better served in one article Thunderwing 19:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all properly-sourced items to Paul is dead that aren't already there. The underlying topic is notable as Edison pointed out, but these separate articles are redundant and give disproportionate coverage to what is basically trivia, celebrity gossip. Barno 20:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; none of this speculation is sourced, so none of it is worth merging. This article consists of pure original research. *** Crotalus *** 22:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all, these seems pretty clear.--Xiaphias 01:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and merge what is sourced to Paul is dead. If you're going to engage in what amounts to total speculation, then it had better be well-known speculation, and it had better be sourced. --Haemo 01:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and merged sourced material to Paul is dead. --Samuel Wantman 08:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Is there a single word or phrase here that is not original research? If there's ever a time when these hundreds of dubious claims can be confirmed by reliable sources, then maybe we can have six separate articles about one urban legend. Until then, one will do. szyslak 09:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: None of these claims can be "confirmed" by reliable sources. The fact that people speculated these claims in print can, in most cases, be verified by reliable sources. I'm not aware of any of these actually being original research. Barno 13:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Paul is dead. If this exhaustive Beatles website can get it all onto one page, surely we can.--Mike Selinker 15:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything verifiable to Paul is dead. Seems like a lot of original research right now, but I'm sure some of these claims can be attributed to outside sources. daveh4h 04:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

change to Delete Nothing seems to be verifiable. daveh4h 18:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, so much text without a single reference hurts my eyes. -- ReyBrujo 17:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, so much interesting information, true or not. But in one page it would be nice. Not six. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Biglegoman (talk • contribs) 18:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge, it's being referenced by C|NET. --TIB (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, What a wonderful resource of original research and info from the internet and a book I bought at Barns & Nobel book store.

Merge anything verifiable merge to Paul is dead and delete the rest. Russeasby 11:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't make a clear vote on this one. I would like to see enough content on this topic to fill this many articles (I do not support cramming things into one article just for the sake of it; providing information is far more important than saving space), but the articles are completely devoid of referencing, and this is the kind of topic where I can reasonably think that a great deal of this information may be OR. So I am in favor of merging anything verifiable and, if doing so results in a particularly long main article, then split the stuff back out into subarticles, but only with references. Everyking 08:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! I amazed there is a actually a discussion on this!GmanIV 12:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment on Verify whats there to verify, get out the damn album and see for yourself.....DUH. GmanIV 12:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into Paul is dead. AniMate 12:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into paul is dead. This is an important part of British music history. --Lukebishop 19:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shrewsbury shooting[edit]

Nom this looks like a random bit out of a local newspaper that lacks the notability sufficient for inclusion in an encyclopedia. See also WP:NOT. Rklawton 12:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at this stage. Even if the story does become notable by WP standards (say, it leads to a change in UK gun laws), it should be under Richard Gray (police officer) or something similar - I somehow doubt this is the only shooting ever to take place in the city... — iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to state notability. —Tokek 13:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be local, non-notable event. Jacek Kendysz 15:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. not local MasterEditor99 17:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - Definitely not just local and not non-notable. Shootings in the UK aren't very common and this one has gotten a lot of news press in the nationals. The shooting of a police officer in the UK is definitely big and national news that we'll be hearing about for quite some time to come, it made the front page of most of the main newspapers. However the article is likely just a copy and paste job from elsewhere, but I think an article could be made out of it with some editing. Ben W Bell talk 18:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've removed the copyvio stuff. I also admit I used my "American goggles" when considering this nomination. We shoot our police frequently in the U.S. If we can interest more than a 15 year old British schoolboy in making a proper article out of this, I wouldn't oppose keeping this article. Rklawton 19:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a local, unnotable event. UK police are killed at a rate similar to that of a US city of a tenth the population of the UK, but that doesn't automatically mean every police shooting incident is notable. --Dhartung | Talk 19:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In the UK every single police shooting incident is extremely notable, they get a lot of press and often re-open polls on whether or not officers should be armed. Most definitely not a local unnotable event, maybe in North America it would be but in the UK extremely notable. Your own source points out that only 12 officers have been shot in the last 22 years. Ben W Bell talk 19:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is not copied and was rewritten. It is certainly not local and has recieved alot of press. It was on the front page of alot of newspapers as well as on many news channels.Shooting are rare of a police officer in the U.K because of the increased difficulty to get a gun. I think this article should be kept and not just because i made it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterEditor99 (talk • contribs)
- Reply - the version that you posted following my AfD tag - and that I removed - was a copy/paste job. I only removed it after I found the source. Rklawton 20:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. UK police shootings are very notable but this is a news story - Wikipedia is not Wikinews andy 20:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - public gun ownership and police with guns are both significant public policy issues in the UK, so I think we Americans should keep an open mind about this. Rklawton 20:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. The situation here is utterly different from the US. Gun ownership is heavily restricted (with massive public support), most police don't carry guns and don't want to, and police deaths are very rare and are always major national news stories. But sadly this article should be deleted for precisely that reason - it is news. andy 21:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Forget the ten-year test; this fails the ten-day test. Placeholder account 22:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Wikinews, and this appears to be copy/pasted from the first reference in any event. If this tragedy proves to be of encyclopedic importance, an article can be created. Edison 23:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not just a local story, it's been one of the lead items on the national news here for most of today, but as mentioned above it's just a news story at the moment. As Iridiscenti says above, if something further develops from it, no problem re-creating. EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Murders of British police officers are very rare and therefore are very notable, and are not just "local" stories as they might be in the United States. However, this article is not really the appropriate one. -- Necrothesp 08:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this stage, it appears that it fails the notability requirement so should be deleted now. Recreation could be allowed later, if sourced significant information arises. --Nehrams2020 20:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Third party sources would have been helpful here... if they exist I will consider undeleting. W.marsh 23:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaskar Chakraborty[edit]

Only references are self-published books. I do not believe this is noteworthy in and of its self. Shoessss 12:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, This books are not self published. We will include the names of publishers very shortly. Please dont delete this article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjoy.das (talk • contribs) 12:33, 7 May 2007

Delete This is an unsourced list of weasel words ("highly acclaimed and deserve a permanent place") -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Shoessss~~ Sanjoy.das (talk · contribs) you I think are the author of the article, surely there are some reviews or discussions of his work, and you can add them. Even if not in English. (but it helps to give an English translation of a key phrase)DGG 00:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, with a number of different publishers, it is hard to assume that they are all self published. world cat: Bhaskar Chakraborty appears to have a number of valid hits. I am almost certain that OCLC 17153902 is the "Raaste Aabaar" mentioned on the article. Notice the number of libraries that hold this book. Unless someone does the due diligence reqd to verify these works are self-published, we should assume these rest of these works are also notable, and this Afd should be speedy closed. John Vandenberg 03:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Happy to change to keep if notability can be established with sources, which I suspect is possible by someone familiar with the subject. I hope the author of the article makes efforts to improve it. Russeasby 11:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I don't believe the crucial issue is whether the books are self published but whether they have drawn any critical interest, won prizes etc. It's hard to believe that one could publish this many books without critical attention, but nothing is shown. Given the lack of references and meaningful content, as well as the non-neutrality of what we do have, I think deletion is appropriate.--Kubigula (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Shower. The text of this article has already been copied word-for-word to that article by the nominator of this AFD. "Merge and delete" is not a valid result. — CharlotteWebb 17:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Showerhead[edit]

Non-notable piece of hardware. Something that can be mentioned over at Shower. Tokek 12:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Shower dposse 13:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this entry is a dicdef in this state. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment content has been transwikied and copied to Shower prior to AFD nomination. —Tokek 14:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 05:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air West Flight 612[edit]

Everything that makes the news does not warrant an article in wikipedia Fighting for Justice 19:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep big airliner hijacking - inherintly notable. Plenty of independant, non-trivial sources as per WP:N. Also, Turkish Airlines Flight 1476, a similar incident, managed to reach GA status. Wanna delete that, too? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well sourced and notable. - BillCJ 19:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is a good article, well sourced. There are not enough attempted highjackings (fortunatly) that having an article on each would be a problem. See no reason to delete. Davewild 19:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, true, not every news story deserves an encyclopedia article, but major aviation events like this do. It is widely covered in reputable media, so it fully meets all the notability and verifiability criteria. Akradecki 23:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that it happened over Africa does not diminish its significance. If this incident happened over America, it would be covered by the media frantically. KyuuA4 01:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A major aviation event like this????? Are you kidding me??? This incident barely made a ripple in the news media. I'll even go one step further and will say it's not a hijacking. It seems more like a single unruly passenger. A real hijacking was TWA Flight 847, Air France Flight 8969, and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961. I only discovered this incident happened TODAY, and I read all the major American and Canadian newspapers. I never heard about it until now. This incident belongs in wikinews, not encyclopedia. This furthers my belief that wikipedia is not a serious encyclopedia. It's no wonder high school teachers are now telling their students to NOT rely on wikipedia for information. Everything that makes the news receives an article around here. It really does and that's sad because, at one time, wikipedia did have the potential of being a good encyclopedia. That is until every minor news event got an article. Why did they even create wikinews if incidents like this get articles? Fighting for Justice 04:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then compare with JetBlue Airways Flight 292. This incident involved a LANDING GEAR that could not be retracted. It's "significant" because the news media surrounded it. KyuuA4 07:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, let's take it down a notch. First, look at the refs. Yes, there's a U.S. major news source (NBC), but most of the sources are non-U.S. and the way you've put it, "I read all the major American and Canadian newspapers" is is quite American-centric (apologies to our Canuck neigbors). There's more to life, the universe and everything than the U.S. and Canadian newspapers. Some events that happen in other countries only get covered in other countries. Does that make them any less notable? Are you saying that the only things that are truly encyclopedic are those which happen in the U.S. or which get major coverage in the U.S.? This is a world wide project. You have some of the leading editors in both the Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation and Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management telling you in this AfD that such an article is notable...so you might want to step back and ask yourself why. Maybe there's an aspect of this that you hadn't considered. I have no problem with your nomination of the article, but when a unanimous chorus of "keep" result, a wise person would consider that maybe what makes this encyclopedia a quality work is that we do cover more than just what happens in the U.S., rather than railing and feeling so sad that somehow completeness of coverage denegrates Wikipedia. If you want really limited coverage, go read World Book. Otherwise, stay, join our projects, and help us cover all of the notable events, no matter where in the world they happen. Akradecki 04:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is not that the incident happened far, far, far away from North America. The three hijacking incidents, I mention, above happened far from North America. I got no problems with them because very serious things unfolded in all three of them. This incident looks like nothing compared to them. What happened is not notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. I can concede that it is news, as hijacking is not a everyday occurrence, however, this incident was resolved quickly. It belongs in wikinews. No, I'm not looking for limited coverage. I'm looking for an encyclopedia that really is one not pretending to be one as wikipedia is sadly looking like. If I wanted to read about something in Africa I can read up on international news from their area. Fighting for Justice 06:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If I wanted to read about something in Africa I can read up on international news from their area." Yet you complained earlier that you read American and Canadian news, yet have never heard of it. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate you trying to twist my words. Canadian and American medias don't just cover events in North America. Fighting for Justice 06:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not deliberatly trying to twist your words - that's simply how I read it. Y'know, we're both getting pretty p****d off with each other, maybe we should both just give up and see how the rest of the nomination goes. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Words were not twisted. They were quoted. Though I must ask, what's a "real hijacking" as opposed to a "fake one"? KyuuA4 07:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reading this article shows that it was far more serious than a 'single unruly passenger'. I don't see anyone saying that anything about the USA which doesn't make the papers in Chad should be deleted. Nick mallory 15:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The hijacking of a major airliner is not non-notable. Ben W Bell talk 18:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reasonably well-referenced sources demonstrate notability, and this was definitely more than an unruly passenger, even if it was less than some of the all-time-major hijackings. --Dhartung | Talk 19:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Well sourced and notable. – Zntrip 01:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. All hijacking and terrorist incidents involving passenger airliners are notable per Wikipedia precedent, not just those that get mentioned in US newspapers. This is the kind of article we should have on Wikipedia. --Charlene 02:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep despite the personal WP:BIAS held by nominator, the topic is worthy of note for our encyclopedia. RFerreira 05:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and someone please WP:SNOW close this. Georgewilliamherbert 23:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ChrisO 19:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anal Sex in Hadith[edit]

WP:NOT a soapbox and/or original research Gobonobo ^T ^C 03:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original Research. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:OR. This will never be a settled question because any Islamic scholar can issue a fatwa regarding the topic. Maybe this coudl be a line or two in Islamic sexual jurisprudence. --Dhartung | Talk 19:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. andy 22:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original argument.--Cailil ^talk 23:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep I do not consider this OR, but just the assembly of sources. The article doesn't pretend to settle the issue, but to present the classic views. This particular saying is well known. Perhaps the title should be changed to Anal Sex in Islam, and the article expanded. DGG 01:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the previous contributer says, it's not original research but the assembly of established and referenced sources. The argument that it should be deleted because the subject matter might change in the future would lead to pretty much everything on wikipedia being deleted because new information can turn up about anything. New information could be added to this article but the possibility of that happening doesn't mean it should be deleted now. Nick mallory 03:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cailil and WP:NOTABLE. So what's next? What kind of sex position that we want to create to attach to a certain religion as one article here? — Indon (reply) — 13:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very important topic, if one can read Urdu & Arabic text in image. Thanks. -- 61.5.138.29 18:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It is neutral. Thanks.--61.5.138.29 18:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- One !vote per person please, thanks. Metros232 19:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOR Bulldog123 10:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Also. Who let the sock/meat puppets out? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chrislk02 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete

OR
Too many WP:ILIKEITs Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 18:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I'd have speedied this were it not for the AfD and the strange keep votes. It's a nonsense article. That's not to say that something decent couldn't be written on the topic, but this is nowhere close, and we can't keep it in the hope that someone might one day fix it. If any of the keep votes wants to write something decent, go ahead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can personally attest to the fact anal sex is indeed present in hadith. -M^ask? 19:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC) not really _Delete[reply]

Delete it looks exactly like original research. I note that some of the sources are links to Wikipedia articles as well. Acalamari 19:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but under a different title. I don't understand why people say that this is original research. Both the Quran and the Hadith can be read online. Both works have large publications. I believe that the article is informative, but the author takes too many conclusions, which would fall under POV. The title is also problematic, as it sounds too vulgar. Perhaps an article on Islam and Sexuality could be created, where this subject would be covered. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rana Ammar Mazhar (talk · contribs) just moved this article to Anal Sex in Islamic Law for those of you keeping score at home. Metros232 19:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I cannot imagine in what version of the universe would an article about how Muhammed may have said anal sex is okay would constitute an encyclopedic article. Stuff like this is the reason Wikipedia is not taken seriously by academics as a source. JuJube 19:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As a side note, moving this article to Anal Sex in Islamic Law has not resolved the issue. There are plenty of Muslims who simply could not care less. JuJube 19:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant whether Muslims care about it or not. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - maybe a valid article potentially, maybe not, it doesn't matter. This is almost patent nonsense. It's incomprehensible cant. It's POV, SOAPboxy original synthesis/research. Moreschi ^Talk 19:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Highway 6 (Ontario). (As content has been merged into the main Highway 6 article, we need to preserve edit history, so completely deleting it is undesirable.) Krimpet (talk) 07:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Highway 6 By-Pass[edit]

This article is on Highway 6 (in Ontario), specifically how its alignment got changed by the construction of a new by-pass. I think the original author might have forked the bypass content out of the original highway 6 article because he was under the impression that it was a municipal road, but it's not - it's still a provincial highway. I am therefore asking for deletion, and have already merged the "hwy 6 bypass" content back to the original Hwy 6 article. I apologize if this should have been a prod. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete - all information is already covered in the main Highway 6 (in Ontario) article, and should be - the road under discussion isn't a "bypass" as such, but a change in the alignment of the highway. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - PS, I'll put this AfD on my watchlist - I can answer comments in detail, since I helped design this highway in the first place. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we not just redirect this to the parent article? --Polaron | Talk 22:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Polaron. Edison 23:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Highway 6 By-Pass has its own very important role, and unlike Highway 6, Highway 6 By-Pass is a totally different thing. Smcafirst | Chit-Chat | SIGN posted at 19:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I was one of the people on the design team, and it is not a totally different thing. It is Highway 6. There is no legal entity called "Highway 6 By-pass". Its signs say "Highway 6", and MTO considers it to be Highway 6. (It's also not a municipal road.) AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 20:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Speedily deleted - vanity, lacks context. - Mike Rosoft 14:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Icetric[edit]

nonsense Mseliw 00:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced dictionary definition of a neologism. --Metropolitan90 00:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Perhaps this could have been speedied? —Tokek 12:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7, non notable word coined by a non notable person. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article has changed significantly since it was listed and no long falls into G11 territory. There have been several calls for a move, so I suggest that is discussed on the talk page. Politics have no bearing on deletion discussions like these and in future I ask ediors to remember that. Viridae ^Talk 13:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iran International Exhibitions Company[edit]

Twice G11 deleted. This is disputed and a request was made to allow discussion to take place, hence why this is here. Despite the fact I did speedy delete this article, I think this request is valid, and make no recommendation myself at this stage as to whether or not the result of this debate should be keep or delete. Petros471 09:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Article is still G11. DarkSaber2k 14:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete, in this form, it is a blatant spam.--Pejman47 17:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fairgrounds are internationally known. So, I change my vote to move. Moving it to a new article about its fairgrounds and explaining about its owner in its article in an appropriate section. --Pejman47 22:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose delete: This organization is a legitimate and prominent Iranian Company affiliated with the Ministry of Commerce. They are in charge of hosting and organizing exhibitions in Iran for International Companies and Iranian Co. as well. I am not related to this Co. WHATSOEVER. This article is neither spam nor advertisement in any way. People can edit to make it shorter if they want. I just put enough FACTS (and ONLY facts) so that people might have a better idea of what this Co. does and their capacity, like for many other Co. in the List of Major Iranian Companies.

To be honest, I think this article was precipitously deleted just before the International Exhibition where many International Oil and Gas Co. were participating and which was held in Tehran between April and May 2007, and because of the International sanctions against Iran.

Wikipedia is not a place to play politics. For the rest, if something needs to be reworded in this article, people can do it WITHOUT deleting it. Just for info, please note that I did not create the first article, which was on Wikipedia for more than a year, if I am correct. SSZ 18:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can you understand for an article not being spam, it should has some links from "third party" sources and must not begin with "The Iran International Exhibitions Company (IIEC) is the largest and leading organizer of international and specialized exhibitions", believe me there is no political agenda behind that deletion, you can only save it by putting some third party references, not its own website!--Pejman47 19:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the point and there are many other articles on the List of Prominent Iranian Companies that have "no third party external weblinks" (as you put it) and I haven't seen you dealing with them with the same zealotry in the past. Actually I haven't seen you anywhere on the economy of Iran or directly related article (in the economy section I mean). I know, because I have done many edits to the economy of Iran article over the past year. As I said, YOU can EDIT the article if you want. There is no need or reason to delete it. Besides I am not a representative for this Co. in any way, shape or form. For the rest, as I said, it is a prominent Iranian Company linked to World trade. Iran has been denied entrance to the WTO and is under sanctions. Those are facts. same for the timing of this speedy deletion request (Just before a major International Oil and Gas exhibition organized by this Co. and just AFTER the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747 to punish Iran economically for not halting uranium enrichement. This, for an article which has been on Wikipedia for more than one year and previously reviewed). Finally and respectfully, I am not here to second guess your motivations. Deeds and facts should only matter here. I have also noticed you reverted my edits on separate articles relating to Iran before, this shortly after my own edits and and I was wondering if you don't stalk me on Wikipedia. This is only a polite question, NOT an accusation or insinuation in any way at this point in time, because I don't know WHO you are and I had NO other encounter or any discussion with you before. Finally, you gave me a warning to block me from editing in the future on my talk page, which obviously is erroneous and uncalled for and which was deleted for that same reason. (I have NEVER EVER been accused and convicted of spaming)SSZ 21:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not think this article should be speedy deleted. Deleted, maybe. But this afd debate should be allowed to run full course, in particular as it appears attempts at improving the article are being made. Petros471 18:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move- Maybe it is better to move the page to Tehran permanent fair ground. This is the name that is more familiar. The Fair Ground is more important than the company that is responsible for the place. (Arash the Archer 18:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

yes, I agree. it is a wise suggestion. --Pejman47 19:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For info, the name used most is Iran International Exhibitions Company and then Tehran’s International Fairgrounds in the media. Besides, there is already a re-direct from Tehran International Fair in place.SSZ 15:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep. ~~Failed~~ Passes Primary Criterion of WP:CORP. The article ~~does not have~~ has an independent, non-trivial coverage, non-autobiography and independent secondary source to pass the notability criteria. — Indon (reply) — 09:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see now one statement with 5 citations! Please reduce them because it looks to as WP:POINT. You don't need to have 5 citations to state that it is the largest exhibition organiztion in Iran. One link goes to a dead page, one is totally unrelated, two links tell only about some fairs (not a subject), but I found this is a good secondary source for the subject. Therefore I changed my vote to keep. — Indon (reply) — 07:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done--sources have been added.

Comment. The links added as an external links. Could you please add them as sources? Please read WP:CITE. — Indon (reply) — 08:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CORP. Sources are primarily about other topics. An article about the fairgrounds, however, seems appropriate, and information about the exhibitions held there could be in that article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non Sense. The "Tehran's International Fairgrounds" is the name of the PLACE only. The EVENTS are all organized by the Iran International Exhibitions Company. We are talking about a COMPANY here, NOT an event or a place. This company meets ALL of Wikipedia's criterias (see WP:CORP). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.116.234.208 (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I am surprise that Tehran haven't block Wikipedia. I can imagine it now: "Wikipedia is an attempt by West to marginalize the Iranian people's life, from economy to its culture, by stating that it is insignificant." George Leung 08:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and how this comment relates to the AfD debate? — Indon (reply) — 10:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Opposed delete for reason's above stated by SSZ (I do not know him/her, nor have any interests in the company whatsoever), it's sourced, and being expanded, and for historical reasons. Other companies of Iran have MUCH less info, such as this one [19], for example. And that's only for companies in Iran. - Jeeny ^Talk 03:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Let me see if I understand this ... you are comparing an article for an "organizer of international and specialized exhibitions" (basically a Very Large fairground) with the article for Iranian Aluminium Company (a factory), which is a stub that has been here since 2005-08-01? One is encyclopedic, albeit Just A Stub ... OTOH, Iran International Exhibitions Company looks like WP:VSCA, and it doesn't matter how much lipstick you put on that pig ... statements like
  IIEC holds over 110 of international and specialized exhibitions annually.
  read like something from a promotional brochure ... OTOH, Madison Square Garden (an organization in the same kind of business enterprise, i.e., "exhibitions") says,
  ... the name of the entity which owns the arena and several of the professional sports franchises which play there.
  and no one would consider that either unencyclopedic or promotional ... remove the spam and stick a {{Company-stub}} on it (or else redirect it), and then Move On. —68.239.79.82 07:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I took my own advice and stubified it ... you can read my comments on the Discussion page ... Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 08:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loude[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this article is purely a description of a slang word in Hindi. JoeSmack ^Talk 16:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete foreign language dictionary definition. —Tokek 12:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could probably safely have been prodded in my opinion. (listing as society topic since it is slang, feel free to re categorize) -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF Hut 8.5 19:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, redirecting or merging could be considered but doesn't require an AFD. W.marsh 23:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Cardona[edit]

Keep:Hackney stop jumping to a solution without all the facts--KingMorpheus 02:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems not to have done much. The nominator who created this discussion page with "keep" seems to be referring to the unreferenced tag added by One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs) over a month ago; the nomination (afd template) in the article was by 66.252.38.148 (talk · contribs). --Dhartung | Talk 19:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he was referring to comments made here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Myers MPJ-DK 17:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I'm a little edgy on this one; if he's signed by one of the big feds and appearing on TV, even if it is ECW, then he might squeak through (especially considering the fact they won the televised match - that suggests he'll be around at least for a while). The article does need some more sourcing, though, and whether or not he sticks around is still a question mark. Very weak keep Tony Fox (arf!) 20:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable with his "graduation" to full time WWE instead of just a developmental contract. MPJ-DK 16:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the article contains no reliable third party sources which show evidence of notability. Burntsauce 22:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he is now a part of WWE roster as he is wrestling on ECW as I type this.
Keep He is on the WWE roster, and has nation wide exposure. This is an obvious keep. Kris 02:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both Major Brothers have practically the same career, and they are too similar and there's not much difference between the two. It would be like giving The Highlanders and The Shane Twins each their own article just because they're two different people BBoy 06:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable non-trivial sources to speak of, failing WP:LIVING and our attribution policy. RFerreira 08:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has apparently appeared on the WWE roster, however has not done much yet. Most guys are a flash in the pan there anyway. I say delete until he becomes more notable. Maybe create an article for the tag team and merge. Any thoughts on that? Hellswasteland 18:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Major Brothers. That's what has been done with Brian Myers, and that's what needs to be done with this article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he is on WWE TV for gods sake! Some people are ridiculous when it comes to who they consider non-notable celebrities, this guy deserves a page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.66.4.88 (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Millions of people are on television every day, my friend. We don't have articles for every game show contestant on Wheel of Fortune either, for good reason. The standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is non-trivial third party sources, this article has none. Burntsauce 16:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game show contestant?? You really should think through comparisons before making them. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge with Major Brothers for now, and then if/when there is enough info and sourcing for him to have his own page, do it then. There is no question on notability though, he is an athlete competing at the highest level in his profession.

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

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

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 05:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norton 360[edit]

Pure advertising violating NPOV and guidlines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not Mmowat 14:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is made by Symantec, a major software company. —Tokek 12:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It doesn't seem like advertising compared to other articles on computer products. I see no reason to delete it. Ryan ^{Got something to say?} 13:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep surely lacking a criticism section, but it is not a reason to delete. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability properly asserted. It doesn't take long to find additional non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. It doesn't read spammy to me. MartinDK 16:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major product by a major company. Could do with a bit more rounding to the article but definitely a keeper. Ben W Bell talk 18:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major product made by major company, notability asserted, doesn't look like a spam article to me. Hut 8.5 19:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, nominator misunderstands the concept of advertising and what is disallowed in Wikipedia articles. To a certain extent any article about a commercial product would constitute an advertisement, but thankfully Wikipedia does not work that way. RFerreira 05:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable software made by a notable company. Maxa megalon 2000 10:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It provides good information about the product, and it is not advertising, but information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.79.78.42 (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Info about notable product from notable company. Not POV.-- Flutefluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 15:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If non-trivial published sources can be shown to exist, or if someone can verify the book by Floyd actually has non-trivial info on this guy, I will reconsider. W.marsh 20:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reckless Youth[edit]

Non notable worker, having not done much else besides working a lot of small indy promotions. Not notable enough for a general encycolpedia. Kris 03:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He (along with Christopher Daniels) was the most notable indy worker before the indy boom began in 2001 or so, which makes him notable. ↪Lakes (Talk) 06:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any proof of said notability? Being slightly popular in a few small promotions during a time of low popularity in indy wrestling is like saying a person was known for being a good video gamer in the 60s'. Remember, he may be notable to wrestling fans, but this is a general encyclopedia. Kris 06:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're comparison is not valid. It would be more accurate if you had compared him to the most popular underground video game programmer/creator in the 60s, who would be notable. ↪Lakes (Talk) 06:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, any proof he was "the most popular"? That is an opinion, not a fact. Kris 07:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The same rational could be applied to your own article Johnny Kashmere. Aside from a link to ObsessedWithWrestling.com, itself regarded as an unreliable source, Kashmere has appeared in the same promotions as Reckless Youth, however, by comparison Reckless Youth has won more titles in these same promotions (and is, in fact, an inductee of the ECWA Hall of Fame unlike Kashmere) and has competed in more notable events such as the ECWA Super 8 Tournament and the Brian Pillman Memorial Show. I'm not sure I understand why you believe he is any more notable then Reckless Youth, given your arguments for deletion. MadMax 09:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought ObsessedWithWrestling.com had been removed from the black list...so why would it still be regarded unreliable?Theophilus75 06:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN indy wrestler, there isn't spots for just any wrestler who buys a title and wrestles in front of 50 people. Saying you're the best indy wrestler is like saying you're the best whopper maker at a burger king. Biggspowd 06:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say he was the best, I said he was the most popular. Now the article is definitely a stub, and needs to be expanded. ↪Lakes (Talk) 06:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure title reigns are determined by wrestlers themselves personally buying championship titles. Your reasoning could arguably apply to any professional wrestler who has ever held a title in any promotion. Indeed it implies as if any wrestler could gain a championship title. MadMax 08:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Besides being the founder of a notable wrestling promotion, he received extensive press from Pro Wrestling Illustrated and similar magazines throughout the 1990s. It certainly wouldn't be innacurate to he was one of the most popular wrestlers in North American independents and I would say, given the state of his nearly 10-year career, he's been more then slightly successful. I do find it unfortunate that this article was nominated as a result of listing as as a candidate for WikiProject Professional wrestling's collaberation of the week, especially as its nomination was to address the issues with the article. MadMax 07:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Out of all the guys who've worked in the indies in the 90s and not picked up by any of the "big companies" (WWE, WCW, TNA) he's one of the most known, covered in various wrestling media again and again MPJ-DK 14:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Had a WWF developmental deal, too... --David Bixenspan 22:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That doesn't mean notability. Not all workers under current WWE Developmental contract have articles. Kris 23:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't detract either, a developmental contract on it's own is not enough to make someone notable - Reckless Youth has clearly gone beyond that including founding Chikara etc. MPJ-DK 10:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-travelled, decorated wrestler. A cut above the average indie worker. I think somebody made a point above that he isn't going to be known to non-wrestling fans. That should never be grounds for deletion. If we deleted every single article that was about a subject not known to every single Wikipedia visitor then what would we be left with...?? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a well decorated wrestler, and his info adds to the professional wrestling content on Wikipedia. Theophilus75 06:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a 6 page list of statistics, not an encyclopedia article. RFerreira 08:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is how a lot of pages start, as stubs like this one. If all stubs were gone so would half of the info on wikipedia.Theophilus75 14:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per RFerreira, no non-trivial sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO as no non-trivial sources exist for this individual. If this person was truly covered in "various wrestling media again and again" as MPJ states, why is this article two sentences long? Burntsauce 15:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Absolutely, if the sources do exist, the article can be recreated from them and taken to deletion review. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not al references are necessarily on the internet, especially as the individualsprime of popularity was the nineties. The sources for this individual are the physical copies of PWI and WON. –– Lid^(Talk) 19:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article fails to establish notability. The points raised about why the article subject is notable raised above should have been made in the article itself to preclude this nomination. McPhail 14:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so now the vote isn't "is the subject notable" but the state of the article?? *shakes head* MPJ-DK 16:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stefán H. Ófeigsson[edit]

A convicted rapist with a university degree. There was a short-lived flurry of attention to his case in Iceland at the time but in my opinion that does not make him an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia. The article was deleted from the Icelandic Wikipedia but it lingers here. There are no sources on this person in English, there's even less reason to have an article on him here than over there. The man is not notable as an academic. The article is padded with original research demonstrating the trivial point that his writings for a particular website were removed after his conviction. The article was nominated for deletion earlier and kept. I think there have been some changes in attitude towards biographies of living people since then so I'm renominating it. Haukur 17:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Addendum: I solicited input for this discussion at the Icelandic Wikipedia. [20] Haukur 17:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently I overestimated the notability of this case at the time. And although it's still of obscure historical curiosity, mostly because it documents how the Icelandic media/tabloids is prone to handle cases like these it's probably best to delete it all things considered. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 17:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, this article should be deleted for the reasons given. --D. Webb 18:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it was not noteworthy back then and it still isn't. The toughened approach to biographies that has been adopted since the first AfD adds a new reason to trash this. --Bjarki 16:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not Wiki-Policeblotter. Carlossuarez46 21:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Becoming a convicted rapist does not automatically make you encyclopedia material, sorry. RFerreira 06:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Newman[edit]

STRONG DELETE - This character is an infant, born in late 2006. Not notable per Wikipedia standards. A mention in the Nicholas, Phyllis and Noah Newman articles would suffice. Kogsquinge 05:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an infant character on a soap opera definitely doesn't make it in the notability department. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, and reference WP:FICT. This catalogs an event on a soap opera, and please note that we are not a soap opera guide. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - no sourced content to merge, without prejudice to the expansion of Shower to include coverage of outdoor showers, provided such coverage is reliably referenced. WjBscribe 10:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside shower[edit]

Non-notable. This could be made into a series of non-notable subjects: eating outside, sleeping outside, New York outside, etc. Showering outside is good for hygenic reasons. Showering inside is good for hygenic reasons. Tokek 12:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unmitigated crap. Mangoe 12:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. TheBlazikenMaster 12:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm surpriced it has survived in two whole years. TheBlazikenMaster 13:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seriously... That could easily have been prodded in my opinion. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main shower article. It's a type of shower, but I'm not sure much more than a paragraph or two could be said of it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Shower. dposse 15:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Shower, this is an unnecessary fork. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for goodness sake! Utter drivel. andy 22:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a shower...outside. --Haemo 01:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge whatever useful information into Shower and then create a redirect. --Nehrams2020 20:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and the same thing presumably for Hot Shower, Cold Shower, Power Shower, Poolside Shower, Workplace Shower, Changing Room Shower, Electric Shower, Low Pressure Mixer Shower, High Pressure Mixer Shower, Combi Boiler Shower (and of course the plain old mixer tap shower)... and don't get me started on Shower Cabinets and Wetrooms! andy 21:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, if they existed, they'd likely be merged to Shower. But what's a wetroom? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Outside showers don't have any detailed history, technical specifications and whatnot to have its own article. Hence it should be a subset of shower.--Kylohk 22:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into shower. Note to Kylohk - history? History tells me that outside showers predated indoor showers by quite a bit. ;^) --Richard 20:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeromans[edit]

High School ultimate Frisbee team. NN. see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kwai Nyu Rugby Club of the same school ccwaters 12:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete high-school sports team. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic. —Tokek 15:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- lack of notability Thunderwing 19:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, high school club, fails WP:ORG, also WP:NOT a free webhost as this looks more like an attempt to create yet another webpage for the club than an encyclopedic article. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neil (►) 08:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Wave of American Metal (second nomination)[edit]

One source from a documentary does not make a genre notable. This article fails WP:NEO and WP:N and should be deleted, unless someone can come up with any other sources other than this one documentary. dposse 15:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the metalcore article. With just one source this article is better than a lot of other articles about genres such as: moshcore, mallcore, ska punk, UK 82, youth crew, and d-beat, all of which cite no sources whatsoever. Personally I think people are targeting this article because they hate the term and/or hate this subgenre. The article clearly describes a group of new bands that are playing a style of metalcore that is different than the original metalcore of the 1980's. I believe the information is at least notable enough to be merged into the metalcore article. --Leon Sword 21:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. I do not hate the term or the genre. I've nominated this article for deletion due to it being a non-notable neologism which violates wikipedia guidelines. dposse 21:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you hate the genre but a lot of other editors have fought hard against this article which is decently written, while other articles which contain obvious original research have been left alone for a long time. It just all looks very suspicious. --Leon Sword 21:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you browse through the archives at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal, you can see that there are several editors working in good faith and trying to separate the notable and verifiable genres/terms from the unverifiable neologisms. Sure, other stuff still exists, but it is not a good reason to keep this one. Mallcore was already deleted once, and should probably be deleted again. Prolog 09:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Though I was the editor to originally nominate this, after reading Leons response I agree that some of the info is notable enough to be merged into the metalcore article. Inhumer 00:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With , like Zouavman said, a small paragraph in the Metalcore article mentioning the "movement/scene". Inhumer 19:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't satisfy WP:NEO. The article is a neologism, and per WP:NEO, we cannot have it on wikipedia. dposse 02:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree 100% that its a neologism. Inhumer 17:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then i do not understand how you can say that merging is the solution, when the entire thing violates WP:NEO dposse 19:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NEO, "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities." Perhaps the term New Wave of American Metal is a neologism, but the group of bands that the article is about is not a neologism. The information should be merged into the metalcore article. --Leon Sword 00:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism. A small pagagraph in the metalcore article should be more than enough. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me!)} 19:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable term. There is even a book about it. [21] Elsebroke 16:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This book seems to be about all American metal bands from mid-90's to this day.[22] Besides the title, it does not seem to be related to content in this article. Prolog 09:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unverified neologism, and add a brief mention to metalcore. There is really nothing to merge, as the article is original research. Prolog 09:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - As a heavy metal fan, the term isn't even correct, it's called NWOAHM (New Wave of American Heavy Metal) as a nod to a previous era of metal, termed NWOBHM (New Wave of British Heavy Metal). The term is used to describe metal that combined american hardcore with european slickness, i.e. dual guitars, intricate solos, etc. So, basically, that decribes "Metalcore". There are problems with the article's assertion that Metalcore and Melodic Death are the same. They are not. Melodic Death was first and was the main influence for NWOAHM, which then settled into Metalcore. If well written, this could stand on it's own, but I do think it could summed up just as well in the other two articles. Neonblak 18:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In all actuality, Most, if not all of those bands have little to no actual hardcore influence. Inhumer 19:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So the punk beats come from metal? Elsebroke 08:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There rarely is a punk beat. Inhumer 18:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Speedily deleted - patent nonsense. - Mike Rosoft 13:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grumpo the elephant[edit]

Contested prod, tastes like a hoax, feels like a hoax, therefore most probably a hoax. 0 reliable sources, and even no non reliable sources. Delete -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Tikiwont 13:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC), arguing pathologically, for no reason.[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Melchionni[edit]

I AFDed this article about a year ago on the basis that collegiate athletes do not pass WP:BIO. The result was no consensus with references to a newspaper article stating that he may play with a professional club in Italy. The basketball season is over, and Lee never played a game. Therefore I renominate this on the same premise as I stated I would months ago. Note: there was a 2nd nomination with questionable motives that I did not endorse. ccwaters 13:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability. Axem Titanium 14:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No professional experience = no notability. Placeholder account 15:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would probably approve a credible article about any top 100 recruit. Encyclopedic interest is augmented by lineage. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think any recent Blue Devils co-captain deserves an article, even if he never plays professionally. Duke is a major, major basketball program, and it receives more national tv coverage than many (most?) NBA teams. Zagalejo 01:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While he doesn't meet the "have played in a fully professional league" clause, he certainly passes the "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources" test quite easily. JavaTenor 09:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment: Duke had 5 or 6 co-captains (everyone in that class). Please don't make that out to be anymore than it is. ccwaters 12:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article says that there were four in the class of 2005-06, and that that was the first time in history Duke had so many co-captains. Zagalejo 20:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just wanted to make sure that situation was clarified: 4 co-captains. I'll leave the AFD to run its course now. ccwaters 20:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the main point from the article is this: "This marks the first time in Duke basketball history the team has had four captains." They don't usually have 4 captains. Zagalejo 21:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom 67.163.161.103 16:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sum of available third party references fulfills WP:BIO requirements with ease. RFerreira 18:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Chaser - T 10:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calculated Industries[edit]

When I proposed the article for deletion as possible promotional, the creator removed almost all the contents from it. Original version can be found here, and I honestly don't know what to do with the article; so I am listing it here for more discussion. - Mike Rosoft 13:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 because it makes no claim of notability or importance. Sancho 15:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adequately referenced. --Eastmain 18:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Practically all of those references are reprints of company press releases. EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; article makes no claim to WP:CORP notability, and the external links, largely devoted to glowing reports about niche products, are excessive. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hardly any reliable secondary sources, no notability shown. EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think I have taken out everything that could be seen as an advertisement. (The news articles were put back in by somebody else...) I think the patent information is a good (unbiased) addition. The timeline seems like a good idea if I can find a more credible source for the information. The article will still be a bit short, but I'm sure people will pitch in and make it better. I am getting some pictures ready, too Clydefrog79 04:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At the current state, the article fails the Primary Criterion of WP:CORP. The only source (cited under References section) links to its own website. Therefore there are no independent, reliable, non-trivial and non-autobiography secondary sources. Links at the bottom under References look external links to me rather than sources. — Indon (reply) — 07:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 07:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of character classes[edit]

This article is a mindless collection of tangentially related information. All useful information is held at character class, and creating categories and sub-cats would be a better way of organizing the information (if it is deemed necessary at all). ~~In its current state, the article is a cesspool of crufty WP:OR crap that has little hope of becoming sourced.~~ Changing my stance: while this is source-able, collecting it together in this manner is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It's like all those video game weapon lists that have been deleted, except expand it to ponderous proportions because character classes have been featured in so many different games. Axem Titanium 13:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Axem Titanium 14:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I'm not sure how this is different from the countless other lists on this site. A lot of the class descriptions should be rewritten or deleted but it seems a valid list subject. Jordansc 14:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I haven't made up my mind yet on this, but I don't see the presence of significant quantities of OR. Furthermore, since most of the classes are explicitly sourced to the relevant books and other material, it does satisfy WP:V. JoshuaZ 14:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I don't see any particular problem with having a list of what classes are available in what games. Likely not an article I'll be returning to often, but I could see why some people would. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have revised my deletion reason. Axem Titanium 15:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft. If anything the article should be split up and information merged into the main articles if possible. The links at the bottom of the list provide excellent examples of how this should have been done. Imagine what would happen if more people decided to add information on other character classes in other games. Creating lists with no apparent limit to how much could be included is a bad idea. MartinDK 15:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, horribly long, blazingly indiscriminate and an absolute dog to navigate. Each game will have information on their (often complex) class systems in their article. Why you'd want to combine them into one massive list is beyond me.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though certainly with some improvements. Character classes are a valid subject for an article, giving their role in RPGs. This is an adjunct to that page, providing somewhat more detail. However, I do think this would be better off with a good bit of improvement and reworking. The suggestion above of using the bottom section is probably worth following. FrozenPurpleCube 17:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you are mistaken. This is not an AfD for character class, this is an AfD for the List of character classes article which is an indiscriminate collection of information. While a character class article is appropriate, collecting them in this way is not. Axem Titanium 03:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. An article on character classes in AD&D? Probably ok. Character classes in general, no. The latter constitutes indiscriminate information in my book with an unwieldy criteria. Splitting the article into game-specific articles may be ok, although it should be careful to avoid being a game guide. hateless 18:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information keeps being referenced but I don't see a subsection of that guideline that this article would qualify under? It's not a travel guide, memorial, etc. For my own clarification, if nothing else, could someone explain how this AFD argument falls under that rule? If anything, it seems like Wikipedia is not a directory under the subsection "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" would be the more convincing argument. Jordansc 20:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Listcruft is quite clear on what the problem is. There is no limit to the potential size of this list. As it grows larger and larger it becomes an indiscriminate collection of facts. MartinDK 20:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete role playing games seem to invite infinite variation and arbitrary classification; there is no "authority" that puts all this together, so for WP to do it seems OR. Carlossuarez46 21:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful collection of well organized information. We make WP articles by finding information in different source and assembling it into an article. Encyclopedic or not, this is not OR. A unsourced essay on the overall development of the concept might be OR, but not this. DGG 01:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't seem to be addressing any of the deletion reasons I or anyone else here have given. The article is hardly "well organized", "WP:USEFUL" is not a keep reason, and there doesn't seem to be a reason to collect this in one place. Axem Titanium 03:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because it isn't original research doesn't necessarily mean it belongs on Wikipedia. --Scottie_theNerd 06:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This list is indiscriminate--there are literally hundreds of electronic and pen and paper RPGs--and unmaintainable--each RPG likely has around 10-50 character classes, and by not stipulating what media these character classes are from the list will grow to huge proportions. I see nothing wrong with an article about D&D character classes as they have complex histories and meaningful purposes, but the majority of classes in electronic RPGs are merely used as an arbitrary way of determining the initial state of the character's stats and/or the progression of them, rather than actually banning that class from using certain skills/spells/materials/etc. Last but not least it has zero references, and because of its sheer size and vast scope it can never be adequately referenced because people will keep adding whatever Japanese RPGs aren't on the list (which is most of them) and not bother to reference what they add. Garrett^Talk 01:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect* to character class -Rebent 03:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Garrett --Tellerman
Delete - Above reasons. Character class is sufficient; there's no point in listing character classes from every game in existence. --Scottie_theNerd 06:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 19:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly split into appropriate sublists. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to character class. After reading the main article then taking a peak at the list, it becomes clear that there are unmistakable similarities between classes of different games(i.e. Monk vs Deacon vs Priest vs any other Christian figure). Expand the character class page, and delete this one, because honestly its just wasted space. Sens08 02:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete should be on the game's individual page/character class list, not making a giant list of EVERY CHARACTER CLASS IN VIDEO GAMES AND TABLETOP GAMES EVER HERE. Mrmoocow 01:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marsha Shandur[edit]

Biography of apparently NN local radio DJ; prod contested (by apparent SPA) on the grounds that "The XFM London page contains links to current presenters so I feel this page is required". The only apparent claim to notability is the winner of Best Female Presenter at the Student Radio Awards, which I don't think is an important enough award to push her over the WP:N bar. A couple of inhabitants of this walled garden (Jon Hillcock and Sarah Darling) have recently been deleted, however, the award might just be enough. A search on UK Google discounting the radio station's own site and Wikipedia mirrors doesn't seem to bring up a single non-trivial mention other than as an entry in laundry-lists of DJs — iridescenti (talk to me!) 14:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She's a two-day-a-week DJ on the weekend morning show? I'm sure the award is lovely, but at this point in her career, she most definitely fails WP:N. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. But I will reconsider if someone can show me published articles about this league. I am just going to go ahead and delete the team articles too, seems uncontroversial. W.marsh 20:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Pacific Football League[edit]

I don't think this page is worthy of deletion. If the league is defunct, it should be added to the defunct page, but under no circumstances is it worthy of deletion. Intrepidsfsu 04:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it doesn't belong in the football leagues template box, certainly. Deleting. RMc 13:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is an article that is about a defunct football league. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 19:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not defunct if it was never realized.--Chaser - T 10:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The league never played a down, the only Google hits I can find are to a page with the logos for teams (supposedly), and looking around for news about the league, I can't find any. Defunct leagues are one thing, but leagues that never get started, with nary a whimper are completely different. Wildthing61476 19:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but only with improvement to the article, such as the reason for the league's collapse. However I would like to

Propose deletion for all the teams listed on the article, as they are all clones, providing no information that couldn't be included on the APFL page, and unlikely to see any significant expansion. Jeodesic 15:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- There haven't been any edits to this article since the AFD started, so should we interpret this as "delete"?--Chaser - T 10:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the league. I'll handle prods for the teams. No one has mentioned any reliable sources that would serve to establish any notability whatsoever for this team. As far as I can tell, it was just an idea. And maybe a website.--Chaser - T 10:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 05:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert "T-Man" Tepper[edit]

Non-notable radio personality. The article has problems with vandalism and BLP; fixing those problems would result in virtually no information about him. Phony Saint 15:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references to establish any notability. Hatch68 16:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recent vandalism spree aside (Its suddenness suggests it was inspired by the radio show itself, but that's pure speculation on my part) I'm able to find several google references suggesting that his show receives decent ratings and has expanded to a second major market. Neil916 (Talk) 16:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are many DJ articles, and usually carrying the commute time in a major city means you've got some notability in that metro area. Seattle isn't exactly Jackman, Maine. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he is a top-rated personality in both the Seattle and San Francisco Bay areas. hateless 18:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is an enormously popular radio personality in two major markets (understatement). RFerreira 05:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although you all say he's popular/notable, why is it I can't find anything beyond news stories on minor incidents and a story on his expansion to another market 6 years ago? I tried looking for sources to fix up the article, but apparently there aren't any. Notability is not popularity. Phony Saint 14:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. --Myles Long 14:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very popular host on the west coast. seems to be referenced now. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of references to marijuana in popular music[edit]

The list is incomplete to an absurd extent. There is ample precedent against "X in popular culture" articles so I won't go through the whole argument again but in a nutshell: there's really no encyclopedic value to this topic, certainly not as a list. Pascal.Tesson 16:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - indiscriminate unmaintainable list seeking to capture any reference in any song ever to someone smoking a joint. Otto4711 18:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate list. An article analyzing the role of marijuana use in musical culture (with proper sources) might be worthwhile, but this has no context and no encyclopedic value. *** Crotalus *** 22:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nearly completely indiscriminate. It's also going to be massive, and probably uncompletable. --Haemo 01:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 19:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It gives new depths to the the word unmaintainable, but is of no other use. Pax:Vobiscum 20:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm going to have to completley agree with Crotalus on this one. Marijuana is as involved in social streams as ever, and while creating a list of songs is not the way to go, I support creating a topic on that level (with proper sources). Sens08 02:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sourced and clears the WP:NFT hurdle. The choice of article name is an issue for the talk page and does not require AfD discussion. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-05-08 01:48Z

Beat Up a White Kid Day[edit]

This article was kept at its previous AfD. DRV overturned, because the closer produced evidence of his own in closing the debate. (Ideally, the AfD should evaluate all new evidence -- it's better to comment, inserting the new evidence, and let a neutral party close.) This AfD may wish to consider the new citations, listed in the closing of the last AfD. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the evidence found by Ianmanka in closing the first AFD. Event clearly happened and was notable for its racial controversy. While the title might seem to imply some sort of holiday, the article shows that it is the name the participants gave the event, not a version of WP:NFT. —Ocatecir ^Talk 17:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per evidence provided by closing administrator in the prior AFD, plus the stockpile of third party references now provided within the article. There wasn't a need to relist this article when we have hundreds of thousands which really do need to be improved (or deleted). Burntsauce 17:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I appreciate the procedural issues, but any dispute about the article itself seems to have been addressed by the addition of more sources. --JayHenry 18:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but possibly move to another name? Maybe "May First Racial Assaults" or something? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--and I think Rawr hit on a good title for the article. DGG 01:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So merging is now an editorial decision (doesn't require an AFD). I'm not convinced there are fundamental verifiability issues here, but sourcing should be improved. W.marsh 20:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Former Baltimore Area (MTA) Bus Routes[edit]

I'm bringing this to AfD, rather than submit a prod to bring this to debate. I'm a resident of Baltimore, and while I find this to be interesting (and if the article is kept, I'll be adding onto it), it reeks of listcruft. I don't see the need to list all defunct bus routes from major metropolitian bus routes. Wildthing61476 17:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saving this article

I am trying to figure out, before it gets deleted, exactly what I can do to save it.

The reason why I started writing this article was as a compromise I had worked out with several editors who wanted to delete other articles I wrote on the same topic. They suggested I could do this instead.

I have written an article on defunct bus lines in order to support other articles I have written on current bus routes. The articles about the current routes mention their predecessors and lines they have absorbed, and with an article like this, links can be provided to describe the parent lines.

Please let me know what I can do so this article will not be deleted.Sebwite 22:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge back into List of surface transit routes in the Baltimore Metropolitan Area. Wikipedia is "timeless"; if we list current objects we should list former ones too. Some of these were formerly streetcar lines, which gives them extra "notability". It should probably be cleaned up, with details included in articles about the current routes wherever possible. For instance, Route 2 can be part of the Route 10 article; Route 6, since its original trunk was the Curtis Bay Line streetcar, can be part of the Route 64 article, etc. Many bus routes are definitely notable; it's simply a matter of going into newspaper archives and finding the coverage. Grand Concourse buses is an example of this. --NE2 23:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if any sources can be found to document the truth of the claims. Otherwise Delete. I could make up a horse drawn Number 7 Route which served in 1875 and a battery powered Bus Number 8 which ran in 1893 and a Number 10 Cable Car which ran in 1899 and add them to the list, and who could say otherwise than they were as valid as any of the others? The material is a bit interesting, but how can its presence in Wikipedia be justified when no reference whatsoever is made to even a history of the transit system? The info had to come from something besides living memory, so whoever created the article is obligated to add a reference for their source or sources. Fails WP:A. Edison 04:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I rewrote the history of the No. 6 streetcar line and added references. The rest is beyond my ability to find references for, but they certainly exist, at least in the form of old maps and schedules, and newspaper articles. [23] shows an article that confirms the 2/10 merger, and [24] has some others about the recent changes. [25] is not a reliable source, but is a good resource for finding the changes to look for sources for. --NE2 06:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, I think the Route 6 information would still be better as part of the Route 64 article. --NE2 06:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this article is to be a supplement for the article List of surface transit routes in the Baltimore Metropolitan Area and other similar articles on buses. This way, for example, if someone were reading about Route 10, saw the passage that explained that the western half of this route was once a separate line called Route 2, and they wondered what was route 2?, they could come to this page and find the answer.

I made this into a separate page to reduce confusion that would take place, should the two pages be one.

I already have a list I have compiled of links to newspaper articles that I use to reference various bus route changes on Wikipedia. These links come from The Baltimore Sun and other community papers. I keep this list well-organized. However, I cannot place them there all at once, as it is logistically difficult to keep on going back and forth between different windows.Sebwite 21:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you should definitely cite them. All you really have to do is <ref>Baltimore Sun, article title, date</ref>; that's enough for anyone to find the article to verify. --NE2 00:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Krimpet (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Halman[edit]

Prodded few days ago with "Not notable, not encyclopedic tone, poor English, no references...". Creator addressed some of the problems, with the article being more copyedit and having references, however two problems remain: notability and - relate - scope. Being a victim does not make one notable, and Google search for Anna Halman yields 25 results, Ania Halman 214 results. Since I am not following Polish media much, I am not sure if the case was that profund - so I am recommending either deletion of renaming per this case. There are also no reference to prove the statement that "Her death started one of the greatest scandals in Polish educational system in modern times, damaged credit of Polish educational system and opened way for radical school reform from". Comments appreciated. PS. Please note no equivalent article on Polish wiki... PS2. Such article was deleted from pl wiki: pl:Wikipedia:SDU/Anna Halman, as "being a victim does not make one notable". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that "being a victim does not make one notable" borders on hypocrisy since you ain't got such a reservation while editing Romek Strzałkowski, who was only an accidental victim during Poznań 1956 uprising. greg park avenue 13:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep
- Their death was very referenced in media in Poland and all east Europe, for example in czech media is referenced as one from the first and most known victims of cyber and sexual bullying in East Europe, two czech common reportage about bullying in Czech republic and Europe cited their case as clasical and common known), influence of their case on polish education system and schools politik is out of question.

- Problem is, that reference on net are not as Ania Halman or Anna Halman - full name is very rarite, but Ania, Ania H. or Suicide of Ania are not good name for article, IMHO. In google: better is for example Ania + samobójstwo + Gdansk - 42 000 results... Ad "Her death started one of the greatest scandals in Polish educational system in modern times, damaged credit of Polish educational system and opened way for radical school reform from Giertych" for example - [26], [27] and [28] / zero tolerance from Giertzch, [29] Giertych want canceled gymnazja... --Cinik 18:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Here is reportage of TV Nova about bullying (from 29. 4. 2007) - in second half of reportage is referenced this case.etc. --Cinik 18:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Here is article of reputable czech journalist about cyber-bullying - two worldwide clasical case: Ghyslaina Razy a Anna Halman (Gdaňsk tragedy)... Owerwhelming majority works about kyberbullying in czech language cited this case as clasical. This case was cytalyzer of increased interest about kyber-bullying in Poland, Czech republic, Slowakei and others cantries... --Cinik 04:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Well-referenced article and notable enough (received coverage in BBC and almost every large Polish newspaper). As user Piotrus publishes articles on history of Russian-Soviet war entitled no less than "Soviet Army atrocities", I believe that this is his own bias and example of tendentious editing. User Piotrus, besides, was supporting less sourced articles (like Internet brigades on AfD which contained only allegations just because they suited to his nationalist views. Vlad fedorov 18:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For God's sake, even Polish president Lech Kaczynski lighted up a znicz on Ania Halman tomb [30]. Vlad fedorov 02:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename as Anna Halman case or something like that. The case seems to be notable. One should provide more explanations in the article. How this related to cyber bullying? Words about the greatest scandals in Polish educational system in modern times, damaged credit of Polish educational system seem to be POVish. Could be formulated better.Biophys 20:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name isn't used in Polish media. I have read tens of texts about the case and watched TV discussions but I don't remeber the name being ever used. So I believe that the article should be renamed the way it doesn't include the last name.Xx236 10:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but what is good name? Suicide of Ania? Gdansk tragedy? --Cinik 13:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how do media refer to this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide of Ania, Gdansk tragedy, Suicide of ?14? schoolgirls...

Delete - ~~not notable~~(maybe notable, but not enought to be here), deleted even on polish Wikipedia. Herr Kriss 17:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, strong POV, article was deleted from pl wiki. Szwedzki 17:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO is evident, it is notable enought, as I argue above. And according pl: Voting on pl. wikipedia was probably about very other form of article. I see there no significant discusion about notability of article. --Cinik 18:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Deletion is not logical; it is known cause, in Poland and neighbouring countries. Maybe not in anglophonic world, that could make this article subject of deletion. The references do exist (but maybe not english), so I think we could let it here. --Aktron (t|c) 18:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It needs clean-up, references and rename as Anna Halman case but the kernel of the article is ok. Where is POV? Miraceti 18:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For starters, the assertion that it was the biggest scandal in Polish education etc. is unreferenced. Once this is taken out, we just have a non-notable victim... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Here is problem. Big scandal is big not if somebody cry this is the bigist scandal in the world. It is big, if it is a big problem, if it have a big consequences and if it is common known. But it is possible, I will find reference for this statement too. :-) --Cinik 21:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename, per Miraceti. It is rare that a story from Poland makes BBC News, hence notable. The article needs a great deal of improving and NPOV, however. Balcer 22:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, -jkb- 12:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC); notable, referenced, encyclopedic, in Poland a media event of huge impact; rename if you want, that is OK[reply]

Strong keep - this is a very sad but true story, well documented and unpretentiously written, omitting many gruesome details and speculations, however, some Polish dorky "activists" would like this story to ground it, because it doesn't fit their image they so shamelessly trying to impose on you. They call themselves Law and Justice (PiS), yet they gave the perpetrators of the statutory rape just a slap on a wrist - three months in juvenile detention center, while Ania after having been totally humiliated before all class, commited suicide hanging herself on a skipping rope. These happenings may occur sometimes in jail, never in school, still the authorities looked the other way and now they trying to sweep this story under rug with little help of some Polish wikipedians, that's a shame. You can compare this story only with O.J. Simpson case, who also got away with manslaughter. greg park avenue 18:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Please! article was deleted from pl wiki is total misguided and valueless argument (IMHO), but I thing It will be no good for this discussion, If we will speculate about motivation and political tendencies of participants. --Cinik 13:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - U cannot separate politics from reality when dealing with Poles. The guy who AfDed your article, claims on his user page that he knows how to deal with Poles, which I find pretty offensive. I almost feel like a savage from Amazon, if there were such a people over there, what I doubt. But they in Poland think like that, we call it Dulska morality, something u may find in "I shot the sheriff" by Bob Marley or "The badge" by George Harrison. The double standards meaning "laundry your dirty clothes behind closed doors". This guy also AfDed my article Mundana Quartet for the same wrong reasons, and of course it was deleted from Polish wiki like yours was, in a heated and politically motivated discussion, which had nothing to do with wikipedia standards. He also created a new category and put your and my article in the same bag as shredder fodder, that's how I found you. But now the cat is out of bag. Besides, thank you for claiming Ania. It's a shame for all us few tolerant Poles that a foreigner did that. greg park avenue 16:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I thing Ania will have article on pl.wiki... :-) And Mundana Quartet too... :-) Nobody can ignore reality indef. :-) --Cinik 16:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General Directory[edit]

The subject fails WP:WEB. 300,000+ Alexa ranking plus 160 ghits for "generaldirectory.us". Prod was removed without given reason. hateless 17:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - doesn't appear to be anywhere near meeting WP:WEB. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. andy 22:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, author blanked the page. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Bronk[edit]

Non-notable, no sources, no relevant Google hits. Prod removed by author without improvement. Huon 18:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hut 8.5 19:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; a few hits for a doctor of the same name, but there's no real indication of who this guy is or why he's important. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G7: Blanked by author and sole contributor. Tagged as such. --Huon 00:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-05-08 01:45Z

Holly Grainger[edit]

* Delete This person has no verifiable details and is therefore not notable. None of the quite considerable list of ' facts?' about her are referenced. This is an encyclopedia not a promotional tool. Spotscourt 18:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep um, [31] indicates to me that this person can be verified and is notable. If there's any problem with the quality of this article, deal with it with cleanup. Deletion doesn't seem to be the proper choice though. FrozenPurpleCube 18:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep notable actress, verifiability not a problem. Nominator has no other edits, and is either a SPA or very, very confused. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. AfD is not a way to get references to an article. Hut 8.5 19:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- per above, clearly meets WP:BIO Thunderwing 19:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close per discussion. I'm putting a {{cleanup}} tag on the article, that's all it needs. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Spotscourt's only contributions have been creating this AfD. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BealArt[edit]

Messy, unsourced article about a non-notable highschool art program. Theredhouse7 19:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete at least part of it is a direct copy-paste (from this). Nn and unreferenced as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - On the talk page the author notes that the copy-paste material is not copyrighted. Theredhouse7 20:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User has few other edits, indicating possible COI. Given the poor quality of article and unclear notability, delete. Placeholder account 22:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability. NawlinWiki 20:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fractomancy[edit]

I believe this to be a non notable neologism. A quick google search turns up only links to this one and one link to a book by a man named Clifford Pickover. There are no sources given, no attempt at an explanation. There is no mention of widespread use in the occult community. DeleteTheRingess (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this has basically no context, no references, and I can't seem to find anything to indicate it's notable. --Haemo 01:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FRINGE. The only reference given is a bullet-point list of "foo-mancies" with no indication of how popular or well-known any of them are. Anville 16:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have improved the article by adding some explanation and a few more references. Apparently, there are 75 or so ghts for fractomancy, many in occult or divination dictionaries. Clearly, fractomancy does not have the popularity of many well-known methods, but it is known and referenced. Electric2006 19:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not convinced. Several of the links added simply state the same basic sentence that appears at the beginning of the article, so I don't see the necessity for them. The article seems to exist to promote the author and the book. At best this topic is a 1 or 2 sentence entry on the author's entry, not a separate article. I still think it should be deleted.TheRingess (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment You have done a very nice job of putting the entry into proper form. Electric2006 15:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — It's not clear to me that the term had any currency whatsoever before Clifford Pickover published Dreaming the Future: The Fantastic Story of Prediction in 2001. Now, six years on, Google searches turn up no traces of anyone having written an implementation, or in any way carrying on independent discussion of this particular method of divination. I find only references pointing to the Wikipedia article, either here or in mirrors, references pointing to Amazon.com book reviews of Pickering's work, or mirrors of the same, or references to a one line definition: Divination by interpreting the structure of fractal geometric patterns. An editor in search of secondary references that put to rest the dangling concepts in the present article, to wit: which strange attractor, in what system of parameterization do the four random numbers operate, for how many iterations must one allow the dynamic system to operate before one can base an interpretation on a generated pattern, would have, at present, a hard time developing this article from a stub. There appears to be no published sources that document how this particular divination method proceeds. Even Pickover, when posting the possible demise of this article at The Wikipedia Knowledge Dump offered nothing detailed beyond what is in the present article, though if anyone were able to expand on this topic, it would likely be him. So how might an editor flesh this article out, barring original research? I cannot see how. The concept seems still-born and in an incomplete state at present, and with Wikipedia itself being one of the few sources of information — such as it is — on the topic. That's not a role a tertiary source should assume. Take care. Gosgood 17:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 05:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NC16002 disappearance[edit]

An overloaded aircraft with defective electrics went missing in 1948. The wreckage was not found. It was mentioned in a list on a TV programme. There are no independent sources cited which are primarily about this incident, and that is not a big surprise because as aviation incidents go it is wholly unremarkable. I am unsure why we even have this article, unless it's because with a stretch of the imagination one might assert that it vanished in the Bermuda Triangle - although evidence for its being there seems to be as thin as evidence that anything else happened beyound a perfectly routine crash. The DC3 was a pretty good aircraft, but postwar air transport firms were far from punctilious about miantenance, as this account makes abundantly clear, and an engine failure would hardly be surprising. Anyway, lack of substantive independent sources is the problem here. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, this link [32], prominently featured within the article, and titled as the Official Civil Aeronautics Board report of the accident, does not count as a primary, independent source, according to Guy's logic. Is this the quality of Wikipedia at work, where idiots pretend to be qualified editors who "know" what they're talking about?

Keep, airline crashes with dozens of fatalities are generally notable, and there are three newspaper stories and an investigation report cited. What do you mean no independent sources? Even 'perfectly routine' crashes get articles, because they are notable events well-covered in media and other reliable reports. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So where are the multiple non-trivial reliable sources about this crash? Fatalities were far less unusual back in the 1940s, after all. Guy (Help!) 14:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the four already cited in the article? The first one is a front page story in the new york times! Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Almost every other fatal air-crash has an article, it's notable enough. It happened before internet but still seems sources and verifiable. Ben W Bell talk 20:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just because it happened 50+ years ago doesn't make it any less encyclopedic than if it happened today with insta-news and blogs etc. We have to break the notion that if it's old it's not notable because the web doesn't have zillions of ghits. Carlossuarez46 22:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the "mystery" aspect should probably be toned down under WP:UNDUE, but the crash itself was noteworthy and made national news, and the article cites multiple reliable sources. It should be cleaned up, not deleted. *** Crotalus *** 22:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Considering that this is a well referenced article on an unsolved air crash, I can't think of any justification whatsoever for this nom. Maybe the nom belives that wikipedia should just cover current events, but I think one of the goals here as an encyclopedia should be to cover all notable air crashes, whether they happened this week or in 1948. --JJay 23:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't understand why this was nominated. Vague assertions that stuff that happened in the olden days doesn't matter aren't enough to justify the deletion of an article which is properly sourced and clearly notable. Deleting something on wikipedia because it doesn't have enough references on the internet is looking at things backwards, articles like this are the very reason why wikipedia is useful.Nick mallory 02:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I really don't know why nominating an article that's got at least four solid references in it makes sense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This meets notability standards pursuant to Wikipedia precedent for air accidents. Attribution doesn't have to be to online sources, and in cases such as this attribution to paper sources might be better. --Charlene 18:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The three New York Times articles seem to be about the crash, so this meets the notability guidelines with flying colors. It doesn't seem to push the Bermuda Triangle connection excessively, although it may need monitoring to ensure that remains true... ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep 32 people died (we must assume) - that's a pretty big disaster. Which are inherintly notable. As are airliner crashes involving fatalities. Cites more sources than a lot of rubbish here on Wikipedia does. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as probable hoax, no sources anywhere (not even Google). Orderinchaos 06:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Lance Uppercut[edit]

Smells like a hoax to me, but even if legit the article is unsourced, written in an inappropriate tone, and there is no evidence that the subject is notable. Mattinbgn/^talk 20:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 20:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax looks probable. John Vandenberg 20:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources quoted (or likely to be found), so not notable.Assize 21:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as probable hoax. RFerreira 08:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Hoax probable, biased, probably faked picture, little information. Sseballos 00:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

StarCraft Terran Prehistory[edit]

Excessively detailed in-universe plot summary without any real world context or even specification of where the stories are told. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of fancruft which is unnecessary. Tarret 20:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is basically a reiteration of the material in the Starcraft manuals, something which Wikipedia is not --Haemo 01:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Not being a Starcraft fanboy myself, I have no vested interest in this article, nor could I say what is or is not in the Starcraft manuals. However, considering the large amount of articles on other Starcraft topics (as well as considerable other "fan" subjects, Lord of the Rings, Star Trek, Nintendo games, etc), I fail to see the rationale for deletion based on either fancruftosity or banality. hellenica 18:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independant sources providing real world context, therefore the article fails both WP:N and WP:NOT#IINFO#7. Jay32183 22:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, a starcruft bizarre. RFerreira 18:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, possible hoax, unlikely search term. MastCell ^Talk 17:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taria (de Castillo) Simmons[edit]

Article is for an old video game character which probably doesn't meet the notability guidelines for fiction, and which currently consists of almost certain hoax information, relating the subject to a Tyler Perry character. I am bringing this to AfD because it doesn't seem to meet speedy-deletion criteria, and the creator would most likely just remove a proposed deletion notice. Dancter 20:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Dancter 20:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the main contributor to the article, Ohgun901 has redirected the article to Mace: The Dark Age, which is the right thing to do. So, that's that? Marasmusine 07:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not so sure. The main contributor also performed some questionable page-moves of this article, which leads me to believe that this may not be a legitimate redirect. The question I have is whether this is a valid name for the subject. I could not find anything to verify that she even has a last name. Dancter 07:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a lot of stuff in the article which indicates that this is, at best, full of speculation. I doubt anyone's going to search for this term, so delete on those grounds. Cheers, Lanky ○ Yell ○ 13:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete but I will make the content available if it's needed for a merge or something similar, drop me a line. W.marsh 20:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ECCW Pacific Cup Tournament[edit]

Contested prod. Annual tournament held by a minor league wrestling promotion, no evidence of notability and little more than a directory of results. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence of non-trivial third party sources to support this article. RFerreira 08:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. An abbreviated section within the main ECCW article, with a list of just the tournament winners (supported by some backing evidence, without going into detail on each of the tournament events themselves) should be sufficient. Starbuck-2 03:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Man, why do non-WWF/WCW wrestling articles get targeted so often? Just because people in the US aren't familiar with what is going on with this Canadian organization does not mean that it is not notable to Canadians. ECCW is a major promotion in the (as the nom said) "minor league wrestling promotion." This article is no different than the King of the Ring article. If this one needs removed then so does the King of the Ring article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Theophilus75 (talk • contribs)

Comment Please see the notability guidelines, and also what Wikipedia is not. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reviewed the Notability Guidelines and what Wikipedia is not (yet again), and I still stand by my original statement. This article is NOT something that would be limited by WP:NOT, nor does it specifically not qualify as per WP:N. If anything is wrong with this article it is the lack of sources substantiating notability, but the King of the Ring article also has only one source page therefore not substantiating it's notability. The notability of this article (like the King of the Ring article) is substantiated in the notability of the promotion. If one would insist on deleting this article as recommended by the nom, then one should follow the deletion policies and first look to merge the article with another article, as merging is ALWAYS the first thing one should look to do. In this case I would suggest it be merged with the promotions article...but I would then also suggest that the King of the Ring article be merged with the WWE article as the King of the Ring article has established notability just as well as this article. Theophilus75 07:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you wish to retain the article, please provide evidence which proves it meets with notability guidelines. The status of any other article is not relevant to the current discussion, we are discussing this article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Point, which I would hope that you get, is that the article is notable based on the notability of the wrestling promotion...or is the wrestling promotion one of your [targets for next week]? Merging is always the preference over deletion at Wikipedia. Merging this article would best be done by merging it into the promotions article; but then it would fall under the Wikipedia recommendation that if you can spin off one article from another one because there is a lot of content about one issue in an article that it is suggested to do that...so you end up on with cylic reasoning (within Wikipedia rules) on what to do.Theophilus75 14:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merging shouldn't be an option for this type of information, it's cruft with no enyclopedic value. All that would be needed is a small table showing the winners of each year in the main article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Cruft," by the Wikipedia article, is in the eye of the beholder; what is cruft to you is not necessarily cruft to me. Maybe the rule you need to look at more often before throwing up Afd's on wrestling articles are WP:UCS and inparticular, WP:IAR.Theophilus75 15:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would contend that I have seen many, many similar articles deleted, precisely because they are cruft and fail WP:NOT. I shall repeat what I said elsewhere, this is an encylopedia not a wrestling fan site. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 14:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somaya Reece[edit]

Delete - article was nominated once previously, closed no consensus. The subject of this article does not pass WP:BIO which states that an actor's notability may be determined by that actor's having "significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." This performer has no significant roles in anything, with credits including "Harlot (uncredited)" and the like. She is an extra. There are no reliable sources attesting to her notability. Her article is sourced by her own MySpace page, the self-promotional site imeem.com and IMDB. The only independent source is a supposed article in the Orange County Register, the existence of which is apparently unconfirmable online. Much was made in the last AFD about the reliability of IMDB as a citation, so I engaged in a little thought experiment. I uploaded a phony magazine credit for Reece to IMDB. The Orange Coast cover credit is false. IMDB did not fact check it or contact me as the uploader to verify its authenticity. IMDB is not, at least in regards to Reece, a reliable source. While each article is to be judged on its own merits, it is worth noting the deletion of other articles for other actors with a similar level of credits to Reece. Just a few of the recent examples include such non-notables as James McMahon and reality show contestant Scott Long and, tellingly, Hayley DuMond who is not only an actor with more substantive credits than Reece but who is married to a notable actor but was not considered notable in her own right. Given the failure of WP:BIO, the lack of reliable sources, the demonstrated unreliability of IMDB as a source and the precedent of the deletion of many other actors at a similar level of credits, this article should be deleted. Otto4711 21:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're vandalizing IMDB to prove a point? That's not a "thought experiment". That you cannot confirm the Orange County Register online does not invalidate its use as a source -- it is confirmable offline. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or other stuff was deleted) is not a good argument. -- JHunterJ 21:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point still stands, whether you like what I did or not, that it puts the lie to the notion that IMDB is a reliable source, which was pretty much the cornerstone of the "keep" arguments. Whether the OCR article actually exists or not, WP:NOTE requires multiple independent reliable sources which are substantially about the subject. The OCR article, if it indeed exists, would be one. One is not "multiple." Otto4711 21:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons given in the first AfD: the combination of IMDB-documented modeling & acting work and MySpace statistics (just the friends/hits/counts that the site records objectively) could meet WP:NOTE. -- JHunterJ 21:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in this nomination, IMDB is not a reliable source. It is not fact-checked. One of her credits there is a known fake. It is unfathomable that you would continue to claim that a source which is demonstrably unreliable can be used to relaibly establish notability. Nor have you addressed the fact that WP:BIO calls for significant roles to establish notability. Her roles are not "significant" by any stretch of the imagination. As for her being a model, in addition to the fact that her modeling credits as listed on IMDB are demonstrably unreliable, I would note the deletion of the article for John Stallings, who not only has an extensive modeling portfolio but has been an actual significant participant in two different television series and has multiple verifiable independent sources. While the deletion of other articles is not iron-clad precedent (as I acknowledged last time and this time) it is instructive to look at how other similar articles have been treated. I agree that other stuff exists is not in and of itself reason to keep or delete an article but taken as the last in the string of arguments against this unsourced article for this non-notable person it's icing on the deletion cake. It would be nice if you would actually consider the arguments instead of parroting "IMDB, IMDB." Otto4711 21:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And as noted in the last AfD, it would be nice if you could be civil. -- JHunterJ 22:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asking you to be open-minded is not being uncivil. But accusations of incivility are a way to deflect attention from the merits of the nomination without addressing them. Otto4711 22:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed the points I wanted to address. That you have a bigger axe to grind doesn't make me closed-minded, or a "parrot". Be civil. -- JHunterJ 23:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False accusations of incivility are pretty uncivil... Otto4711 23:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I took a neutral stance at the last AfD, but said "if she is really as notable as the article makes out, then it shouldn't be difficult to source. So why haven't any of the editors voting "Keep" done this? ... I suspect there's quite a bit of exaggeration here". Nothing's been done since - WP:ATT and WP:RS are there for a reason, so I'm going with Delete this time. EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - incredibly poorly sourced. If this was seriously kept last time, on the basis of reliable sources existing, then why is the sourcing still so poor? --Haemo 01:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 fan translation. Useful information from the article can be accessed through the page history and merged. MastCell ^Talk 17:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeJap Translations[edit]

Non notable ROM translators. Newspaper98 21:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, and nothing in the article suggests notability anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable group. Jacek Kendysz 23:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable hacker group which translated games that were considered a challenge by the emulation scene in general. Over 16,000 Google hits. --Sn0wflake 23:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to fan translation. Probably not enough for its own article, but certainly merits inclusion in a list somewhere; the translations they did received about a paragraph of coverage in a book from a reliable publisher: Carless, Simon (2004). Gaming Hacks. O'Reilly. p. 267. ISBN 0596007140. cab 00:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it only has 142 relevant results. [33] Newspaper98 02:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources which back up claims of notability. If they're "well-known" then there should be sources. I would also note that due to the nature of their work, the Google Test is a poor judge of notability. --Haemo 01:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot be expected that this subject will get coverage on the mainstream media, but that does not take away its inherent notability, considering its avaliability solely through the internet medium. --Sn0wflake 04:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failed the Primary Criterion of WP:CORP. There are no independent, reliable, non-trivial and non-autobiography secondary sources to pass the notability criteria. The current article links to non-reliable sources (forums). — Indon (reply) — 07:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per cab. The article is a good example to include the "Fan translation" article, and contains information notable to the subject of fan translations. A good number of links exists to this article, so redirect to fan translation if the consensus is delete. --User:Krator (t c) 15:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 00:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mrfind[edit]

Note by your argument everyone and everything should have an article. i.e.; If George Washington is in Wikipedia George Blow should be there also. Please do not compare the company you are writing about to Google. The company must be note worthy in and of itself not making the claim “…you include Google why don’t you include me. Shoessss 21:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. Carlossuarez46 22:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete spammy article about a very obscure website (Alexa rank 964,621) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (CSD A7) by Ryan Postlethwaite. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evan gammon[edit]

A contested PROD. I don't believe this person meets WP:BIO requirements yet. He's been involved in some competition, but I don't think the level is sufficient for an article. Joyous! | Talk 22:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to back up notability. Furthermore, even the claim of notability is pretty weak. --Haemo 01:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too low level. Punkmorten 08:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aegwynn[edit]

This was previously one of the subjects in a mass-trainwreck AfD, and looks like it should be considered on its own merits. The only "source" cited (or, that I can find, exists) is WOWWiki. The article appears to be mostly or entirely written in an in-universe style based upon original research, and without out-of-universe source material available, that problem appears to be unfixable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only possible sources appear to be WOWwiki as above and similar fansites and forums. Raises concerns over WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to the entry in List of Warcraft characters. --Dhartung | Talk 07:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it is to be on Wikipedia it must have out-of-universe context and secondary sources. Otherwise, if it's just in-universe plot then it belongs on WOWWiki. --maclean 06:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep (closed early per WP:SNOW). Newyorkbrad 01:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comic book collecting[edit]

This article is just non-sense.Although comic book collecting is a hobby that people sometimes do, there are theoretically numerous amount of things that you can write about that people collect, and while it may be popular, There are plenty of other equally popular if not more so things that people collect, comic books don't stand out in any way. Rodrigue 21:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This is one of our oldest articles dating to December 2001, and it is a decidedly notable multi-million dollar international industry. This is also a violation of WP:POINT: the nominator is upset at one of his articles being at AfD, so he nominated this either in frustration, or bad faith. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I bought enough Wizards as a kid to recognize this as an absurd, bad faith nomination. Albrecht 23:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I'll agree that the article needs work, but notability just isn't an issue. There are a plethora of news stories from reliable sources about comic book collecting. See here [34]. In addition, there are multiple major publications, like the aforementioned Wizard magazine devoted to it. Chunky Rice 23:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Chunky Rice. The article needs to be referenced and sourced properly but it is notable and it is not WP:NONSENSE.--Cailil ^talk 23:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Just as good a topic as Numismatics or Philately. Nominator's assertion that the article is "non-sense" is absurd considering the relative merit of the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Clearly a bad faith nomination. If you read the Afd discussion on his List of most valuable comic books, you'll notice he uses the very existence of the Comic book collecting article as an argument to keep his article, speaking out his support for both these two articles and any other article about collecting. Now he thinks it is nonsense and should be deleted? Like I said, clearly bad faith.--Atlan 00:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep leaving aside the issues of bad faith, the collection of comic books is an established hobby of some notability. There are probably dozens of news articles discussing various collections or special issues. Books? Absolutely. They may be guides on how to do it, but that does show some notability in itself. You might as well suggest deletion of stamp collecting or coin collecting. FrozenPurpleCube 00:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Immediate and definitive speedy keep. In fact, I'm snowball closing this. Newyorkbrad 01:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 19:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still Pending[edit]

Article was nominated, but incorrect page created, which I fixed now ([35]). Procedural nomination, no opinion, but it was nominated and deleted also about a month ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Still Pending, but overturned at DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 17). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a vanity band that was nominated for deletion, with the outcome of DELETE, last month.Shoessss 23:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete either as re-creation of deleted material or as A7, take your pick. Unsigned kid band. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not an A7 and not G4 candidate either - I would consider mentions in two newspapers (see the references) a stab at asserting notability. Whether these assertions are true and valid is for AfD to consider. See also this article's listing in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 17 which overturned the deletion on the basis of "new evidence since prior AfD". —Resurgent insurgent 2007-05-08 01:41Z
Weak Delete - well, there's one reliable source here; the piece which is cited no fewer than four times in this article. The other one I can't even access, so I'm not sure what it is says. However, these are extremely weak references - they barely assert notability, and are largely given over to the fact that the band is starting up, and is something of a novelty. I'm really torn - especially since this article is well done - and if I could see the other article, it would really help me firm up my view. As it stands right now, this band doesn't appear to be notable, and this page appears to be almost entirely self-promotional. --Haemo 01:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted however, that the prior deletion was overturned on review. --Haemo 01:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, I missed that one, the link is here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 17. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

neutral/undecided I haven't done this before, so please be nice... But I think they fit the first and 12th criteria for notability for musicians. I said think, because I'm relatively sure they have had two television appearences and at least one newspaper article that seems ok. A few other random things like Podcasts and also on their site there is an interview from radio disney. Also 2 of the kids have sponsorship from big companies (sabian/mapex for the drummer and ampeg for the bassist)... And so it's clear i'm not in any way affiliated with them. Just poking around the web. Thanks! Crashvirus 14:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not sure why this is up for AFD again, when the previous deletion was just overturned: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 17. I don't really understand what "procedural nomination" means. There are new sources of notability which are not yet referenced in the article. There is a full-page feature article in the Lake Oswego Review that is not yet referenced in this article, but clearly should be. There is also the Radio Disney interview which is available for streaming on the band's official website. The band is also referenced and their music is played in The Mastan Music Hour Podcast. All of these sources should be cited in the article and I would assert that they lend additional credibility to the notability of the band. Again - it is unclear why this has been put back into AFD when the previous deletion was overturned less than a month ago. Stampsations 21:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural nomination means that they have fix and listed an improperly listed afd or one that was sent back here from DRV. Viridae^Talk 23:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, in this case the AfD page was accidently linked to the previous, already closed AfD discussion. I changed it to this "second nomination" page so we have space for a new discussion. But since I was not the one who nominated for deletion (only the one who fixed it) and have no opinion on the matter, this is called a procedural nomination. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Stampsations, nothing wrong with the article. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 01:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is adequately sourced and asserts notability, as required per Wikipedia policy. --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 13:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - band meets criterion 1 of WP:BAND, unfortunately. I'm also against re-AfDing articles after previous AfDs were overturned, unfortunately. Seriously, this page reeks of WP:VSCA, and I don't think they should have a page here, but this meets the incredibly lax criteria set out under WP:BAND and I don't vote for procedural end-runs. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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