Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 23

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< January 22 January 24 >

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 Speedy delete g10, unsourced attack page, author blocked for trolling (see his contribs). NawlinWiki 01:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Duff child abuse scandal

Hilary Duff child abuse scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Since no-one wanted this, it's for you to decide.... noteworthy or not?? but this is fact not fiction SimonRebbsell1 01:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete Speedy Delete- Until the author can source it. Per BLP and the siegenthaler incident, we can't make unreferenced claims about child abuse or so forth without sources. However, hoax is not a speedy criterion, it's not really an attack page, and a prod would be resisted by the author. Might as well put it up here. Speedy per G10. "This includes a biography of a living person that is negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no NPOV version in the history to revert to."--Wooty Woot? contribs 01:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable per GCap Media mentions over recent weeks: numerous controversy on BRMB and Beacon Radio.

Hell, ask Q103 about the scandal... well, I do work for GCap radio! --SimonRebbsell1 01:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As extremely prejudicial unsourced information. janejellyroll 01:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speedy Delete - Um, so let me get this straight? Both Hilary Duff and Kelly Clarkson are being charged for child abuse for a 15 year old boy in a small town in England? Um, sorry. Unless you can verify both, I'm voting delete per WP:HOAX.--theblueflamingoSpeak 01:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. WP:COI number 1 states "avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors", which is a guideline, so if it is true, you should try to remain neutral. -theblueflamingoSpeak 01:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC) changing vote to speedy. Fails CSD G10. --theblueflamingoSpeak 01:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this, GCap Media have tons of sources about it. It's no conflict of interest.

Ask any presenter at:

  1. 96.4 brmb
  2. wyvernfm
  3. powerfm
  4. southernfm
  5. capitalradio
  6. foxfm

i work for GCap and know this! so there, no conflict of interest! --SimonRebbsell1 01:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP FOR THE LAST TIME!!! GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!! BLP IS A FUCKING JOKE ARE YOU AL CAPONE! --SimonRebbsell1 01:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 19:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J.P. Calderon

J.P. Calderon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non-notable reality show contestant Maelwys 00:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as nom --Maelwys 00:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - See also Talk:J.P. Calderon for a discussion that's already gone on about this, which we unfortunately couldn't come to agreement on, which is why this came to AfD --Maelwys 00:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I had been hoping that the author would allow a merge into Cook Islands without having to resort to this. Perhaps a Survivor contestants page is needed so that we don't have to go through this for every new season. -- Scorpion 00:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Full disclosure, I wrote the article. The article is about a nationally-ranked college athlete who went on to become an acknowledged (albeit admittedly not particularly successful) professional, who has been/is part of the cast of two different reality television series. The nominator acknowledges on the talk page that there are already two sources noted in the article (The Calgary Sun article and the TV Guide article), along with several other references which he dismisses for various questionable reasons, but then goes on to claim that the two reliable sources are somehow "not notable" enough to sustain the article. Nominator hangs the AfD on his contention that someone would have to finish 4th on Survivor to be notable (a contention which as far as I can tell is unsupported in policy or guidelines) and on his dismissal of two reliable sources as "non-notable" which makes no sense. Scorpion redirected the article without comment and, when I restored it, redirected it again with the rationale that there are other Survivor contestants who are more notable but who don't have articles. This is an invalid rationale. A subject's notability is independent of another subject's notability. If the hundred other Survivor conestants are as or more notable than Calderon, then Scorpion or whoever else is free to write articles about them. Their absence is not an excuse to delete this article. There has been nothing offered in terms of either Wiki-policy or Wiki-guidelines under which this article is not acceptable. Otto4711 00:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are not absent because nobody wanted to create them. They are absent because they have already been deleted. It's called precedent, and they were not found notable. -- Scorpion 00:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which brings me back to the point that the notability of one subject has no bearing on the notability of another. If these hundred other articles all got deleted, it's irrelevant to whether or not this article is within Wikipedia policy and guidelines. You have yet to offer a rationale that relies on actual Wikipedia policy or guidelines under which this article is not acceptable. Otto4711 01:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Merge and redirect. I read the debate, which seems to center around the question of whether 2 sources automatically qualifies as "multiple." For this issue I came down on the side of delete (really M&R) because of a different consideration. I consider this person as unlikely to do anything notable in the future (i.e. his "career" ended with the show). If he had gotten a movie deal or something similar that would keep him on the radar, then I would have voted "keep." 2 sources is on the fence -- it could go one way or the other -- but since this person seems unlikely to ever get more attention I say merge. (Before anyone flames me, I'd like to note that this isn't policy, or a guideline, or anything. I know this. The problem is that the guidelines are few in number, and in this case don't clearly tell us what to do. And since they are just that -- guidelines -- it doesn't make sense to interpret them literally. How many sources constitutes "multiple," for example, varies depending on the nature of the article.) --N Shar 00:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes -- in addition, he's probably (I don't know for sure) still a volleyball player. But it still seems unlikely to me (although I freely admit this is conjecture and opinion) that he will ever again receive the attention that a Survivor contestant receives. I removed the incorrect wording from my post above. (By the way, he should probably be added to the JDMA article, 'cause he doesn't seem to be there.)
  • He's in the season 2 episode list article, since that's the season he's in. I guess I'm confused as to why if your criteria for !voting "keep" is that he is supposed to land something that keeps him "on the radar" his joining the JDMA show is insufficient.Otto4711 01:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep, possibly Merge Agree the Calgary Sun and TV Guide articles satisfy WP:BIO and there is no WP:BLP problem, so he meets policy criteria. Would welcome a merge. --Shirahadasha 02:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a page about Survivor contestants, per Scorpion's suggestion. JCO312 03:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be noted that I had tried to merge the page previously, which the creator was extremely opposed to. -- Scorpion 03:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that what you actually did was redirect the page to the Survivor: Cook Islands article without making any attempt to preserve the information through merging, which yes, I do object to. I have no problem with there being a Survivor contestants page, however, if the contestant is separately notable--as Calderon is--then there is no reason not to have a separate article for that contestant. Otto4711 03:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You still haven't explained what makes him seperately notable from Survivor. It seems that Survivor is his main claim to fame. -- Scorpion 03:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have explained several times very clearly exactly why I believe he is notable separate from Survivor. I'm a little unclear why someone as...invested...in Survivor as you clearly are is interested in deleting an article on a Survivor contestant who has established notability beyond the show, but that's up to you to figure out for yourself I guess. I have yet to see you offer up a single reason based in Wiki-policy or Wiki-guidelines that this article has run afoul of. Otto4711 04:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeff Varner become a noted reporter, as did Hunter. I have no problems with them having pages. Sundra was in several TV shows before Survivor, again no problem. There are far more notable Survivors whose pages have been deleted because they weren't considered notable, thus taking his time on Survivor out. Apart from that, all he has is some minor reality TV show and once again, there is precedent because few raialty contestants outside Survivor, The Apprentice, American Idol or The Amazing Race have pages. -- Scorpion 16:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Sourcing looks fine. Given that independent coverage is avaiable, and that some of the people who "placed" don't seem any more likely to "do anything notable in the future", it seems a bit arbitrary to draw a line at "final 4". It also seems a bit unwieldy to merge all these contestants into the parent article. But I'm not too up on my reality show contestants to make this a strong vote. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 04:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He seems to be notable enough to keep. Survivor contestants usually are. Somitho 10:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a few small pieces of notableness add up, this guy is well above the cutoff. —siroχo 12:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge usually I wouldn't cite precedent, but I think this is a different case. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 16:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where exactly are you suggesting this be merged to? It would completely unbalance the Survivor: Cook Islands article. No other Survivor season article that I've looked at has a space for expanded contestant information and there does not appear to be any other logical destination. Otto4711 16:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd like to direct attention to the afd for Cadice Woodcock, a contestant from the same season who according to CBS polls is one of the most popular of all-time and she lasted 10 weeks longer. Her page was deleted. The afd for Kathy Vavrick-O'Brien, far more popular, far more notable, was on TWO seasons of Survivor, no page. -- Scorpion 17:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CCC and the notability of one subject is still irrelevant to the notability of another. Otto4711 17:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if other Survivor contestants have been considered not notable, J.P. Calderon passes with mutiple references. And the dictionary definition of multiple is "more than one". --Eastmain 17:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears in multiple articles from notable publications. So notable. Also note that if the same sorts of references are available for the other contestents mentioned by Scorpion above, then the articles should probably be recreated and the deletion rescinded. (If no references are available, though, the deletion would stand). Dugwiki 17:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You do realize that those two newspaper articles are merely standard interviews that every ex Survivor gives once being voted out? They have nothing to do with his time before or after the show. -- Scorpion 20:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please read WP:NOTE. Please also read WP:POINT as the only reason I can discern for your objection to this article is that some of your personal favorite contestants got their pages deleted. Please also stop disrupting Wikipedia by repeatedly editing Template:Survivor contestants to remove the Calderon link with no justification. Otto4711 20:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It seems to me that you are the one trying to protect the article for your favourite contestant. -- Scorpion 00:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I've never seen an entire episode of Survivor. I probably couldn't name ten other contestants and had never heard of Calderon before he showed up two weeks ago on JDMA. I just don't like how you tried to take ownership of this article, I don't think you've conducted this entire exercise appropriately, I question your motivation in supporting this nomination and I strongly disagree with the stated reasons for deletion. Otto4711 03:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, that was basically my point when I said that even though those two are technically "multiple" that I didn't interpret them as being sufficient in notability, because as you say they're just standard interviews that everybody does. Even the very first person voted off, that's only on the show for 1 episode (as one of ~20 people there for that hour) gets his TV guide interview published, and gets to appear on a talk show the next morning and the whole thing. But by the next week you've already forgotten who he is, and by the time they do the reunion show nobody even recognizes him. His 15 seconds of fame is over, and he's already an unfamiliar face. Basically, he's non-notable, in spite of a couple interviews he gave during that 15 seconds. --Maelwys 20:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge To a page listing all other Cook Islands contestants, and delete all contestant pages. Otherwise, just delete. --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 20:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not merge and redirect? Merging doesn't have much point if someone looking for the merged information is unable to find it, no? Redirecting, however, could help them find said coverage. Picaroon 22:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to meet notability requirements and WP:BIO. Notability does not expire. — brighterorange (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments How so? Here is the entertainment related criteria at WP:BIO, and it's already been established that being on Survivor alone isn't enough for a page.
      • Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers (e.g., - Hollywood Walk of Fame) - Nope
      • The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person - All of the interviews were mandatory Survivor interviews conducted because of his Survivor involvement, not because of his self notability
      • Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:
        • Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers. - The only articles cited are mandatory interviews that come automatically after elimination. Meaning that none of the interviews were conducted because of his notability
          • I think he clearly passes this criterion. Why does it matter if they are "mandatory"? In addition, as Otto has shown, he may meet WP:BIO for his involvement in college and professional sports. I am not a survivor fan at all, by the way. — brighterorange (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following - No indication of that
        • An independent biography - Not much of a biography
        • Name recognition - They didn't even tell his last name on Survivor
        • Commercial endorsements - None indicated
    • He fails of the criteria listed there, as well, will anyone really find such a page necessary in 100 years. A google search yielded 20,200 results, but compare this with Sekou Brunch (20,700 results) and Cecilia Mansilla (32,100) who were both voted out before J.P. and compare this with the people from CI that do have pages: Jonathan Penner (73,500) , Ozzy Lusth (79,000), Becky Lee (54,500) and Yul Kwon (105,000), so how does that make him a stand out? -- Scorpion 01:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, I recently argued for the inclusion of Calderon on his talk page believing that he satisfies WP:BIO and WP:NOTE and someone dismissed them, saying "It's just a guideline, not a policy." I'm trying to remember who it was who was so dismissive...oh right, it was you. Kind of odd that you're arguing for WP:BIO to be the measure today when you dismissed it yesterday...
  • Note that WP:BIO also has guidelines for athletes: "Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports or other competitive activities that are themselves considered notable, including college sports in the United States." Calderon competed for California State University, Long Beach in men's volleyball and coaches women's volleyball. CSULB's article notes that its men's and women's volleyball teams are both highly nationally ranked. He is also a ranked player by the Association of Volleyball Professionals, which its article notes is the premiere professional beach volleyball league in the United States. I have already acknowledged that his pro volleyball career has not been stellar but that doesn't mean that his volleyball career should not be considered in addition to his appearances on Survivor and JDMA. I happen to think his reality TV career is by itself sufficient to establish notability but his TV cast appearances plus his sporting career are definitely enough to qualify him as notable. Otto4711 03:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, you said to cite some guidelines, and I did, so don't get angry and keep in mind WP:CIVIL. I looked at that Volleyball article, and very few of them have pages, not even the two players who the article claims were the top ranked in 2005. Precedent has already been established for Survivor articles, and if not even the top ranked AVP players have pages, then the main reason for his page is JDMA, which he hasn't done anything of note in, and by the way, none of the contestants from that article have individual pages, not even JDs page is linked from there. -- Scorpion 03:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm quite aware of WP:CIVIL, thanks. You might want to re-familiarize yourself with WP:3RR, seeing as how following your fifth revision of the Survivor template I reported you for it.
  • It seems to me that it is YOU that needs to familiarize yourself with WP:3RR. -- Scorpion 13:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calderon's page is linked to The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency episodes (Season 2), which, since that is where he is appearing and since those of us who maintain the JDMA articles don't want the S2 models on the main page yet, is where he should be linked. Janice Dickinson's page is linked in the intro of the Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency article, which is where it should be linked. Whether or not any of the other models or whether any other AVP players have pages (and over a dozen of their articles are linked to the AVP page so why you would claim they don't is unfathomable) or whether any of the other JDMA models have articles is irrelevant to whether Calderon is notable. Otto4711 04:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't want to see a Wikipedia where every contestant on every reality show has the right to a Wikipedia article. This person has done nothing notable but be in two reality shows, gaining on the low end of normal media attention for this. A career of reality shows may be notable - but two shows does not yet qualify as a career. I believe this person fails WP:BIO. Lyrl Talk C 02:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for adequate notability. Doczilla 08:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for adequate notability. This guy is on multiple TV shows and is being talked about in other media and was an athlete before that. I searched for him on Google and found this Wikipedia article valuable.Wikedit9 09:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for adequate notability as above. Thedreamdied 15:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note additional source which will be published in February 2007 (cover image currently available). Otto4711 05:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reality show contestants aren't inherently notable, nor is every failed athlete. /Blaxthos 23:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Personally I don't think there was much use userfying it since they're not a contributor to the site. -- Steel 14:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaumeb

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

Seems to be more or less a user page. It's in the first person, and isn't under the person's claimed real name (Guillaume Belfiore). If notable, needs to be completely redone. John Owens | (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Nn-bio written in first person (starts out "My name is Guillaume, I am French and was born in 1979. I have a bachelor..." etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy to User:Guillaumeb. Seems like an honest mistake. --Dhartung | Talk 00:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per Dhartung above. Placed a tag for that and hangon, just for the sake of argument. Please, let me know if this is not quite the right procedure. --Dennisthe2 00:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per Dhartung. --Candy-Panda 01:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy I haven't been around enough lately, didn't know there was such a thing as "userfication". If I had, that would've been my own first suggestion, especially since I'd already checked that his user page was non-existent. --John Owens | (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom, and to Guillaumeb, userfy per above posts. Bigtop 01:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy then delete. Innocent mistake -- Selmo (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per above. Simple misunderstanding about difference between main and user spaces. --Shirahadasha 02:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or Delete I agree with the comments regarding a misunderstanding. JCO312 03:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, as I have cut-and-pasted the full content to his user page. − Twas Now 03:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Do we have a concensus to Userfy and Speedy? - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 03:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it has been userfied, delete. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 12:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say yes. Somitho 10:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shelamay

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

Where to begin? Let's see... Non-notable, vanity page, spam, little content with no meaningful context, unsourced, etc. Already speedy deleted once, but the template's having trouble staying on the page the second time. adavidw 00:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom -- can't userfy, as there's already a user page. --N Shar 01:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete i'm not even sure what this falls or doesn't fall under. non-notable.--Tainter 01:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. janejellyroll 01:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 01:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to be a simple misunderstanding about what a Wikipedia article is for. Suggest moving content to somewhere in the author's user space. --Shirahadasha 02:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. It's a bio. --Dennisthe2 02:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy as consistent with the entry directly above. JCO312 03:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete as per nom and N Shar Somitho 10:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete don't userfy. User's only edits to WP are self-promotion. WP:NOT a free web host or for self-promotion. Mr Stephen 11:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete please do not userfy vanity pages. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. HappyCamper 13:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banglighting

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

Probable hoax article, as there are no ghits for this supposed "practice", and the content does not appear to be verifiable. No sources given either. SunStar Nettalk 00:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Raven the Musical

The Raven the Musical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
The Raven The Musical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (adding, basically duplicate) Mangojuicetalk 12:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable musical posted by its creator (WP:COI), using Wikipedia as a free web space provider. I originally speedied it under WP:CSD#G12 ("Uploader does not assert permission") because the creator added "Copying punishable by law" at the top, and figured WP:SNOW would apply. It has since been edited to put a factual introductory paragraph, but still remains completely untenable as an article, and fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:NFT. ~Matticus TC 00:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And delete Matthew Weinstein's vanity insertion at The Raven too. --Wetman 02:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. No attempt to comply with WP:NOT#PUBLISHER. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free place to publish. --Shirahadasha 02:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete there's no assertion of notability. JCO312 03:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hard to run a google check due to "That's so Raven", but appears to be Hoax. Speedy Delete. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 03:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no assertion of notability. The website appears to be here and here's google's text cache of the site. I removed the mention of it from The Raven while incidentally reading that article. Graham87 05:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is so clearly a delete that I'd like to vote for a delete, then resurrect it and delete it again just for good measure. 193.129.65.37 08:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This obviously meets the criteria. Somitho 10:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and consider salting the earth. If it's been recreated once it may be recreated again. Cheers, Lankybugger 13:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per nom, and as obvious violation of WP:COI. Does the author realize that by posting here, he has released all copyright permissions to this piece, and should it ever become notable it will be out there for everyone to copy. I believe that is the definition of shooting oneself in the foot. Pastordavid 17:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, clear vanity article. Mangojuicetalk 12:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Two days and not a single dissenting comment against the deletion, not even from an IP user or newly created account. Ladies and Gentlemen, I think we can WP:SNOW this. Cheers, Lankybugger 14:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bracket notation

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

The only reference this article gives is to a blog post by one Aza Raskin, son of Jef Raskin, which describes "bracket notation" but states that it was an idea of his father's and previously did not have a name. Later, in the Comments section, the blog's author admits to also being the original author of the Wikipedia article, implicitly identifying himself as the author of this revision. Given that this was only about seven months ago, and that other sources for the method of notation are lacking, it looks to me very much like original research and an attempt at self-promotion. Note that if the page is deleted, the redirect to Bra-ket notation which previously existed there should be restored. – Qxz 01:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No assertion of any prior publication elsewhere, let alone notability or independent review. See WP:NOT#PUBLISH. --Shirahadasha 02:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless independent sources are located. JCO312 03:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is the sort of quirky old-Wikipedia article I have a fond spot for, but it does not meet WP:V standards. It's been popularized on some blogs in the last year but doesn't have any formal references in e.g. books. --Dhartung | Talk 07:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above. Somitho 10:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect. One blog post is not sufficient for notability. But I would amend the submitter's suggestion that the article be redirected to Bra-ket notation: it seems reasonably likely that someone searching for this subject would be looking for Lie bracket instead, or maybe something else altogether. So I think a more appropriate redirect would be to Bracket (disambiguation). —David Eppstein 20:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I only said that because that's what was originally there – Qxz 04:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merged and redirected. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 04:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolian Barbecue Great Place to Party

Mongolian Barbecue Great Place to Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This one is kind of hard to explain but it's pretty funny. In any case, I see no hope of this article ever developing to anything more than the current sub-stub: this political party was in fact not a party but a clever way to advertise the Mongolian Barbecus, whatever that is. There is simply no encyclopedic value to the topic other than the trivial anecdote. Pascal.Tesson 01:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This article will never be expanded beyond the stub. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 01:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Stubs have value, too, so I wouldn't be willing to delete only because it can't be expanded. However, this seems completely non-notable, having only one google hit outside Wikipedia and her mirrors. Add an entry at List of frivolous political parties for it, though, and maybe redirect this there. Heimstern Läufer 01:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN, if only because it's a creative name for a political party. =) Delete otherwise. --Dennisthe2 02:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, WP:BJAODN candidate. No notability, but not too bad a joke as ad agency products go. --Shirahadasha 02:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Merge with List of frivolous political parties. --Shirahadasha 04:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very Weak Keep or Merge I'd like to note that although they were a sham political party, they did manage to garner some votes... S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have slightly changed my vote. I think that this should be merged into List of frivolous political parties. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 00:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-serious political parties with silly names and/or promotional agendas are something of a tradition in UK elections. One or two are long-running and well-known enough to merit an article i.e. Monster Raving Loony Party. But most get a tiny handful of votes just for being on the ballot and attracting the fuck-politics vote and then disappear. Fine if all these little joke parties are collected on one page. But too trivial for their own articles Bwithh 03:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Delete unless there is evidence that this was covered in British news, in which case I think it would be notable. JCO312 03:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was covered in British news. [1] —siroχo 08:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you had bothered to read the debate, you would have found that he clearly means merge to List of frivolous political parties. Also, I don't think your tone is appropriate. Siroxo is not using ILIKEIT arguments, he's arguing that there is no harm in keeping a redirect. Pascal.Tesson 00:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, you're right about the context, but with all due respect, what tone? Near as I can tell, I was communicating nothing of the sort. --Dennisthe2 06:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even though I nominated it for deletion, I also feel that redirecting and merging is a great solution, especially since we have a fairly decent source for the existence of this party. Pascal.Tesson 02:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. WilyD 21:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect megrge into the list `'mikka 19:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nonnotable, we sure don't need 256 million articles on individual IP addresses. NawlinWiki 01:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

68.39.174.238

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

A prod tag, placed by another editor, was removed. I don't think that an IP address is notable enough to warrant an entry. janejellyroll 01:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - per G1. --Wooty Woot? contribs 01:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Inherently notable as a source of Myg0t origin and other stuff. --SimonRebbsell1 01:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - a non notable IP Address, and per Wooty.--theblueflamingoSpeak 01:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)≈[reply]
  • Speedy - G1, A1, take your pick. --adavidw 01:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP GRRRRR THIS IS NOTABLE AS MYGOT AND ANGRY NINTENDO NERD. --01:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade 11:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LauncherX

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

Non-notable software, fails WP:SOFTWARE. ju66l3r 20:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since WP:SOFTWARE is not a finalized guideline, I also submit that this article fails WP:BIO miserably with absolutely no assertion of notability. ju66l3r 22:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. What I have found on Google Book Search and Google Scholar is really thin. Added what I've found as references [2]. The article is verifiable. Strictly speaking, it appears to meet WP:CORP (products): "The product or service has been the subject of multiple (two - two identified I mean) non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself (seems so - the publisher McGraw-Hill seems independent from the authors)." Borderline case... (should be moved to Launcher X by the way - if the result is to keep it). --Edcolins 20:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultra Weak Keep here's a non-trivial published work about it:[3] and an article mentioning it:[4] The internet is loaded with places the selling the product but very few discussing it excluding forums or blogs. Quadzilla99 03:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's just notable enough to meet the notability. Somitho 10:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Quadzilla —siroχo 08:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore F. di Stefano

Theodore F. di Stefano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Mr. di Stefano seems to have created his own article here. it was tagged as a non-notable bio but there's some definite claims, including a small book and numerous articles. I've cleaned it up a bit and added some sources, but I'm unclear on exactly how famous this individual is (he's got something on the order of 245,000 Google hits, mostly for articles he's written on E-Commerce Times which we somehow lack an article on as well. No falsehoods or aggrandizement seems to be occuring in the bio, and I know our business world articles are often lacking/missing so I bring it here for the wider view. No opinion as nominator. -- nae'blis 19:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete seems not very notable; the magazines seem mainly professional journals; the book is not in print so apparently also not very important. Besides fails WP:AUTO (do not put up your own autobiography, if you are notable someone else will create an article on you). Arnoutf 21:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and delete. Possible notability, but this is his own page, and his userspace is utterly empty. --Dennisthe2 02:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Well, judging by his Google hits, he does have some notability.... S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm satisfied he meets notability but an admin should block him from editing the page as it is a violation of WP:Auto. Quadzilla99 03:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Google hits are unconvincing, authorship of journal articles and an out of print book do not seem to qualify under WP:BIO. JCO312 03:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy per Dennisthe2. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Userfy absent at least two independent reliable sources evidencing notability. Currently there are none. --Shirahadasha 04:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy Userfy it. Somitho 10:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. According to http://worldcat.org/isbn/0967596912 , his book is available at several libraries. --Eastmain 17:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Writing a book does not instantly make one notable, if the book is notable which it probably isn't then this page should be merged with the book it self. --Daniel J. Leivick 00:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:N WP:AUTO WP:RS /Blaxthos 23:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Pequeninos. Luna Santin 08:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of pequeninos

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

Unnecessary list with information already covered in multiple areas, lists, and articles. List of characters in the Ender's Game series, and Pequeninos. Additionally the article does not use the correct capitalization of Pequeninos. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information comes into play as the bulk of chracters are non-notable outside of the storyline. -- wtfunkymonkey 02:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raakin Iqbal

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

Notability in question. Possibly fails WP:BIO, also WP:COI. ghits: [5]. Washington Post article does not state that he's a mogul, it states he's a "mogul in the making" and "up-and-coming mogul." NMChico24 02:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:COI issues. Possible userfy here. --Dennisthe2 02:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep COI issues can be addressed in a future AfD. But whatever we think of self-promotion, the fact is sometimes it works. It is possible to promote oneself enough to get noticed -- and this guy seems to have done it. There's enough coverage to meet WP:BIO and WP:V. He's managed to get independent publications to mouth his alliterative slogans. Don't know how he did it, but there they are, sourced. So they're entitled to be in the article. Fair is fair. --Shirahadasha 02:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Shirahadasha makes some good points. This guy is in a Washington Post article, after all. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What we have here is a person who is good at promoting them self (thats why he created his own Wikipedia page). This does not make him notable, at best we have two sources for the article, but this really isn't multiple non verifiable sources as stipulated by WP:NOTE. The Washington post article comes close but it to has a hint of self promotion, who does he know at the Washington Post (which for some reason seems to be a source in a lot of AFD debates). The YouTube video is an interview and in my mind should not be used as a biographical source as it may violate WP:AUTO. What exactly has Mr. Iqbal done that makes him notable? Nothing, starting your own company does not make you notable, even if the Washington Post reports on it. Self promotion does not equal notability --Daniel J. Leivick 03:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with DJL. What has he done to make him notable? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CrashingWave (talk • contribs) 03:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - Yeah, the guy has an article about him in the Washington Post, so what? That's one source, the guy isn't notable, it's nearly completely unsourced, and half the links are to YouTube. --Wooty Woot? contribs 05:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO at present. Maybe next year. Shirahadasha sees COI exactly the opposite as I do; I don't see COI as a reason in itself to delete an article, but when notability is iffy, COI is generally the tipping point for me. Get your undisputed notability the usual way, and don't game Wikipedia to get there. --Dhartung | Talk 07:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above, this fails WP:BIO]. Having a single article doesn't make someone notable enough. Somitho 10:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BIO, WP:COI. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, something notable there, yet WP:COI makes me tip to delete, then again... someone could fix this by end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I totally agree with Dhartung regarding the relationship between WP:COI and WP:N. JCO312 15:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning very slightly towards delete - anyone who gets a feature in the Washington Post is nudging on the cusp of notability. I'd prefer another good source, though, and the COI issues are touchy. If it's fixed, and if another source comes up, I'd reconsider. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dhartung. Montco 04:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Anyone who followed my votes a few years back or my recent run knows I hate to delete, but Wikipedia should not be used to boost his notability. —siroχo 08:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonworks

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

Misses WP:CORP significantly and will probably run into problems with several other software developers named "Dragonworks". Website appears to be here; products promoted in the article are in various states of development and unreleased. I can't see any other notable releases nor could I find any external references or media mentions. Article was only recently rewritten to be quite as G11 as it is. Contested prod. Kuru talk 02:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT, please do not post ads on Wikipedia. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No independent sources at all. No evidence of notability. The assertion of notability is based on speculative claims about future products. See WP:CRYSTAL. --Shirahadasha 02:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Kuru. Somitho 10:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to fail WP:CORP by some way, but google searches are compromised by a large number of hits for other entities with the same name. The forum on the company web site has only a small number of posts (under 150 in a year) suggesting a general lack of interest in this comapny & its products. Mr Stephen 12:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on WP:N grounds alone. "We hope to be notable in the future" isn't grounds for an entry today. JCO312 15:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as being non notable, at the moment. No amount of arguing about potential can change the fact that something is non-notable. J Milburn 17:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crystal balling, no sources, less time adding advertisement-language to WP and more time developing games would be for the benefit. Small groups can and do produce games which garner both sales and recognition, but this company is so early in its life-cycle it hasn't even constructed its 'about us' page yet. Says it all. QuagmireDog 21:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A great example of an advertising piece. .V. -- (TalkEmail) 06:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Article development led to clear consensus before closure. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 04:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silas Kopf

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

Seems nn. Just H 02:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Thanks Quadzilla, I rescind my nomination. Just H 22:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:Notability. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 03:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here what's I dug up on him per multiple non-trivial works:[6][7][8] Boston Globe article solely about him:[9][10][11][12] I could go on but you get the point. Quadzilla99 03:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Clean Up - Per Quadzilla99's discoveries, this person is clearly notable and suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, though the article needs citations. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 03:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the Boston Globe article about him, WP:N is satisfied. The article can use some work, but if nom doesn't provide another reason, KEEP - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep but work in those sources. Alf photoman 18:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I added in some of Quadzilla's sources and links -- would you say it's okay now? Eeblefish 03:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add citations, which apparently do exist per comments of Quadzilla99. JCO312 15:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a vote, just full disclosure - I had forgotten about this article, which I wrote when I first started editing Wikipedia and didn't know the rules. Yes, it's about my own dad, which I now know is against Wikipolicy. I hope that doesn't mean it will be automatically deleted, but of course I understand if it does. Just as a plug for keeping the article in some form, he is quite notable in the furniture world, particularly in the U.S. where he is one of a handful of marqueteurs and has developed some innovative stylistic approaches to the art. Along with what's in the article, his work is on display in places like the Yale Art Museum, and he was featured on the end page of the NYT Magazine some years ago (long before it went online, making it hard to find). For what it's worth, he's also in the process of publishing a book on the history of marquetry. On the other hand, I'm obviously biased, so you can take whatever I say with a grain of salt! Anyway, everything in the article can be sourced, but I didn't think it would be appropriate for me to edit it anymore. If someone else would like to source and edit to give it a shot at passing AfD, that would be lovely, but this should probably be my last work on the subject. Anyway, carry on! - Sasha Kopf 00:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No, not at all. You didn't do anything wrong, especially considering that you did it in 2004. I don't see there is anything wrong with uncontroversial things like digging up further sources. If you don't trust yourself to be neutral, then drop them on the talk page. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Silas Kopf's your dad? I can't WAIT to read his book on marquetry, a seriously under-rated and undervalued furniture art in the modern era, where people believe "solid wood" furniture is the mark of quality! Rock on for posting his bio in brief. Now, be good and get a close-up and full length photograph of a single one of his latest works and contribute it to the PD for Wikipedia. Awesome. KP Botany 03:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources Quadzilla99 dug up seem to be adequate, meets WP:V and WP:BIO, and it helps that despite the WP:COI issue the article tone seems moderate and not too self-promoting. --Shirahadasha 00:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I copied the sources to the article's talk page in the hope they can be used in the future to better the article. Quadzilla99 02:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! KP Botany 03:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Armalinsky

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

advertisement for hardly (if at all) notable author Errabee 02:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup there are purported sources, if those are legit then he would qualifiy as notable, as it seems his work would generally qualify under Wikipedia:Notability (books) since it's been the subject of several independent reviews (I understand that it isn't a perfect match, but I still think it's close enough). JCO312 16:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:RS do not appear forthcoming, not to mention negligable WP:Notability /Blaxthos 23:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PNC Australia

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

I couldn't locate much information of any use concerning this organisations claims. Delete as unverifiable. -- Longhair\talk 03:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Unverifiable. S.D. ¿п? § 00:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the article states they are "old and respected", and then talks about how they were founded in 1994. Thirteen years old does not make them old, respected, or notable. Probably a good organisation, but not notable enough, sorry. Lankiveil 03:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ladma

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

This article was tagged for a speedy deletion as patent nonsense, which it obviously is not. But looking at it, I can't see how this "movement" is notable. --BigDT 03:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless someone can establish why it's notable. "ladma international" gets exactly one non-Wikipedia google result, and even that one just links here. Eeblefish 06:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't even find any proof that this even existes/existed, much less that it's notable, covered by reliable sources, etc. While perhaps not technically nonsense in the "dksfhksjhfjgh" sense, it appears to either be a hoax or something which has apparently had no impact whatsoever on the world (that anyone's noticed, anyway). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verifiable sources are added by end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Pastordavid 17:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verifable source added. Link claimed to the well-known Dogme movement but google for them both brings back nothing much. Edratzer 00:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The web site suggests what seems to be a small group of friends who've put together a web site and allegedly have shot some movie clips, although there doesn't seem to be any independent proof of that. Their studio "doubles as Ladma Christ's bedroom." Cool these folks know how to put together a web site and can spell "ism" and dangle a little art jargon, but that's not enough for a Wikipedia article. --Shirahadasha 01:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I understand the controversy regarding this entry. Basically we are a comedy group from England. We are going to rewrite the entry with correct citation and referencing - of various outside sources. If none of you object, would you allow us to use some of the above quotes as references in the new article? Ladma is not a movement as such but more a small comedy collective. We will place it within the appropriate section on wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saltzman1959 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Fist

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

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladma. This individual gets very few g-hits. The assertion of his notability is that he wrote a paper criticizing Ladma. I'm having trouble finding that this person meets WP:BIO. BigDT 03:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Much like Ladma above, I can't even determinine that such a person exists. The title of his supposedly notorious essay gets not a single Google hit. There are other people by that name, but I'm not seeing anything to do with philosophy or politics. I'm sensing hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See WP:HOAX. If the guy has a web site that's at least semi-funny, consider adding to WP:BJAODN, otherwise, don't bother. --Shirahadasha 01:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE Yeah, do it. I've never even heard of him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saltzman1959 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zrxoa

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

What appears to be an online community. None of their claims seem especially notable; 5,000 members is certainly not enough to justify inclusion on its own. Grasps at notability with POV sentences like "The forums also host a comraderie and fellowship not found anywhere else on the Web," but I don't think anything's there to justify inclusion. Alexa rank of 1,070,339. Article creator removed PROD notice and defended his reasoning on the talk page. Elmer Clark 03:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant "collection of indiscriminate information" (obviously it collects information). And I don't think particular section policy talks about this type of article; it's a pretty narrow section. However, this article does seem to fail WP:WEB notability guidelines so Delete. Dugwiki 18:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may again do this wrong, but here is a response to the above:

I did not intentionally remove anything. As I said, this is my first attempt at making a Wiki page and I really do not know what I can and cannot do. I made no attempt to justify my mistake in this talk page.

If I were trying to justify this page, I would not bother with the membership numbers.

Registered Members: 5,830 Total Threads: 33,175 | Total Posts: 463,980

The significant number is the number of posts, not registered members. More than 12 thousand people have registered over the 8 years the site has been there, but folks who register and don't come back get deleted. The membership number above is the number of active users.

What is at the ZRXOA of significant value is the technical information. The OA has thousands of posts of technical merit. These include every detail of the Kawasaki ZRX as delivered, and every modification that can be purchased, made or installed.

A comment was made about the camaraderie. Say what you will, be we take care of our own. We have have raised tens of thousands of dollars for the families of fallen members.

A similar page that already exists on this Wiki is here: [13].

The ZRXOA page fits this exact category. If that page is acceptable, so should this one. I can see that page has more development than one I started last night, but this one will develop as well, if allowed to.Unreasnbl 23:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[copied from Talk:Zrxoa]:
Do not worry, you were well within your rights to remove the PROD notice (see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion). In fact, it was the proper course of action since you clearly believe the article should be kept on Wikipedia. Anyway, the difference between Zrxoa and Harley-Davidson is that Harley-Davidson has notability within Wikipedia's accepted definitions. WP:WEB lists the specific criteria web sites generally have to meet to be considered "notable;" this one does not appear to meet them. Feel free to make your contributions to the deletion discussion though if you disagree - these decisions are made by community consensus. Hope this clears some things up. -Elmer Clark 23:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wrong link. I meant the HOG Harley Owners Group: [14]Unreasnbl 23:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it's a problem that the article does not assert the group's notability, and have tagged it as having that problem. However, a cursory glance at Google hits does seem to indicate that it is notable. Still, thanks for pointing that out. -Elmer Clark 00:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 21:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Friendship Games

Youth Friendship Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Prod expired with rationale of non-notable sporting event. As an international competition (even in Europe where international means less than in the U.S.), it might actually receive press. So I'm elevating to AFD to see if anyone can find sources. GRBerry 04:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: consider my nomination a technical nomination. GRBerry 18:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I heard about it, but no one else I know does. It fails WP:N. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 10:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP [22ndCW]Dell970 19:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    AFD is not a vote. Reasons for opinions are the most important part of discussion here. Would you care to expand upon yours? GRBerry 19:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As always, originator of an article is required to provide reliable sources (independent media or scholarly works) showing notability. Hasn't been done here. No prejudice to recreating article if sources are shown. --Shirahadasha 04:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are simply no reliable sources for this. -- Whpq 21:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - convinced by updates that more reliabble sources can be found. -- Whpq 15:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A Google search for "Youth Friendship Games" brings 9,660 hits the first bunch all seem directly related to the content. I did some rough clean up, and it needs more, but I think Youth Friendship Games is a fine starter article. Jeepday 04:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Heartwarming as the subject may be, I think the notability is a stretch. /Blaxthos 23:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, provided better use is made of the sources to make the notability (which it seems to me is there) clearer. HeartofaDog 23:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexiel and Lucifer

Alexiel and Lucifer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Essay about a couple characters from the manga series Angel Sanctuary. Has no reliable sources (WP:RS, WP:V) and is full of information that would be of value only to fans of the series (WP:FICT, WP:FAN). As an essay, it is in violation of the policy that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated two other articles on Angel Sanctuary characters for the exact same reasons - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucifer/Kira Sakuya and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexiel --`/aksha 10:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Alexiel and Lucifer both have quite large sections in the Angel Sanctuary article, but they both have their own articles as well: Alexiel and Lucifer/Kira_Sakuya. This article is orphaned from the main article, and there is a lot of redundancy as it is. Leebo86 14:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment For that matter, those two individual articles appears to be redundant to the main article and also ought to be deleted. Snarfies 03:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be an unreferenced original essay analyzing two fictional characters, which fails WP:NOT#OR (personal essay). Dugwiki 18:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Ned Scott 01:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FICT and above. -- Ned Scott 01:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Merge any usable content into Angel Sanctuary or associated single list of characters article. --Shirahadasha 01:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything useable into main Angel Sanctuary article. Snarfies 03:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Alexiel already has a decent entry in the main Angel Sanctuary article, so no point trying to merge. --`/aksha 10:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- 9muses 13:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete totally in universe, does not meet WP:FICT. Madmedea 13:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Werepyre (2nd Nomination)

Werepyre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(2nd nomination) - (View AfD)

Article is not only non-notable fancruft. It is completely unsourced nonnotable fancruft which provides absolutely no context about where it comes from either. It is also a recreation of a previously deleted article, however nothing new or informative has been added to warrant such a recreation. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 04:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Original research, cruft, vanity (I'll bet). --Wooty Woot? contribs 05:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I really, really hope this isn't a vanity article. On the other hand, the Internet can be a wild place at times :) Anyway, unsourced fancruft (from some game; I don't know which one) with no consistency among the Google hits. --N Shar 05:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Werepyre? Is that someone who turns into a funeral fire at the full moon? Seriously, there's no evidence this is anything beyond some sort of World of Darkness fansomething. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up on this forum one day. Serpent's Choice 11:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and thanks to Serpent's Choice for actually finding the forum this comes from. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unreferenced probably original material. Violates WP:NOT#OR Dugwiki 18:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article is in reference to AdventureQuest just as Serpent's Choice indicated. It is definitely not vanity though as I am staff on the game and I myself nominated it for deletion as pointless when someone posted it on those very same forums.— Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 18:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Intellectuals

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

non-notable book. All but one sentence of article deleted as copyvio. No indications of notability obviously, and book has an amazon.com SalesRank of 1,465,705. Elmer Clark 05:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Published by a major publisher (Norton). I'm a little concerned about expandability, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I don't think it is reasonable to go by publisher--very few publishers put out 100% notable material.--especially commercial publishers like Norton.DGG 06:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Lesnail 03:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Milks

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

Deleted PROD. Less than 300 ghits. Procedural nomination. --Wooty Woot? contribs 05:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Real person, exaggerated claims. --N Shar 05:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tagged with PROD. When he is well known he is welcome back. Maustrauser 05:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless properly sourced and referenced as by WP:BIO by end of this Afd Alf photoman 14:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a non-notable band, WP:Music refers. (aeropagitica) 16:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas g. and the fantastic three

Jonas g. and the fantastic three (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Article asserts that band is planning a nation-wide tour, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Does not yet meet WP:BAND or WP:MUSIC -- so delete. N Shar 05:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - I'd db-band it. --Wooty Woot? contribs 05:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete non-notable music group (?). poorly written as well. --Tainter 16:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 23:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CarDomain

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

Wikipedia articles should not be used for Promotional advertisments for CarDomain.com. This domain is also a large contributor to the linkspam problem on Wikipedia (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jan#CarDomain). Fails WP:NOT and WP:WEB. see also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Www.cardomain.com Hu12 06:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Meets WP:WEB, in particular criterion 1 which asks for "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Cited in the article are non-trivial articles from both the New York Times and the Puget Sound Business Journal. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There seems to be a linkspam problem related to this community, the same as with MySpace and others, but we have an article for MySpace irrespective of that problem. Whether it passes notability or not should not be linked to the actions of its member community. --Dhartung | Talk 07:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Myspace presents a problem of those with accounts promoting their personal "myspace". Clearly a different situation here regarding this spam problem. This long term spamming of cardomain resulted into this example of article spam, i.e.216.254.9.2's contribs (Seattle). Shortly after creation, CarDomain.com was prodded (note: this is the 3rd time others have expressed it being inapropriate), this prod was removed by another Seattle based anon (24.18.188.16) who's history of promoting the domain is evident. Wikipedia should WP:NOT be used for promotion or advertising. I believe it difficult to conceive that someone without a direct interest in this article would act in that manner. The spamming anon IP's are all from Seattle, which is the same location of CarDomain.com [15]. Contributions are from single purpose accounts (Jmcdoggy (also created Www.cardomain.com) and Grseattle), and sock puppets created the sole purpose of maintaining this article. Wanted to make that observation.Hu12 22:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hu12, thanks for that clarification. That's more evidence than was previously presented in the linked discussion, and if that's the case, then it looks more like it is an owner spam problem. Clearly you've done the homework. --Dhartung | Talk 05:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete -- is the Puget Sound Business Journal notable? We don't have an article on it. The Inc. article is "Things I Can't Live Without: Alex Algard" -- a list of gadgets the CEO likes and the CarDomain reference is in his bio -- yet it's a long bio for an article. That leaves the New York Times article which is about such sites in general, but only gives this one several short paragraphs 2/3 of the way through the article as another example of a car site; CarSpace gets a bigger, earlier mention. 734 unique Google hits for cardomain.com seems low for a web site in particular, notability-wise, although such a number might be high for article types such as notable 19th century Costa Rican politicians. Any "keep" or "delete" should probably be prefaced with "weak" -- this is a borderline decision either way. --A. B. (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam advertising--Hu12 15:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Two nontrivial mainstream media articles are linked from the article, which clearly meets the requirements at WP:CORP. JulesH 18:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The media articles are, in fact, trivial -- one of them being about the category, not the site -- and one of them isn't even mainstream. The spamvertising is just icing on the cake. --Calton | Talk 06:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with JulesH. Two nontrivial mainstream media articles from relevant publications feature CarDomain. Three if you include CarDomain also discussed in the Contra Costa Times. --if its fast, its probably fun! 22:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC) ← new user; this is their only edit to date. --A. B. (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The Contra Costa Times article is about Boompah, not CarDomain. It mentions CarDomain more or less in passing. I encourage others to check out the links to this article and the other article, then make your own judgment of the references independent of my comments or those of others. --A. B. (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/merge. I will add merge tags W.marsh 23:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Best 2, A Best 2 -Black-, A Best 2 -White-

A Best 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A Best 2 -Black- (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A Best 2 -White- (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(View AfD)

Delete all 3 per wikipedia is not a crystal ball Teh L 06:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Per nomination. I think I'd rather see the content merged together into one article. --wtfunkymonkey 07:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but merge into a single article. The album appears to have been announced on Hamasaki's web site (I'm assuming this is what's linked, as I can't read their crazy moon language), so this isn't speculative. However, there's no reason to create two separate articles for the two disks which make up the album. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A Best 2, merge the contents of A Best 2 -Black- and A Best 2 -White-, then turn the latter two into redirects to A Best 2. While Wikipedia is not a Crystal ball, I don't think it applies here. We have articles for the third installment of Pirates of the Caribbean as well as Final Fantasy XIII, so precident states that this should get the same treatment. My opinion would be different if this were a relatively unknown singer, of course, but these are almost certain to be released. Cheers, Lankybugger 14:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into A Best 2. All the info can be put there. no need for three different articles. --Tainter 16:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (assuming the references pan out) WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL covers unreferenced information about future products and events. However, verifiable information about upcoming things is allowed. So assuming the references check out, keep the article. Dugwiki 18:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but merge into a single article, per Zetawoof. We do not need separate articles. We know that these Ayumi Hamasaki compilation albums are under the same name, but on different sets. So instead, keep the A Best 2 page and merge the separate -Black- and -White- pages into one page. Remember that these compilation albums will release on 28 February 2007. Bigtop 20:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 20:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but merge, which could also "fix" the WP:NOT#CRYSTALLBALL situation by putting the "future album" tag on the upcoming items, while putting relevant info all in one place. SkierRMH 20:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 00:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sexy Losers

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

Does not meet WP:V. Unsubstantiated claim of "significant contribution the comic made to popular culture".

  • Delete -- There's much talk below about the supposedy notability of this but not one reference. To quote WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." I'm not gunning for this article, but it needs references not fans. スキャンダルの家 (House of Scandal) 11:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I nominated this article for deletion so interested parties would get off their asses and find the verifiable references to establish notability. These should be included in every article. I am glad my effort produced the desired result. Now go out and fix more articles. House of Scandal 20:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider using normal procedure for ensuring verifiability the next time you're in doubt. As Adrian points out below, it is abusing the deletion policies to put the article through this process when it's not unverifiable, but unverified. --Para 20:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Webcomic only has one author, author claims to have edited the article only to remove mention of his family name and an unflattering picture. WP:V is a reliable source away. Also, nominator appears to have withdrawn AfD, nomination confused "Unverifiable" Flakeloaf 22:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd really rather see this one go to term, to demonstrate consensus, which "keep" does but "speedy keep" does not. — coelacan talk — 00:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea. Flakeloaf 00:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Should be verifiable with minimal effort; numerous KeenSpot artists have mentioned in news posts or otherwise expressed their respect of and/or inspiration from the comic. Not created by the comic's creator, just edited once. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 09:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Per above. Somitho 10:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is more than just a webcomic, a lot of Internet culture comes from this. JuJube 10:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per all above. - Darwinek 11:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless non-trivial third-party sources that can pass WP:RS are found. --Farix (Talk) 12:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS. I have strong doubts about the assertation that this is the basis for a lot of "Internet culture". I've been using the internet since before this comic started, and this is the first I've heard of it anywhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Poorly sourced, true, but this should be sourcable under it's current title. If not, I'm sure I can dig up something on The Thin H Line. I'll take a look when I get home tonight. Cheers, Lankybugger 14:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One unsourced statement surely isn't reason enough for deletion of the whole article. Sexy Losers clearly passes WP:SET and even though the webcomic is no longer updated, it doesn't suddenly become non-notable after its seven years of active updates. It is probably because of its racy themes that it never reached mainstream popularity or many publishing offers. It has however been reviewed online a number of times [17] [18]. If there was a webcomicking hall of fame, Sexy Losers would definitely belong there. -- Para 16:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unregistered IP's are not typically considered eligible members of the community for deletion discussion. Shaundakulbara 02:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Since when are people without a userpage unregistered IPs?? Please avoid leaving unnecessary comments or "votes" such as the comments above and belove this one in deletion discussions. This is not a ballot or repetition of arguments already brought up. --Para 02:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I might also add that the point of AfD is to reach a consensus through discussion, which anybody, even anonymous editors, may contribute towards. TexasDex 14:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If its notable, provide the references. Para, the place for those links is in the article as references. Work on it and I'll change my "vote". But this isn't a ballot, it's a forum. If Sexy Losers doesn't get referenced the big shots will justly delete it regardless of the # of "keeps" here. Shaundakulbara 17:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Edison 18:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove unreferenced statement, keep article We don't normally delete entire articles if one statement appears to be unreferenced. Remove the unreferenced statement if desired and keep the article. Only delete the article if the article as a whole is unreferenced. Dugwiki 18:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was not proposed for deletion because of that statement. The article is proposed for deletion because statements like that are offered in lieu of references. House of Scandal 18:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no third-party references on the whole article, much less one that would meet WP:RS. All of the sources are primary and we can't build articles around primary sources. --Farix (Talk) 21:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 21:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The references seem to links to related websites with the possible exception of M.O.M. If independent sources are as easy to come by as folks are claiming in this AfD, why haven't they been produced? --Shirahadasha 01:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seconding this comment and Delete unless such sources show up in the next few days. CyberAnth 05:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks notable enough. --Candy-Panda 05:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unregistered IP's are not typically considered eligible members of the community for deletion discussion.
  • It's a valid comment from a community member. It is also not a SPA either. --Farix (Talk) 03:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It appears to be well sourced to me. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but add more independent references (there’s some usable stuff at Comixpedia) and remove everything that can’t be sourced. —xyzzyn 13:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Appears notable, verifiability issues can be dealt with in the article. Artw 19:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this comic is important for us to cover yuckfoo 20:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It'd be hard to research if it's won any awards or has been mentioned by mainstream media, but you can search google for the following string: "sexy losers" webcomic (note the quotes) and 15,600 estimated pages pop up. If you dig further you'll find that virtually all of those pages are legitimate and truly discussing the webcomic. How can the criteria (taken from WP:V) fairly judge cultural significance when mainstream media is unwilling to acknowledge certain styles and genres? Sarysa 21:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • One other note, the claim that the page was made by the comic's author is unsubstantiated. The original version of this page was created on 1/2/04, from a New Jersey IP and traces of it remain in the current version. Clay's first edit, from a Wisconsin IP (still not having a Wiki username), is on 7/17/2005. If it's a plot to cover up his authoring of his comic's wiki page, it's pretty well orchestrated. Sarysa 22:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Exuses, exuses. Quote WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Those who believe the article (as it is now) shouldn't be deleted simply fail to understand the deletion criteria.Shaundakulbara 00:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or understand the criteria and intend to try to fix the article in the near future. —xyzzyn 01:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I said that those that think its okay "as it is now" fail to understand the criteria. I didn't say all the "keep" notes fail to understand. Shaundakulbara 01:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it is verifiable, then provide the reliable third-party sources to back it up. Don't give us the "Trust me, it's verifiable" routine. --Farix (Talk) 01:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Trust me, it's verifiable." —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-01-25 01:49Z
Comment But, seriously. A vocal minority arguing that the community at large is wrong and that policy should guide at the expense of community-contributed wisdom is failing to grasp the essence of WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. It is not the policy of Wikipedia to delete good articles because they are unverified. There's a critical difference between unverified and unverifiable, and deletion policy is clearly intended to address the latter, while the editorial process will self-correct the former.
—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-01-25 01:54Z
Unregistered IP's are not typically considered eligible members of the community for deletion discussion. —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-01-25 02:06Z
Comment - So, to reiterate your apparent philosophy, "everyone on Wikipedia is equal, but some are more equal than others"? No. I'm sorry, but that dog will not hunt. Stop being elitist. Besides, you could have just pointed out that the AfDs are for discussion, and it isn't a vote. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 21:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the strikethrough from the IP's contribution. That was unwarranted by Adrian. — coelacan talk — 22:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was quite warranted and has historical precedent. No one is excluding anyone from discussion, as I've elucidated @ User talk:Coelacan. Strikeout doesn't exclude anyone, it merely draws attention to contributions by users who are not established members of the community, for statistical purposes. —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-01-26 06:15Z
I've unstruck this users not a vote. The issues raised apply, I feel, but this sprawl of discussion amply draws attention to them, and I'm loath to force it to stay struck just to prove a point, at the expense of community.
—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-01-26 10:10Z
  • Delete per nom, Starblind. No reputable third-party sources, no real claim of notability. -- Dragonfiend 03:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In just a few minutes I found an article in the Webcomics Examiner. A few bits of the content of the article may not be verifiable, but I think the article in general is.TexasDex 14:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the find by TexasDex, in the Webcomics Examiner, is very strong. And as Shirahadasha said above, the M.O.M. source counts. So that's multiple, and it fulfills WP:WEB criterion 1. Even if it didn't have that, the plagiarism by Maxim would automatically fulfill WP:WEB criterion 3, "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." Plagiarized distribution is still distribution. — coelacan talk — 22:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney Legacy Collection

Walt Disney Legacy Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Highly commercial and (bordering on?) spam in its current form with text like "The series is a highly-collectible, limited-issue DVD line in one-of-a-kind packaging." Jvhertum 08:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep major product line from a very major company. Disney's nature documentaries in this series won Academy Awards, and Destino was co-created by Salvador Dali. Google News shows a number of professional reviews, so sourcing isn't a problem. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising intro followed by a list of the packaged content. Sorry, but given the constantly emerging classic editions, super classic collector editions and super special ..., this is not only spam, but hardly notable. Kai A. Simon 17:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no arguement that the content of the "release" is notable - but there should be articles on those pieces already. The release itself is non-notable, and per above it reads like spam and advert. Pastordavid 17:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The Keep vote sounds like "ILIKEIT." The article promotes a commercial product with gushing praise and is sourced only to the seller's website, Looks like a spamvertisement. If the individual works won academy awards, and if there are reliable sources independent of the seller, add suitable references and any independent reviews in reliable sources and I will reconsider. Edison 18:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless independent sources provided The only reference on this article is the company's website. There are no independent references. The introduction also appears to be biased. Unless it is cleaned up for POV and an independent source is found to reference to verify information in the article, delete. Dugwiki 18:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The movies are notable. The tin case isn't. There may be a marketing campaign out there clever enough to pull off putting an existing product in new "one-of-a-kind packaging" and get independent press on the box, but there's no evidence this one has done such a stunt. --Shirahadasha 01:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper nom & last comment Johnbod 17:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable rock guitar soloists

List of notable rock guitar soloists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

A "notable" list lacking any sort of valid reference. Only criteria for list entry is POV. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 09:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The word notable should definitely be removed from the title, regardless of the outcome of this discussion. This per the naming conventions. AecisBravado 13:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we already have List of guitarists.--Tainter 16:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All articles are suposed to be about "notable" subjects. So this is redundant with List of guitarists. Dugwiki 18:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 22:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 22:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As the List of guitarists should be only notable guitarists, this is redundant. And since 'notable' isn't defined, it's 100% open to POV. SkierRMH 22:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SkierRMH. CyberAnth 05:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' What is this supposed to be? notable guitarists who are further notable for playing guitar solos? Almost all rock guitarists do solos. Keep it only if you delete "notable rock guitarists" and make a new list for notable rock rhythym guitarists. -Freekee 01:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery (song)

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

Non-notable song. It may be possible that it IS the subject of the vast number of Google hits on the string "mystery song"... if so, it has been part of an internet fad. Which does not make it notable. Originally {{prod}}ed, contested by HorseloverFat. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 22:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I get over 20 search engine hits, and many of them are not blogs. I don't think we should hold this song to looser standards than many other popular songs, the vast majority of which don't get articles. -Freekee 01:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Randolph Hearst III

George Randolph Hearst III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Seems to be considered notable only due to being related to notable people. Does hold some high-ranking executive jobs, but that doesn't make him notable. Fails WP:BIO, in other words. Originally prodded, but contested by Jerry lavoie. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless properly sourced and referenced by end of this Afd Alf photoman 14:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, someone ids working on it but there needs to be more to avoid a 2nd nomination in a month Alf photoman 18:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His former position as publisher of the San Francisco Examiner newspaper is notable. --Eastmain 17:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to above, he is 140th on the last Forbes 400 list. Agent 86 18:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to Delete per Dhartung. My bad - my eyes must have glazed over trying to sort out all the similar names. Agent 86 19:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The 140th richest American apparently likes his privacy and is not much written about, but I suppose his having been the publisher of a major newspaper makes him notable. Edison 18:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being one of the 150 richest people in America and a CEO of a major notable company makes him notable. However, I'd suggest doing a style cleanup to place the references in a reference section at the end of the article. Dugwiki 18:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unfortunately, this article has two sourcing problems. The "official bio" link leads to his cousin William Randolph Hearst III, and the Forbes link leads to his father George Randolph Hearst Jr.. His most notable position seems to be the Associate Publisher of the Albany Times-Union as verified by the BusinessWeek link. He was not publisher of the Examiner, that was his father. --Dhartung | Talk 18:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed vote to Weak keep on the basis of the VH-1 hoax & lawsuit. Strange to be known for that, I suppose. Other than that he's about as un-notable as the son of a billionaire can get (or maybe not, if you're read F. Scott). --Dhartung | Talk 05:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm with you. I see where you are coming from. I don't know if it matters at all, but I get the impression (from the press release) that he is being groomed for "higher office" and "more notability." I think time will tell on that number. Maybe I'm crazy. -- Ben (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I expanded the article, and added information about a lawsuit and two nonprofit groups of which he's a director. --Eastmain 21:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Weak Keep He's a publisher of famous periodicals, the Chairman of the board of a Fortune500 (ranked 287) company, and a member of a family that has their own wikipedia category. And he is currently 160 on the Forbes400. How much more notable would he have to be? And why was I not notified of this AfD????? Jerry lavoie 01:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to change my vote to Merge with new Hearst (family) article. Most of my previous arguments were based on erroneous information in previous versions of the article. (Some of which I actually contributed to the article, in error.)Jerry lavoie 04:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If for nothing else, the lawsuit satisfies WP:BIO in my book. -- Ben (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I glanced at a couple of the other Hearst Family articles before I brought myself to comment here. I have a really strange idea... How about an overarching Hearst Family article in which the grandchildren and great-grandchildren's articles are all merged? I think that it would be a bold thing to do... It would help us see the whole Hearst family mess all at once. Any thoughts? -- Ben (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Families with categories seem like excellent candidates for such articles, although they are often disputed per WP:NOT (not for genealogical data) and through increasing hostility to lists. I've worked on a few myself. The key point is whether there are enough bluelinks and I think this is certainly the case for the Hearsts. --Dhartung | Talk 05:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Most of the arguments brought up here are not true, as they are instead relevant to his relatives. Such as the claim that he is one of the 150th richest men, that he was the publisher of the Examiner, etcetera. The VH1 thingy is true, although I strongly doubt an article would be included on any person for that reason - how many lawsuits are filed in the United States every day? He happens to be related to famous rich people, that's it. A Hearst family article doesn't sound too bad! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Be fair, several of the early votes were based on a version of the article that confused him with two different relatives. That wasn't the fault of those editors. --Dhartung | Talk 20:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As those aren't <s>-ed, I thought it should be mentioned. Jerry lavoie, I did not notify you because I assumed you were watching the article as you just had de-prodded it. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair... I suppose it is typical for people to watch pages they prod and unprod. Thank-you for all you do here in wikipedia. I meant you no ill-feelings in my question above. Jerry lavoie 05:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eastmain's added info. There is enough non-trivial coverage of this person. --Oakshade 19:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 00:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights in Islam (book)

Human Rights in Islam (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Although written by a notable author and dealing with a notable subject, I am afraid the book itself doesn't meet the notability criteria put forth by the Wikipedia community. Originally prodded, contested by Spacepotato. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep The author seems to be very notable in the Islamic world. One of the guidelines for notability of books is that the author is so notable that his or her works may be deemed notable without meeting some of the other guidelines. I think that may hold true here, but I wouldn't discount the possibility that there have been non-trivial works related to this book outside the English-speaking world. If someone can show some examples of those, I'll consider a stronger opinion. Leebo86 13:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable book. Hosted by fringe radical group Jamaat-e-Islami (terrorist links, massacred 2000 Ahmadiyyas in Pakistan). No notable publishers. Rumpelstiltskin223 14:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, now I see a pattern by this Maududi character. Qadiani Problem (book). Incidentally, Qadiani is the same as Ahmadiyya. A genocidal mass-murderer/hater's books should only be notable if they are notably published or have historical significance like Mein Kampf. Rumpelstiltskin223 14:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't we expressing a point of view by including or excluding an authors works based on his or her political/societal beliefs and actions? Leebo86 14:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you there. However... the book still isn't notable. :O Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the author is notable enough to have his own article, I don't see why an article about one of his books (however minor) should be deleted. --Lee Vonce 16:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge/delete author's notability doesn't mean that every book has to have its own article Madmedea 22:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable author writing about a notable topic. The article needs editing, though, so let's give someone the chance to edit it. Caliwiki123 20:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I don't get it. How does the author's notability and the subject's notability demonstrate the notability of the book itself? If, say, Leni Björklund would suddenly publish a book about a notable subject such as, say, Hyacinthaceae, would that warrant it's own article? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is the part of the notability guidelines I referred to before, the notability of the author:
The book's author is so historically significant that his or her works may be considered notable, even in the absense of secondary sources.
It's not a random subject, like you are implying in your example of a politician writing a non-notable botany book. It's a notable Islamic author writing a book about Islam. Leebo86 21:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, granted. But, that still really doesn't justify the existence of this article: first off, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi is not all too "historically significant", and secondly, even if he was, his works may be considered notable. I think not. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If his historical significance is going to be at the center of this aspect of the discussion, it's best not to cast it aside with a single statement as fact. His article implies that he is historically significant in the Islamic world. If that's not the case, then I would agree with you, but that should be the focus of the discussion then. Leebo86 21:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep on the basis of "Non-notable book. Hosted by fringe radical group Jamaat-e-Islami (terrorist links, massacred 2000" being used as an argument against keep. WP is not censored, and does include material about radical fringe groups of any notability, and notable books their adherents may write. It may be that some of the opposition is POV.DGG 23:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment suggesting keep on the basis that a delete argument is a WP:POV WP:POINT, isn't that in itself a WP:POINT? Please ignore the statements by Rumpelstiltskin223 and re-evaluate your opinion with regards to the other arguments. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • He may have worded it in a way that could be construed as trying to make a point, but the core statement is not disruptive. The idea is that reasoning, though applied to a delete vote, is actually a better keep rationale. Leebo86 13:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah. Although I understand your argument, I still disagree - that it's a book somehow "endorsed" by Jamaat-e-Islami doesn't make it notable, no more than a book on temperance publiced by IOGT-NTO would be notable because of it's publisher. The book has to stand for itself - notable author, notable subject, and etcetera does not really make the book notable. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I understand what you are saying. You are entitled to disagree with the guideline regarding notability. It's only a guideline, and should never be regarded as an actual rule. Leebo86 14:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as work of well-known author Maududi. Spacepotato 20:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 21:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Silent Generation

New Silent Generation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This is another Strauss and Howe neologism, describing individuals born in the first two decades of the 21st Century. It's crammed with weasel words and probably original research as well. Unlike other generational terms used by Strauss and Howe, this one has not acquired any widespread acceptance. Google hits are minimal [19], consisting mostly of blogs, wiki-mirrors and marketing sites. I suggest that this article fails our notability guidelines. Nydas(Talk) 10:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Trying to assess the character of a generation before much of it is born is crystal ball-ism. --Metropolitan90 14:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Re: OR, The name is found in S&H's books, it is not Original Research. Re NN:, every other generation in S&H's books has its own article, including Silent Generation. Google hits are a poor way to establish notability on many topics. Re: CRYSTAL, we simply report on what S&H have said. You may say other people (non-Wikipedians) should not speculate on the future, but it is a part of future studies and Wikipedia has tons of future studies articles. It is not CRYSTAL to report on what S&H have said. Fully cite-able, S&H are notable, every other generation has its own article. -- Stbalbach 14:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't believe that every single neologism coined by S&H is worth an article, particularly ones that have not appeared in any reliable source independent of the creators. The term itself is not original research, but the article does contain some dodgy, unreferenced speculation.--Nydas(Talk) 14:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Stbalbach. Irk(talk) 12:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think that you should know alot about a current generation before you start an article on it. We wont know 100% about this generation until it passes. Zulroth 4:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That is the point of S&H's work, they found repeating patterns (or "typologies") in prior generations and thus say generally what traits future generation will have based on prior generations and current events - we report on what S&H have said from their research, not delete the article because of disagreement with it. -- Stbalbach 22:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lemonsawdust 23:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Stbalbach.l --AMK152 (Talk • Contributions Send message) 19:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Stbalbach. While the article may not be written perfectly, its subject is worthy of an article.--Edward Tremel 23:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, even if it is a neologism it is notable, verifiable and in constant use by today's media and society. So you have no argument other than you wish this article to be gone because "you feel" it does not belong on Wikipedia. That my friend is personal politics and does not constitute a good enough reason for deletion. Next... Piecraft 00:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To say it is in constant use by today's media and society is simply untrue.--Nydas(Talk) 08:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of S&H and the system of generations makes it a notable term. All other terms they have coined in the past are notable, this is the next in a series of related and connected terms. The S&H system of generations is also notable, of which this is a part. -- Stbalbach 15:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crisis of 2020, another S&H neologism, was recently deleted as non-notable. I don't see how this is any different.--Nydas(Talk) 16:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree Crisis of 2020 should be deleted. But that is not part of the generations series. See Template:Generations for a full list. All other generations have an article. Generation names are clearly notable. -- Stbalbach 16:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator & above. /Blaxthos 23:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although i believe that the 'Strauss & Howe'-isms should have their own template & page, any of their future-predictions are not valid in the slightest. NathanHess 00:41, 13 January 2007.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after the original author requested deletion.--Commander Keane 23:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Palestras

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

Disputed speedy. I think it is a pure nn-bio and the author has kindly confirmed that it is an autobiography. -- RHaworth 11:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unless expanded, sourced and properly cited Alf photoman 14:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete not so much for the fact that it's an autobio (although I can't say that helps) but that it doesn't assert notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks notablity and significance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kai a simon (talk • contribs) 17:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I created the page, and I say delete it. I'm sure my user page will do just as good. I'm sorry if I caused any problems. B Lizzard 17:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above and per article's creator. Fails to assert notability, so may be speedied. Edison 18:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have left a message for the creator to but the db-user template on the article. SkierRMH 20:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per consensus – PeaceNT 06:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abiod Valley

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

This article is copied word-for-word from page 27 of Reader's Digest Book of Natural Wonders. Wiikid 19:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment though the article is a copy from what I have found there seems to be a possibility if someone was to do non-google/web research. it is most certainly a place, but it comes down to it's notability. --Tainter 16:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Keep. This could be a fine article.--Tainter 19:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly rename Oued El Abiod. Large geographical features such as mountains, rivers and valleys are inherently notable. That Readers Digest devoted an article to it in a book called Reader's Digest Book of Natural Wonders demonstrates further notability. (I've never seen an AfD nom supply strong backing evidence of subject notability before) But the proper name of this valley might be "Oued el Abiod" because that's what I'm finding a couple of tourism pieces about which seem to be the same subject. [20] --Oakshade 17:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Natural wonders" written about in books deserve articles, especially if there are multiple sources and more scholarly sources. Any text that is a copyviolation must be removed immediately. A stub may be created by paraphrasing the info in the article copied, and cited to the Reader's Digest source until someone does the schoolarship to fill out the article. Getting the name right will be a great help to finding more source mateerial. Edison 18:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in its current form if it really is a copyvio. It can always be recreated without the copyvio -- Whpq 21:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is no copyvio issue and it is a large geographical feature. -- Whpq 13:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. The article has just been reduced to a non-copywrite violation stub. --Oakshade 05:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now it's not a copyvio it should stay. --Richhoncho 09:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted by Tom harrison (recreation). Mr Stephen 09:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald del Campo

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

Delete I thought that this article was to be deleted. It was deleted once before and is now back. Eyes down, human. 10:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as repost of material that was previously deleted after an XfD discussion (here). WP:DRV is the place for contested deletes. Mr Stephen 12:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability is not established and most of the article is not sourced. --24.22.84.58 14:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - nominator now votes keep, everyone else votes keep Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Croatia

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

It appears that Red Croatia fails notability, giving a total of around 170 Google search results, when excluding Wiki-references. A large number of the search results are Forums and simple meaningful mentions, some of them like [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Croatia 2 this], where some yell "Heil Hitler" and salutes to the Ustašas. But the greatest issue does not lie there. It lies in the fact that Red Croatia is a geographical term used for three southern Dalmatian Slavic early medieval principalities (and we have an article for each and every one of them): Doclea, Travunia and Zachlumia - and there is nothing that should be in this article, and not in those three. A great part of the article (referring to the nationalist irredenta bit) is from/should be in the Greater Croatia article - which is the boil of controversy. Problem is that the "Red Croatia ideology" is just one of the numerous theories that exist for the soil, and not official historiography. In the end, the current article is as large as it will get, because there isn't much to speak about the term except: 1.Where the term is mentioned 2.What territories the geographical term accounts for ans 3.Where is this term repeated - all of which are already in the article. My suggestion is to merge it, preferably to the Duklja article, which by the way, already contains a mention of the term. --PaxEquilibrium 13:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per iruka & CrnaGora. My original idea was to merge the whole article to Duklja, but I won't do it now when there's a separate article. --PaxEquilibrium 11:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 23:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for 2 reasons. 1) procedural: there no notice on the article suggesting it's up for deletion -- perhaps the stealth is part of the deletion agenda?? 2) substantive: there is/was a Red Croatia, it is well documented in the article, which is well-referenced as these things go, and is admitted by the nominator. The fact that the nominator believes a great part of the article (mostly dealing with modern (mis)uses of the term) belongs elsewhere doesn't provide grounds for deleting the historically valid parts. If you believe things ought to be moved: be bold and move them, don't delete the parts we all think ought to remain. Carlossuarez46 01:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. Also, because it does exist as a political concept. --Crna Gora 02:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whilst Red Croatia encompasses the territory of the three Southern duchies, it seems to be a distinct geographical reference separate from the three individual duchies & thus deserves it's own article. Also, the article is well referenced. iruka 02:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, I have completed the steps of the AFD nomination as of now. The article has an AFD notice which points to this discussion and this discussion's internal links work. I am only completing the nomination for procedural purposes and have no opinion. --Dhartung | Talk 05:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no valid reason for deletion given, perhaps the nominators comments should be moved to the articles discussion page. —siroχo 09:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The article fulfils all of the primary notability criteria. This vote was brought up for the wrong reasons, relating mostly to the nominator's editting history. --Thewanderer 13:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what is meant by that, but the nomination looks bona fide, and at this point we're all agreed. On that note let's just close this, hmm? Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — CharlotteWebb 16:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Westbourne House School

Contested prod, moving to AFD instead. No opinion. AecisBravado 13:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - seems to have some semi notable alumni. Alot more content in this article than lots of other school articles I have seen. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. I have tried to put informative information onto the page and link it to some of our alumni. Indeed it was because of these alumni I created a page! I am now having problems accessing the deletion discussion because the school's security software is blocking the page! I hope this comment is in the correct format. -- Mike.Gibb (Mike Gibb) 15:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you are related to the school, you might wanna check up on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography. AecisBravado 18:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for this advice; I now understand how this could be a conflict of interest. I hope the article is seen as purely informative and encyclopedic, and not self promoting despite my involvement. I will not edit the page any more and leave it to the community to decide if it stays or is deleted. -- Mike.Gibb (Mike Gibb) 20:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Has quite a bit more content than alot of other school stubs on Wikipedia, and seems to have notable alumi. Deletion of it might question retainment of other school stubs. Bungle44 20:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep If the articles about the notable alumni of this school end up linking back to this school, then this school article will serve as source of additional info about persons already established as being notable, and hence the article should be kept. TonyAbou-Assaleh 21:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just as valid as any other school stub (despite COI which may necessitate editing), should just be tagged for wikification Madmedea 22:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 23:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — RJH (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this school is notable to the community and has several famous alumni too yuckfoo 20:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It isnt the content but the notability, & 3 alums is not enough, and there is nothing else at all of any note. For those who thin it notable, just for what is it notable?DGG 00:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You make it sound like any article which is on Wikipedia NEEDS to have global notability before it should even be considered as a valid article, regardless of content that might actually be valid and serving a purpose. Sure, I agree that most articles need to be notable to some extent, and some with masses of content are as useful as a blank page, but given there are tons of school articles on Wikipedia that maybe only a handful of people know about, this does have quite a bit more useful information to the passing reader. My nomination of Weak Keep wasn't because I feel it deserves to stay, but because it contains an amount of content which gives it better grounds to remain. Bungle44 18:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons described at User:Silensor/Schools, also meets proposed schools guidelines. Silensor 02:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable: there are hundreds of schools just like it. I don't buy the "alumni" argument: people have to be educated somewhere, and there's no evidence that the alumni's success is due to their attending this school. WMMartin 15:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge article seems to pass all of the WP:SCHOOLS content, but if it must go merge per WP:LOCAL.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence against Armenian Genocide

Evidence against Armenian Genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

POV Fork of the currently protected Armenian Genocide article, and Denial of the Armenian Genocide. Article marked for speedy deletion, moved to AfD for procedural reasons. yandman 13:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, preferably speedy. Trolling, original research, inherently pov, soapbox, etcetera. Content forking of the textdump that got Armenian Genocide protected. Any valuable content (probably none) should be added to Armenian Genocide and Denial of the Armenian Genocide. AecisBravado 14:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy POV fork Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Aecis Nareklm 14:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fork and add useful content, if any, to main articles. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Aecis.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 15:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete npov and OR. --Tainter 15:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and right speedily per Aecis --Lee Vonce 16:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Violates just about every policy here. --Folantin 20:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete of course...should be most obvious that this article has no place here...but really a good use for this section would be to move it in its entirety to the Genocide Denial article as a perfect example of nearly all the elements of classic genocide denial. Additionally I think it esentially is hate speech. Can you imagine if this type of section was placed into the Holocaust article - composed such as it is - of essentially wartime propoganda designed to stir hate and justify and minimize the actions taken against the victims of genocide? --THOTH 22:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 23:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Aecis. Carlossuarez46 02:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not encyclopedic, obviously written by someone with an agenda. While it should be okay if someone would add references to information from people who deny the Armenian genocide, as it is this is just original research and full of unsourced "facts". More importantly, if there were any useful content, it could simply be placed in Denial of the Armenian Genocide.--213.46.128.161 08:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per aecis & strongly suggest salt as there are a lot of nationalist extremists who believe this rubbish, not unlikely to come up again.  ⇒ bsnowball  09:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - tempted to suggest BJAODN WilyD 14:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete and/or Salt per Aecis. I suggest that this gets salted because I have a feeling that even if it is deleted it will appear again in the future. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 00:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete delete delete. Poorly written (though that is not a reason to delete), emotionally charged (again, no reason to necessarily delete, if it could be credibily rewritten or heavily edited) but on a highly disputed topic, wholly unfounded, and lacks utter credibility or verifiable citations. Caliwiki123 21:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteEverything is already discussed in other articles, and is inheritly POV.--Sefringle 06:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper 213.46.128.161 Ombudsee 09:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete with no prejudice against recreation at a latter date if notability can be established. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chevron Action Flash

Chevron Action Flash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

disputed PROD for NN-team, delete Cornell Rockey 14:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless verifiable sources can be produced to confirm notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an ultimate frisbee team. Also WP:RS, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am the author of this entry. This entry is the first for a UK ultimate team and one of only four entries for Ultimate teams#International i.e. teams outside the USA, of which there are thousands in existence. Until more teams and national associations create entries it is difficult to demonstrate the notability of this article. The entry on Ultimate (sport) gives the impression that Ultimate is only played in North America, which is far from the case. This article describes the longest established, one of the most successful and internationally known teams in the UK. If high profile Ultimate teams are not suitable for inclusion that is understandable, in which case all should be deleted. Apologies for any bad wikiquette. This is my first discussion. Robmitch 12:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Talk[reply]
  • Delete It's a minor minor minor league sport. Non notable. It's about as noteworthy as the local boys softball team. Tomstdenis 14:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In which case, delete all Ultimate-related pages. Presumably the presence of Ultimate (sport) establishes the noteworthiness of the sport. Ultimate is an Official sport of the World Games as are ten-pin bowling, ju-jitsu, karate, korfball, netball, racquetball, rugby, squash and sumo. The Ultimate Players Association has around 25,000 registered members in the USA and there are tens of thousands of players across the rest of the world. Robmitch 17:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Soccer (Football to the rest of the world) is also in Wikipedia. Doesn't mean the local kids league should be in Wikipedia. Ask yourself this, why is it important that anyone know about this particular ultimate team? You're confusing notability with character or standing. Speaking as someone who voted against keeping a vanity page put up about myself, there is a difference between the two. Just because you're (or in this case the team is) not notable enough to warrant a wiki page doesn't mean they're bad people or suck or whatever. It just means that in an ENCYCLOPEDIA it's not useful information. Tomstdenis 17:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Happy to accept those points, and if entries for individual Ultimate teams are to be considered non-notable, then fine, delete this and the other entries for Ultimate teams. This particular team is the longest standing in the UK and has an international reputation. Perhaps that is "character or standing" as you suggest, in which case fine, delete it (and the others!). I just wanted to give some context to ensure an informed decision could be made. I read your earlier 'Delete' vote as an objection to Ultimate as a "minor minor minor league sport. Non notable" and I considered this worth refuting. Reading it again, perhaps you accept the notability of the sport, but not of this team.
        • Comment Bingo. I'm not arguing that we keep/delete other pages. I just picked this page at random from the AfD archive, read the page and offered my vote. Should other non-notable ultimate team pages be deleted? OF COURSE! Nominated them for an AfD if you haven't already. Again, please don't construe "non-notable" as a negative character quality. The vast majority of things people hold dear (family, possessions, etc) are non-notable in the context of an encyclopedia. Having to admit to the world that you yourself are non-notable is most fun hehehehehe ;-) Tomstdenis 18:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment ...but telling the people you'll be playing against at World Championships next year that they are non-notable is likely to be less than fun, therefore I'll let others mominate other teams for an AfD! Of course I accept your points on non-notability. If I come across as emotionally invested in keeping this entry, I really am not. Perfectly happy for the decision to be taken in the usual way, by the published criteria. Robmitch 18:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • For information, I credited myself earlier as the author of this entry. In fact, I was alerted to the fact that a stub existed, created by someone outside the team, some time ago and I added to it to substantially create the current entry. That's not of interest, but just for clarity as you mentioned vanity pages. Robmitch 17:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to be one of the most important Ultimate teams in the UK. We already have pages for US teams. --Liface 21:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the article does not establish notability in the context of the sport (playing at highest level in the UK but no explanation of what the 'highest level is), nor offer any sources. If this can be changed, sources especially, my decision may change. Nuttah68 11:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Luke! 19:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qurghan District

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

Not enough information no sources citedCylonhunter 14:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep deletion reasons given are not criteria for deletion. the district does indeed exist. the article needs to be improved of course but to delete it is stupid. --Tainter 15:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep valid stub Madmedea 22:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as a stub, needs work, but is valid. SkierRMH 23:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is valid and forms part of a project on Districts of Afghanistan. Information is gradually being added to these articles as it comes available Skinsmoke 23:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Political district, kind of like an American county. --Oakshade 07:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a non-notable band, WP:BAND refers. (aeropagitica) 16:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freaks of nature

Freaks of nature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

page starter looking for people to join his band Bigdottawa 14:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete the ultimate nn-band page, they don't even have a whole band yet and are apparently trying to use WP to find a drummer. WP is not Craigslist, and WP:MUSIC is light-years away. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - And so marked as NN -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete though they'll probablty cry. aw, come on emo kids. --Tainter 15:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Blades

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

There appears to be a conflict of interest here, and I do not feel that this topic is worthy of its own article on Wikipedia. The Good Blades advertise this Wikipedia entry via MySpace spam, which would support my suspicion that it has been self-written to create hype Terrencethetractor 14:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All sources are the MySpace page. It appears to be written by them, so I would imagine that if they were actually notable they'd want to link to the works discussing them. Leebo86 15:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable group. will people ever learn that myspace is not a valid citation source? no.--Tainter 15:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jacksprat87 21:43, 23 January 2007,

  • Do not delete this topic. I am the author of this topic, though I am not a "Good Blade". I am not attempting to advertise for this organisation, but I am a friend, which is why the article is so detailed, so perhaps I am bias. Please allow me to make this topic more objective, rather than deleting it straight away. I only referenced MySpace because at the time of writing it was the only source avaliable, however, Good Blades has expanded considerably since, now with its own website, as well as occuring on other sites. I shall reference these also if you wish.


  • Hoodooloo I am very new to wikipedia and especially new to the deletetion policy but despite this article being rather informal, I see no grounds for deletion. It does not outright advertise The Good Blades. If the author (the above "JackSprat") is willing to alter the page so it is more formal and more objective, there is no reason to destroy it all together? — Hoodooloo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Even if the tone was perfectly formal and objective, it wouldn't create notability where there is none. All articles must assert the notability of their subjects. Review the notability guidelines. The only way the article can stay is if this group meets them. Leebo86 22:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the notability aspect is important. Furthermore, Hoodooloo, I have reason to believe that you are not who you claim you are (a "Dr Harold Denver") on your profile page. Have you signed up to contribute to this discussion because you are in some way affiliated with the Good Blades? Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion, nor for promotion of your friends. Reading the National Gazette, it is clear that it has no more credibility as a news source than an online blog. I also found no record of Lloyd Brown's supposed shortlisting for the motor-writing prize -- does the claim simply mean that he entered the competition? I'm not here to undermine the possible future success of the Good Blades, nor their writing, but the Wikipedia entry represents a mis-use of Wikipedia. Terrencethetractor 17:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the two non-deleteters. The author should be given a chance to meet WP:NMG protocol and provide a wider range of citation. I myself have only just read one of the Good Blades articles at www.nationalgazette.org, which they also referenced on their wikipedia page. Would this not count as example of noteability? If it is not enough evidence, the author, or someone, should be given a period of time (30 days?) to find and add more citings, rather than just myspace. stellabong, 22:41 23 January 2007. — stellabong (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ShadowHalo 05:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
read my response above re: the National Gazette. Is the National Gazette really anything more than an amateur website? Does it have any notability itself? Terrencethetractor 17:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apple-group

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

Tagged for CSD:G11 but I don't see this as a blatent advertisement and the speedy was contested. I don't think it meets WP:WEB though, so listing it here.--Isotope23 15:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable Internet forum; Speedy if possible. Leebo86 15:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly non-notable forum. I think it's safe to say that no reliable sources will be found for a forum with 8,526 posts. --- RockMFR 16:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the page no longer look like advertisement (or at least look less like), it is still not a notable forum. Dravick 12:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daedalian

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

Contested speedy deletion; There is an assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC here, but not being overly familiar with Scottish concert venues, I'm not sure if these are actual venues or just sold out bar shows. Regardless, listing here for consensus.--Isotope23 15:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now. maybe someday they'll be more notable. Ghits didn't bring up much. lots of hits not for the band. --Tainter 15:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as written. Lacks sources and doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Suggest Redirect to Daedalus as "Daedalian" can refer to things associated with Daedalus (e.g. Daedalian Opus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Discography is independently published albums (from their own Myspace page), not even "indie"; don't appear to have done much outside of two cities, therefore not even national tours. Ergo, fails WP:MUSIC/Band criteria. SkierRMH 23:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 23:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 23:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 redirect since it's a very unlikely search term. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rob_Black_(San_Francisco)

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

We do not have pages for most other failed supervisorial candidates, and went through this deletion process with at least one other (Alix Rosenthal). Page is only linked to from two or three other pages, and page is a stub and likely to remain that way. Brainslug 15:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Failed local candidate. Not a smidgen of notability or accomplishment in the article, but if you go to his bio on his web site...well, there's not much there, either. --Calton | Talk 06:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't care. If you delete I recommend redirecting to San Francisco, California, election, 2006 and including a link there on the disambiguation page. Suldrew 23:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete failing in an election is not notable in itself and there are no other notability claims (or sources) offered. Nuttah68 12:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete and no redirect. It is very unlikely that anyone would search for the exact phrase "Mephisto (character)" so a redirect would be pointless. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mephisto (character)

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

Delete - per WP:FICT character should not be broken out into a separate article. The information is already at the main Double the Fist article. The character is listed at the Mephisto disambiguation page and it's unlikely that "Mephisto (character) will be used as a search term. Otto4711 15:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless greater notability established Sounds like a minor character with no independent references to cite. Unless some published sources can be provided to show that the character has some notability, delete and include in list of characters in the main article. Dugwiki 18:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete info covered on main page so does not warrant own article as per WP:FICT Madmedea 22:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mephistopheles, the absolutely notable character for whom this is an alternate name. Tarinth 15:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep – PeaceNT 06:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Square wheel

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

Hopelessly confused. I meant to revert this article to the last good version but found out that there was none. I don't see anything salvageable in this article, but some might disagree, so I'm listing it here instead of speedy or prod. - ∅ (∅), 15:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, possibly redirect to Austin Allegro? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I removed some of the crap. No longer "hopelessly confused". --- RockMFR 16:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Good work, RockMFR. It's a good article. -- Bpmullins | Talk 16:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While it is doubtful the article will grow beyond a stub, the concept seems notable. Pomte 23:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has been salvaged. Sourced and interesting. Still stubby, but that is not a reason for deletion. Gandalf61 17:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Villanova University Mock Trial

Villanova University Mock Trial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Unneccesary information about students mock trials at school. Nekohakase 16:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete offers no real notablity, I don't think anyone will be looking for that information. It seems to be all collected from one place, so an interested party should just go there. SGGH 17:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed, and seems entirely promotional in nature. This content was originally on Villanova University page and was split out from there. Unnecessary information. Alphageekpa 21:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not merge basic info and redirect to Villanova University? Montco 03:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge accolades section content to Villanova University. Luke! 11:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Only one year of debate is not enough for an article... .V. -- (TalkEmail) 06:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable school team. WMMartin 15:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but merging should be considered if no non-trivial independent sources can be found. W.marsh 00:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Village School Charlottesville Virginia

Village School Charlottesville Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

One person in the entire school? This is either a hoax or needs to be completely rewritten. Nekohakase 16:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my vote. Though notability needs to be established.--Tainter 19:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably?! Speediest Delete possible --Lee Vonce 16:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even if the school does exist, it absolutely fails any notability criteria and is filled with original research. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comment. After seeing the right version, I don't necessarily see anything notable about it, as middle schools generally are not inherently notable. I'll look over it though.
  • Comment Please, when you see silly things in an article, look at the history. Sometime after the revision as of 03:13, 7 November 2006 by Mrsparker9 , vandals changed it from a school with 60 girls to a school operated by 2 boys who have only 1 girl student locked in the basement. I will try and copy the last good text to replace what is in the present vandalized version, rather than reverting to a version lacking the AFD tagging. Then I will remove the Hoax tag. Speedy delete is completely unjustified if based on the vandal's version. Edison 18:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Added sources and removed the vandalism. We usually do not have articles for middle schools, but this one has an innovative program and has influenced other schools in the area to also adopt single sex education. Edison 19:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed the hoax tag, yet I don't think any of the added references are done from reliable sources. WP:SCHOOL, although rejected by the community, indicated that a school needs to have some media coverage or be historicaly important in order to be kept - something that simply can't be achieved by a small private school. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Its notability is clearly in question, but [21] seems like a reliable, verifiable, and independent source to show at least that a school exists and what its enrollment is. Edison 21:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are thousands of private schools listed there, and it's certainly not a "published work" about the school, but rather a listing within a directory. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it's been fixed I guess there isn't any reason to delete it except for notability. I'll leave the notability of the school for others to decide (because if it hasn't been in the news, I personally don't find it notable.) But it is slightly spammy... "with the school being so small, it gives students a chance to know their teachers personally and the chance to make friendships that will last a life time." is in no way encyclopedic. I would vote to get rid of it, or rewrite the biased information. Nekohakase 23:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep please edison has provided good rewriting and reliable sources too yuckfoo 20:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete What precisely is notable? DGG 23:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence that this school is any more notable than its peers. WMMartin 15:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not assert meeting WP:SCHOOLS3. Vegaswikian 07:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not have multiple independent references other than listings. It influenced *one* other school: big deal. If they'd pioneered girls-only schools in W.Va., and were mentioned in the newspaper or an education journal or something, I'd say keep. But as it stands, not notable. Argyriou (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge per WP:LOCAL.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep – PeaceNT 06:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate Salty Balls

Chocolate Salty Balls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Whaa? How is a made up confection used in one south park episode (and, admittedly a song from said episode) notable enough for its own article. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 16:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Keep. An article over a non-notable episode scene which isn't significant to the fanbase or otherwise notable. Merely deserves to be merged with Chef's Chocolate Salty Balls, in which case should be cleaned of original research. Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with above, and the template at the bottom will need to be fixed also. SGGH 16:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Chef's Chocolate Salty Balls. --- RockMFR 17:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - food item is less than notable but the song is an international number one hit. Needs to be properly sourced but a chart-topping single has sufficient notability to sustain an article. Otto4711 17:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If references can be found for that before the end of the AfD, then keep. Otherwise, Merge and Redirect as above. J Milburn 17:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Source now found, keep as below, as long as the article is written to be primarily about the song. J Milburn 00:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • International number one hit? Really? Nothing in billboard.com even indicates it was released as single, not to mention a charting one. Provide a reliable source for your arguement. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Otto4711. --- RockMFR 17:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep provided references provided for song As per Otto, the song is probably notable enough for an article. However, the article needs to provide some references to verify that it was a "chart topping single" and to provide published sources for the other information. If it turns out the information is all unverifiable, then delete. Dugwiki 18:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect Funny, I usually hear "international number one hits." Edison 19:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - UK Number one single - see [22] - fchd 19:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Michaelas10 and fchd. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 21:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Christophe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.246.25.153 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 23 January 2007
  • Keep. Hit song that reached number 1 in England and was a big hit in Australia. Capitalistroadster 00:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this isn't about teh hit song. It's talking about the confection itself. And a fake chocolate item used in a gag and song does not a notable article make. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 01:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WHich is an argument for re-writing the article to include the information on the song while also preserving the information about the confection, rather than deleting. Otto4711 21:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep per Dugwiki. JuJube 01:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a massive caveat, that being that the article needs to be rewritten in order to emphasise (and contain sources) demonstrating that the song was a hit in the UK and/or elsewhere and that the song was inspired by this particular event on the show. As it is, it's an article about a joke on the show which only seems to have appeared in one episode, with the number 1 single fact largely an afterthought. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BigHaz. —JonMoore 17:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Otto4711 Captain Infinity 00:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep p. Otto4711/BigHaz --Targetter (Lock On) 03:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the episode and song, but this recipe hasn't taken on a life outside of those two things - unlike the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch which is more notable, but still borderline as an article. Totnesmartin 20:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. If someone wants to edit the article to make it better, fine. If not, there's no harm in deleting the page and waiting for someone to come along and make a better article. AfD votes should not be reflections of what the article might be, someday - either fix it now or it needs to go. - Chardish 21:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugmo Who

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

This is a contested prod. The original prod tag said, "Fanfic in development - please see WP:NOTABLE." That was removed with the rational of, "Deletion message deleted, although if not satisfied with my reasoning, you can put the message up again. UgmoWho (or DW13) is an ensemble film, a community wide animation project. It utilises the program 3d Movie Maker, or more specifically its successor, v3dmm. However, we've pushed the boundaries by providing the first ever v3dmm-CGI-AfterEffects hybrid, so it is relevant to the 3dmm Wiki. We will add a link to this wiki on the 3dmm wiki when we have screenshots." A third editor replaced the prod with a reason of "Fan Fiction. Not encyclopaedic content." I thought at this point an AFD would be better than a prod. Procedural nomination; no vote. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment the technology point about bringing together v3dmm-CGI-Aftereffects sounds notable to me, though I agree that the fanfic side of the article has more of a questionable notability. Perhaps an article on the hybrid, mentioning where its from and who devealoped it, rather than on the film, which is less notable? SGGH 16:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fanfic in development? Wikipedia is not a free PR wire service, not to mention WP:CRYSTAL. --Dhartung | Talk 19:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This appears to be a 3D Movie Maker movie rather than a fanfic. Technological innovation in a video game from 1995 still used by perhaps 100 people in the world is, unfortunately, not likely to be notable under any circumstances. -Elmer Clark 21:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does "fanfic" not apply, in your view, to a fan-produced, fan-written story about Dr. Who? --Dhartung | Talk 06:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - its crystalballing, and fails WP:RS as there appears to be no reliable sources for this. -- Whpq 21:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NOTE given no coverage by reliable sources. Even if it isn't a fanfic, Wikipedia is not a soapbox to promote your creations. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a vanity page. Fails WP:NOTE and almost every other notability standard. --Ridesim 09:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This article needs cleanup and referencing, but with only the nominator supporting deletion, consensus is established. AFD is not article cleanup. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 12:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reid Hall

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

An article about an academic facility for American students studying in Paris. First of all, there isn't a sourced word in the article. Second, I can't see how it is at all notable. Its only real claim in this direction is that the building represents "a crucial and vibrant link between the academic communities of The United States and France," but it seems to me that even if such a link existed and could be verified, that would make the PROGRAMS there notable and not the structure itself. Dylan 17:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as an overseas campus of an Ivy League university is surely notable, even if it isn't called "Columbia University Paris Campus". Needs some cleanup, though. --Dhartung | Talk 19:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep two second search of google found plenty of references including this - needs work, not deleting. Will put it on my to do list if no-one else fancies it Madmedea 23:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep though I would remove the list of other colleges, replacing them by the words "other colleges" That part is spam, but I think unintentional spam.DGG 00:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 00:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional portrayals of the NYPD

Fictional portrayals of the NYPD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

The scope of this article is far too broad to be useful or encyclopedic. Seeking to list every film, TV show, music video, or computer game that has ever shown an NYPD officer is going to result in a 500K-article of dubious value. Why is such an article interesting or important?

The problem is that you can include anything from Law & Order, which is entirely about the NYPD, to a film about something else altogether in which you catch an NYPD in one frame. There's no way in this list to distinguish media ABOUT the NYPD from those that simple mention it. In short, this article is not encyclopedic. Dylan 17:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per the excellent reasons laid out by the nominator. Otto4711 17:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note though that if properly sourced the section on the Film/TV unit would make a fine start to an article. Otto4711 17:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. De-listify and turn into an actual article (you know, with words and prose and sources and other fun stuff). The section on the NYPD Movie/TV Unit seems to be a decent (and interesting) start. --- RockMFR 17:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As with any wikiarticle, it should be limited to notable subject matter. The article should include movies, tv series, books and video games that are primarily about the NYPD. Nobody wants every episode of Kojack listed here. - Mytwocents 17:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Exactly, but who's going to be the arbiter of what qualifies as "notable material" -- i.e. material that portrays the NYPD "enough" to be included? This leads into very contentious territory. Dylan 17:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unworkable non-encyclopedic list; even if the answer to the nominator's question is that the article is "interesting" and "important", those are not criteria to keep. Merge anything useful in the "NYPD Movie/TV Unit" subsection into the NYPD article. Agent 86 18:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep provided article is referenced and restricted The article should clearly be limited to listing links to Wiki articles which notably mention the NYPD in a fictional context. Merely appearing in one frame, as the nominator suggests, would be insufficient for inclusion in this type of list. It has to be a notable, verifiable appearance mentioned in the article. In addition, the article is currently poorly referenced. So my keep vote is conditional on the article providing better references and making clear that it is restricted to article which notably, verifiably include a fictional version of the NYPD. Dugwiki 18:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you propose adhering to our Wikipedia:No original research policy? How is this synthesis of data, a collection of all of these disprate appearances in disconnected works of fiction under one umbrella, not a novel one? Uncle G 19:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep as per Dugwiki. WP:NOR need not be violated, as information can be taken from the sources given in individual movie articles (or the movie itself--movies are also published sources, even if their scope is limited to themselves). Given how often the NYPD is portrayed (in a notable context) in fiction, the topic deserves a separate article. I do agree, however, that the article needs serious cleanup. Black Falcon 20:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That doesn't answer the question. That individual pieces of information can be sourced does not by itself support the assertion that their synthesis is not a novel one. Again: How is this synthesis of data not a novel one? Uncle G 00:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I read it, WP:OR clearly and repeatedly rules against synthesis and interpretation to advance a position. This is what sets apart normal Wikipedia writing (which, short of a copyvio, always involves unique synthesis and analysis of available information) - it's research, but not original research. This article clearly has no barrow to push, and I would disagree that WP:OR is violated here. --Canley 03:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If it's just a list (as it currently is), there is not much (or any) synthesis really required. However, if it's to be made into a full article, some synthesis will be required, but it need not be particularly novel. For instance, the "History" section of any article about a country, city, etc. is somewhat synthesized. However, for the most part, it is only stylistic synthesis so as not to plagiarize from original sources. I'm not sure what kind of synthesis you have in mind. Black Falcon 03:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to NYPD; I recognise this article is already long, but most famous law-enforcement agencies have a section in their article concerning fictional appearances. Walton monarchist89 20:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Maybe make it a section titled "The NYPD in popular culture"? It is pretty prevalent, and the portrayals themselves are interestingly varied, as are the NYPD's reaction to them. For example, the game True Crime: New York City depicts a fictional undercover NYPD officer. The game comes with a small card that states (more or less) "The content of this game in no way reflects the actions, policies, or views of the New York City Police Department." It's fairly interesting that they felt the need to distance themselves this way from the game (On the other hand, True Crime: Streets of LA, which depicted the LAPD, did not come with such a disclaimer). It's stuff like that that is valid enough to discuss in a section of the main article, I think. ♠PMC♠ 21:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True Crime: Streets of LA does not centre on the LAPD, it uses a totally made up organization, the E.O.D.[23]. True Crime: New York centers on "the Police Department" of New York[24], which is not emphatically the NYPD but close. I dont think this kind of thing is sufficient for inclusion in this article however. Bwithh 23:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge to NYPD the section on the NYPD Movie/TV Unit. This would be just like any other "In popular culture" article, except the scope is too big and practically I doubt all the listed works will have their fictional portrayals described and sourced. Pomte 23:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Probably needs a move to a more "major representations in popular culture" kind of title. I think this kind of list article is reasonable enough, though like most lists of this kind, its prone to being an inane trivia magnet that needs regular cleanup and rigorous patrol of weeding out of trivial references and speculationI don't think there are that many substantial NYPD shows etc. to make this page unwieldy Bwithh 23:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 00:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 00:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Firstly, I don't think the list will be anywhere near as large and unwieldy as the nominator speculates - if so, why isn't it already? Because people have stuck to firm portrayals such as police procedural TV shows and crime movies, not single appearances of NYPD officers in episodes of Seinfeld or Friends. Regarding the notability of sources, if they're kept to those notable enough for a Wikipedia article (by which I don't mean "inclusion is an indicator of notability", but just that redlinks should be pruned regularly). --Canley 02:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if de-listified Frankly, I don't think that the article in it's current form is appropriate as an encyclopedia article. If re-worked to an analysis of how the NYPD has been represented in fiction, with well-cited references, then this article could have a fighting chance. Otherwise, I vote for a strong delete. Aervanath 05:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW, I have moved the movie/tv unit section into the NYPD article where it belongs. If this article is reworked, then a discussion of how the movie/tv unit influences the nypd's portrayal in fiction would be appropriate, rather than a simple description of what the unit's job is. Aervanath 05:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can think of plenty of reasons why someone might be interested in fictional depictions of the NYPD and the article itself is easily verifiable. Since the NYPD is easily notable on its own, and this article is too long to merge, I think it can have its own article. Tarinth 14:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are some of those reasons? Are any of them reasons beyond WP:USEFUL? Agent 86 20:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Interesting that you mention WP:USEFUL... looking at your previous argument (and the nomination), can I ask if you've read the bit in that very same essay which includes "Delete per nom" and "unencyclopedic" as arguments to avoid in deletion discussions? --Canley 14:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, which is why I went beyond the shorthand and explained my position, unless you'd like for me to retype everything the nom said and then add in my comment. That does not change the fact that I still don't know what the "plenty of reasons" referred to are. Agent 86 03:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defaulting to keep. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Gay Forum

Independent Gay Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Does not appear to meet WP:WEB. There are no secondary sources pertaining to the subject within the article, and I haven't found anything on the web that is non-trivial. The only assertion of notability that actually pertains to the subject appears to be "The IGF became the major online gathering of writers who wanted to think and write beyond queer or beyond the left-liberal orthodoxy that they felt dominated gay identity and politics". I cannot find any evidence to support that claim. --- RockMFR 17:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:OR. CyberAnth 05:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I expected this to be easy to source considering how often Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch blather about it. But as the nom said, not so easy. It appears their popularity has tapered as of late, and much of the direct sources of notability have been sucked away by media companies who don't like to host their own content after three months. However, using WP:WEB criterion 3, "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster", we have reliable sources that attest this has occurred. First, the New York Press tells us that "The WSJ’s online Opinion Journal went even further, pulling in a piece by gay writer Paul Varnell on the gay conservative site Independent Gay Forum."[25] I don't see an explicit date on that piece, but it says "Pim Fortuyn, who was brutally assassinated last week", so that gives us an idea. Second, the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance are using a citation to a piece from the Independent Gay Forum titled "Punishing gays under Islam" which, according to their citation,[26] was published in the Chicago Free Press on 21 October 2001. Chicago Free Press doesn't have their own Wikipedia article, but they do get their content republished by Lynn Conway at the University of Michigan,[27] so they would pass WP:WEB themselves (although it is never a requirement for any source to be WP:N enough to have its own article to nevertheless be used as a WP:RS). So that's two instances of satisfying WP:WEB criterion 3, and either one of those instances alone would be enough. So, yeah, notable, barely, but definitively. — coelacan talk — 11:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Coelacan. Artw 15:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The WSJ may be notable, but not their blog. The other item is A reprinted from B who took it from C, and at least one of these is RS, which doesnt sound like a convincing chain of evidence. Anyway, 2 are the minimum. The entire article is laden with opinion, and most of it is discussing various controversies, not the organization. DGG 00:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpinionJournal.com is not a blog, it is the WSJ's online Editorial Page, which has a dedicated URL. And you misunderstand the second item. It's A reprinted from B, which is exactly what WP:WEB criterion 3 is asking for, and we have reliable source C that confirms they saw A reprint it from B. Do you think source C, the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, are lying? Do you think they are not a reliable source? Unless you are proposing that they are presenting false information, then we can safely say that A reprinted from B: Chicago Free Press reprinted a piece from the Independent Gay Forum, which is no more and no less than precisely what WP:WEB is asking us to find proof of. And if you reread criterion 3, it does not require two as a minimum. You are thinking of criterion 1. Criterion 3 says clearly: "The content is distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster". Just one: a medium. So either of these instances would stand alone. I am not defending the contents of the article, just the notability. Go ahead and tag it {{npov}} and {{fact}} to Hell Michigan and back; I agree that would be an improvement. Stubify it if you like. But WP:AFD specifically says: "The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either." The fact that the article is full of opinion has nothing to do with whether WP:N is being fulfilled. — coelacan talk — 03:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources provided by Coelacan show WP:WEB criterion 3 is met here. It maybe that we need a tougher notability guideline for such material, but as WP:WEB stands this article just passes the hurdle. WJBscribe 17:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spōken Communications

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

Article has had a notice on it since June 2006 that it lacks notability. No improvement since, plus article about organization cites technology that does not appear on company website. Calltech 17:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Spam. -- RHaworth 17:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As it stands now it's just spam, no 3rd party citations, no nada, nothing that leads to notability in the article. SkierRMH 02:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --lightdarkness (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minotaur (Beverage)

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

New drink invented in October 2006. Suggest NFT and original research apply. -- RHaworth 17:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death Has Grey Eyes

Death Has Grey Eyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

The article is about a not-notable book. It does not list the author, sources, plot or much else, and the page has the wrong title. The book is called "Olivia Is Death With Grey Eyes" but the page is "Death Has Grey Eyes" so it is a wrong page even. Regarding inbound links, it is only linked to from List of The Shadow stories where most of the other titles do not have pages so I dont know why this book deserves a separate bad of this kind Pernambuco 17:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the reasons Ive given Pernambuco 17:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that you don't have to vote again after nominating - AfD procedure is based on consensus and discussion, not 'counting heads'. Walton monarchist89 18:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
o.k. thank you, I am sort of new here, but I was aware already that votes is based on discussion and not really on the majority, and I like this, it means that the best argument wins, and not just who can find most of his friends to support. I am the nominator here Pernambuco 04:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, unless sources can be found to demonstrate the book's notability (e.g. independent reviews, numbers in print). Walton monarchist89 18:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no apparent basis to assert notability at this time, either under the proposed WP:BK or WP:N. Google books and google scholar both lack any reference to this work; without someone digging up some critical commentary or contemporaneous news or reviews, it's not notable by current standards. TheronJ 19:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SUNY Potsdam Rugby Football Club

SUNY Potsdam Rugby Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non-notable. The organization is not officially recognized by the college and thus does not participate in the NCAA Div III that the colleges official sports teams (The Bears) do. Lacking any major awards, recognitions, or titles, it is no more significant than any other student social club at any college. starX 18:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albini Household

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

Ground of insufficient notability - DeleteAsstBot (on behalf of IP: 81.174.157.135) 17:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Provide Sources This article should be deleted as it does not provide notablity, no sources, external links, or other outside information to verify it even exists. If it does provide this information, then I'll take a second look. --Nehrams2020 03:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mystic Wonders

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

This is apparently a "bootleg" album, it is not listed in the Band's official discography or on their website; prod removed by anon IP. "Article" is just a tracklisting. SkierRMH 17:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unreferenced. No verification of notability of album. Dugwiki 18:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per this fansite, album is "bootleg; an unofficial insane clown posse icp follow-up to "Forgotten Freshness." Leaving aside the quality of the writing in the article... Does WP:MUSIC's guideline that an album is notable if the artist is notable apply to bootlegs? -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This may be a bootleg or unofficial album, but it is still one of ICP's notable albums, featuring ICP songs not found on any other album. --The Juggla 22:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC) — The Juggla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies.[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. DS 04:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Svetlana Liebermann

Claims of great chart success are not backed up by any cites, record on AllMusic, Last.fm, etc. Looks rather hoax-like. Average Earthman 18:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, Last.fm do have an entry for a band called "svetlana", but they're from Sweden. [28]. Average Earthman 18:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a single ghit! Aaronbrick 19:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Someone this famous would probably show up on Google... hoax. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 21:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. More probably a hoax; not notable in the best of cases: zero ghits JRSP 03:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:Hoax guideline is that hoaxes aren't speedy delete candidates. Hence my wasting our time with this drivel (plus my general lack of knowledge on that end of the music market). Do we have a huge number of hoaxes on Wikipedia, or do I just appear to have a habit of stumbling across them? Average Earthman 17:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The CAT:HOAX is rather large lately. 68.39.174.238 23:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest also making this AfD include all the "discographies" (Hope that's the right word) attributed to this person. 68.39.174.238 06:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support adding the albums to the AfD. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the albums I was referring to are: *Svetlana, Aurora, The Lounge, Cherry Blossom Pink and Moldovan Classics, all of which are tagged with {{hoax}}. 68.39.174.238 23:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Cookie

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; this is a dicdef, not to mention a fairly incoherent and inaccurate one.Walton monarchist89 18:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No salvagealbe content, possibly transwiki to Wiktionary? RHB Talk - Edits 18:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no transwiki. As a colloquialism, it's hard to pinpoint an etymology on the term, but the entry's etymology sounds like it was just made up as an off-the-cuff idea - ergo my !vote to not transwiki. --Dennisthe2 18:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Completely unverifiable, no sources, probably just made up on the spot. Yeah. GhostPirate 18:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep – PeaceNT 06:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Flirt (band)

Bad Flirt (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Band does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Was speedied under CSD A7 (no assertion of notability), but original author and another newly registered editor asked for reconsideration. Tangotango (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, band meets WP:MUSIC as it has completed an international tour, as well as a national tour of Canada. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete article attempts to assert notability by mentioning brief associations with barely notable artists that are on barely notable labels. And Some of these "association links" are dabs that do not link to specific music artists. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 18:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The strongest argument for notability seems to be touring, but WP:MUSIC says that the tour should have been reported in reliable sources, and I don't see evidence of that in the article or the band's web page. Reconsider if creator produces multiple non-trivial examples of media coverage. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we really had to, we could check the archives of the places where they performed. Not difficult to do, but overly time consuming for what should be an uncontroversial statement. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For me, what will decide this is does this band have nontrivial coverage in multiple reliable sources? A listing saying that the band played a gig at a certain place and time is not "nontrivial" coverage. A couple sources already added to the article is a good start. I don't think we should base our decision off the early content of this article, but rather on the number and nature of sources available. If there are enough good sources on this, the article will improve over time. Also, I hate to crystal ball, but with an upcoming record, the amount of coverage this band is getting is only going to increase over time. Friday (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, never heard of them but they tour a lot, are reviewed a lot and play with other notable bands a lot. I added a link to an interview with the Montreal Mirror as a reference; I'm sure there's more references out there, I didn't really look hard. If kept should be moved to Bad Flirt. Recury 20:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am new to editing/contributing to Wikipedia but am hoping to be able to add the necessary components to this article so that it may be considered acceptable. As far as I am concerned this is a notable band to the same extent that many other bands included on Wikipedia are notable. In the interest of improving Wikipedia and expanding it's depth and breadth, articles such as these should be kept and users should be encouraged to improve them. Iradub 20:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear. I much prefer to see some actual albums put out in conjunction with a label before giving a keep, but they have been fairly active on the road, and the Montreal Mirror article, as well as this one from Moncton give some multiple sources. Weak keep for the lack of albums (not EPs) and hope someone else turns up some more sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - With all the references that have now been added, the national and international touring can be verified. There are multiple examples of nontrivial coverage from reliable sources (including the Montreal Mirror and the Village Voice) and surely more to come, as pointed out above by Friday. (Full disclosure - I know members of the band, which is what led me to this entry, but regardless of my connection to the band, they seem to meet the notability guidelines.) mattfogel 18:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Uncle G 12:54, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC) Per the deletion log:

  • 03:12, 2005 Mar 11 Fuzheado deleted Nick Amacher (content was: 'Born on November the 11, of 1994, Nicholas Allen Amacher was a failed actor. He turned into a Gay Activist and jointed the United Faggot Party of Amer...')
  • 06:50, 2005 Mar 7 Dysprosia deleted Nick Amacher (basically more vandalism from 24.20.190.212 - speedy.)

Nick Amacher

Unnotable gay fiancee of gay rapper Michael Bolton?? Delete. JFW | T@lk 00:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Um patent nonsense? Born 1994... Kappa 01:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, personal attack. Megan1967 02:16, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Yep. Reads like a personal attack page. Delete. Bearcat 03:17, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: libel page, no question about worthiness or inclusion. Geogre 04:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; offensive, libelous nonsense. Antandrus 05:57, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. While it's certainly possible that Michael Bolton has switched to rap and that he's living with and engaged to a 10-year-old transsexual, the article provides no corroboratory evidence. --Angr 12:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Angr's arguement. --Jacobw 18:51, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. Jonathunder 23:35, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
  • DeleteTjc 09:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment: if it wasn't obvious before, look at this [29], left by the same anon who created the article. I think this should be speedied. Antandrus 05:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deleted as speedy. Same user created other vandalism. Dysprosia 06:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, withdrawn by nominator, no delete votes. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 22:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

22 January 2007 Baghdad bombings

22 January 2007 Baghdad bombings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a newspaper. This event is only notable in the news now, and will be quickly forgotten. At best, it's just an eternal stub. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 18:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Withdraw, they make good points. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a notable act of terrorism, apparently the worst in 3 years of the war. So the crystal ball assures you that these deaths will be quickly forgotten? How did that work out with the Luby's massacre in 1991 where 23 died? That article even lists the names of each dead person. Are mass killings outside the U.S. inherently non-notable and those in the U.S. inherently notable, or do we look at the coverage in international reliable sources? Edison 19:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would actually consider your mentioned event notable for the law it passed, not just the fact that it happened. It doesn't look like it gets much attention, anyway. What I'm saying for this article is that this bombing, while certainly on a larger scale than those before, is not an isolated event by any means. What makes this bombing inherently notable apart from the death toll? What about this is so important that it needs its own article? I could actually apply the same logic to Luby's massacre, but that's for another time. At the very least, should this article be kept, it could use a better title. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 19:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Edison. Any major act of terrorism deserves to be documented; just because there are regular bombings in Baghdad doesn't mean they don't all deserve coverage. This would be tantamount to Wikipedia making a POV judgement - this bombing was unquestionably covered by the mainstream media. Walton monarchist89 20:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Edison and Walton monarchist89. In terms of fataliites, this terrorist attack is most certainly in the 99th percentile (maybe 98th if we consider only fatality-causing attacks). Black Falcon 20:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in the interest of countering systematic bias. There may be few wikipedians in Baghdad, but that shouldn't make events there less notable, and this was a major atrocity. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 21:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and a stub is generally <1000 characters, for future reference. --Dhartung | Talk 21:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll withdraw my nom then. No point in running this thing through. I'm convinced. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 18:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wally and Osborne

Wally and Osborne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:WEB standards for notability.

  • The content itself has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
  • The website or content has not won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation.
  • The content is not distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

- Francis Tyers · 18:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note to closing admin - the series is serialized on Funbrain.com, an insanely popular website, and the comic is also known as "On the Rocks" - Perhaps more popularly known at that title. Therefore, the comic meets WP:WEB and the nomination was flawed. WhisperToMe 05:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my own nomination. - Francis Tyers · 18:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Francis. bogdan 18:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per those guys Aaronbrick 18:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the site does not meet WP:WEB standards. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "The content is not distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." - What about Funbrain? Funbrain [30], rank 4,200, serializes this series. EDIT: Wikipedia article is at FunBrain.com - By the way, the comic is printed here: http://www.funbrain.com/comics/comic_ontherocks.html WhisperToMe 21:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Number 2 - Did you check to see how the title "On the Rocks" fared? I googled and I have these results: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22On+the+Rocks%22+webcomic+-wikipedia&btnG=Search - See, the title changed, so you may not get many hits with the new title. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22On+the+Rocks%22+%22Tyler+Martin%22+-wikipedia&btnG=Search gets 33,000 WhisperToMe 22:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What's with this spree of cut-and-paste furry webcomic deletions and content-free "delete" votes? The irony is that this "keep" vote is itself content-free, I'm mainly just getting frustrated at the apparent lack of due diligence that is being exercised here. Bryan Derksen 08:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The series, in fact, meets WP:WEB due to the serialization at Funbrain.com AND the actual popularity (through the old On The Rocks title) WhisperToMe 14:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Second Bryan Derksen who is in accordance with my own mantra: Wikipedia editors are overzealous at deleting webcomic entries. Lee M 03:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N, lacks multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. WP:NOT an internet guide. -- Dragonfiend 08:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced... Addhoc 13:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sourced. See External Links. TylerMartin 16:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete The Indian Wars of the Great Plains, and Redirect of The Western Frontier. A Train take the 16:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Western Frontier

The Western Frontier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

The article is a short story, entertainment, fiction, anything, but it's not an encyclopedic article. AecisBravado 18:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It isn't fiction. If you think that it is, then you need to brush up on your history. 71.29.202.210 16:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note the use of the word anything in the nomination. AecisBrievenbus 18:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think it's a paper by some junior high student. Fan-1967 18:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficiently contextualized mishmash Aaronbrick 18:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant and inferior to many existing articles Rklawton 19:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an essay duplicating subjects covered more effectively at Western United States, Plains Indians, North American Desert, Sioux, etc. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete because this article is meant for any student that wants an uncomplicated history of the Great Plains and the West of the U.S. My friend's daughter read those other articles that were mentioned, and she said that she wanted something less complicated. And it isn't finished yet.A*star actress 19:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete besides my personal diagreements on it's writing style, it is an essay, not an encyclopedia entry. --Tainter 19:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It furnishes an integration of information not found in the other articles. American Old West comes closest, but does not even mention the 1862 Sioux uprising which is in this article, and is full of {fact} tags. Western United States leaves out a lot of info in this article and includes a lot about the present day, and covers geographically all the way to Hawaii. There was far more to the Western Frontier than the North American Desert. A reader might not want to plow through Sioux and Sioux Uprising to get the info included succinctly here. The "Western Frontier" deserves an article, and the need for coverage of it as an integral subject is not met by the other articles mentioned, since they are only in small part about the Western Frontier and include much that is not about it. If this one reads like written by a junior high student, so do half the other articles on Wikipedia, so it will fit right in, and benefit from collaborative editing as do other articles. I would only caution the authors to add inline references as they go in addition to the Wikilinks to other articles. Edison 19:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite - the title and topic are valid, but the current content all fails WP:NOR and WP:CITE. Still, shouldn't be deleted altogether. Walton monarchist89 20:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're saying we should keep the title, but delete the article? Fan-1967 20:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm saying we should stubify the article, deleting all content which fails WP:NOR, and leave it to be rewritten. The 'Western Frontier' is a major topic that belongs on Wikipedia. Walton monarchist89 20:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. First off, the title is horrible. If nothing else, it should be retitled as "The American Western Frontier", but that doesn't get rid of the other problems with the title. Depending upon which time frame you choose in American history, the "Western Frontier" could be anything from what is now West Virginia to frontier Alaska. Then on to the article itself, which is just a bunch of vague assertions and rather random events. There should probably be a good basic overview on this part of American history, but it should be titled something like Post-Civil War expansion of the United States, which would gives a brief overview on each topic, and would then link to the main articles on the Mexican American War, the Mormon Pioneers, the California Gold Rush, etc. BlankVerse 04:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to post something similar - there might be a case for something like a timeline or a very broad synopsis, but it would have to be very heavily wiki-linked and let the individual articles speak for themselves. Even then it would be very difficult to keep the scope limited and the POV neutral, since there are thousands of articles about the American West during this period, many of which are unflattering to at least one of the primary parties. Whatever the result might be, its not this article which has no citations, is full of OR and many parts fail WP:NPOV. Delete this version, and see if anybody is brave enough to try again. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 06:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Neutral. With a much better title at The Indian Wars of the Great Plains, that solves only one of my complaints about the article. Still, I'm going to assume good faith that A*star actress will work to improve the article, changing the tone of the article to a less 'breezy', more encyclopedic version, plus adding more details and more dates. The other serious problem is the complete lack of any references, but hopefully she will also take care of that as well. BlankVerse 05:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You didn't change any of the content though - and the name remains as misleading as ever, since it doesn't even begin to touch on expansion in the West, post Civil War or otherwise. I re-iterate my position. Wikipedia is not a textbook. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 22:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it's not a textbook. But this article does provide some useful information. Like someone else said, some people might not want to plow through other articles looking for information tha tis supplied in this article. And I've also started my own page, if anyone wants to talk trash about that. A*star actress 01:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep but rename This article is not about the Western Frontier or else it would discuss the westward expansion of pioneers in prairie schooners, the Mormons, cattlemen vs. sheepherders, railroads, gold rushes and other mining, etc. etc. etc. This article as it now stands is about the American wars against the Indians. Fine, name it accordingly. BTW, I looked at the Western United States article and that article needs work. How can you hope to dump all of those states in a single "region"? California is different from the Pacific Northwest which is different from the Southwest and the other Western states are different from those regions. I also looked at the American Old West and it's got problems too. For now, let's keep all the articles but there needs to be some serious re-organization to rationalize all these articles. --Richard 01:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)
Changed my mind. (Helps if you actually read the article in question. Ouch!)
Merge any verifiable NPOV content to Plains Indians. Then Redirect this title to American Old West. Delete Post-Civil War Expansion of the United States but do not salt it. There is potential for a great overview article by that title as described by User:BlankVerse and myself above. --Richard 02:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that I need to rename it, but I don't know what to call it. What about 'Indian Wars of the Great Plains' until I finish it? A*star actress 02:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's also a possibility. You could merge the existing content into Plains Indians or you could create a new article Indian Wars of the Great Plains and put just a summary into Plains Indians. The key issue though is that you need to drop the flowery, romantic prose and use a more encyclopedic tone. Also add citations and sources post-haste. --Richard 02:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But wouldn't primary sources such as journals written at the time and secondary sources like word of mouth be more reliable than text and video?A*star actress 15:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not in the slightest. First of all, handed-down word-of-mouth is worthless. How many people may have misremembered or misconveyed something in intervening generations? Secondly, we have no ability for any independent third-party to verify the content of the journals, or what you remember some old relative telling you. No. Absolutely, totally unacceptable. Independent verifiability is the absolute core principle at Wikipedia, above all others. Fan-1967 15:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean, "verify the content of the journals"? Isn't it enough that these things are written in there? And it wasn't some old relative. The word of mouth was passed on, in each generation, from mother or father to daughter or son. No old relative, no foggy memory. In my opinion, those are acceptable, and they were acceptable where I went to high school. Could you give me an example of a cited acceptable source?
  • I'm sorry if this is difficult for you to understand. Let's put it as simply as possible: An acceptable source is one that other people besides you can check. Fan-1967 16:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, if the authenticity of the journal in your possession was verified by an expert in culture of the Old American West and the contents of the journal were published for the world to see, then it would qualify as a reliable source. Otherwise, nobody else can verify that this journal really exists, that it is authentically of the period in question and not a 20th century forgery and that it is not the fictional product of from the imagination of some Easterner imagination who never set foot west of the Mississippi. Sorry, I don't mean to malign your integrity but these kinds of issues are what are behind the Wikipedia standards for verifiability and reliable sources. --Richard 03:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about my boyfriend, my parents, my grandparents, my brothers, my sisters, my jr. high and high school teachers, the people that live in the apartment building I do, the other students here at MIT, my boyfriend's best friend, my group of friends, college professors, my aunts, uncles, couisins, etc. Don't they count? Because they are other people besides me.
  • We can't verify any of them, either, can we? If it isn't published somewhere that we can see, we can't verify it. No, we will not take your word for it. Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources are the policies, and they are not changing. Fan-1967 16:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fan-1967 is right, Actress. Anything on Wikipedia has to be verifiable, we can't just take your word for it. From a student in Vladivostok to an amateur historian in Nairobi to a businessman in Dubai, all should be in a position to access the information. AecisBravado 18:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, many journals are published, and a large collection is available on line as "Womens diaries of the western journey". Manuscript sources are problematic, and work with them would normally be considered OR here. But I do not see how the article depends on any of this,for everything described is well-known history, and any 2 good american history textbooks would do as the sources. One is already given. Many individual parts could also be sourced, & for Chief Josephs famous speech not to be given a specific reference is not careful work.
  • It is only a fairly good high school essay, and that it is better than the material in WP says something about us. It could be turned into an article, with help. Most good WP articles have not been written by a single person, as this is. DGG 00:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and I do from time to time jump in and improve an article to save it from deletion. I have done this successfully on more than one occasion (e.g. Crime in Mexico,Poverty in India. In this case, however, I think I will wait until this AFD closes as I would like to see how the consensus turns out before putting in a lot of effort. Can we agree to my recommendation above? That is, we will redirect this title to American Old West, delete Post-Civil War Expansion of the United States and defer a decision on The Indian Wars of the Great Plains for a couple of weeks to see if it is improved to Wikipedia's standards of quality. --Richard 03:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with that proposal. AecisBravado 10:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning per above, Addhoc 13:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per nearly unanimous consensus. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 05:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol 120%

Alcohol 120% (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Per the relevant notability guideline for products and services sold by companies, products are notable only if they have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works or is so popular that the trade name suffers from genericization. Of those two conditions, the second obviously doesn't apply. Regarding the first condition, the Alcohol 120% page does not assert the existence of any independent, non-trivial published works discussing the product. I haven't been able to locate any, and the corporate webpage itself doesn't include any reference to any independent publicity. Previous tags for speedy deletion and prod were removed, but noone has provided any references to any independent publicity. TheronJ 19:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete And if kept, add (software) to the name. It is annoying to see articles about bands or software which are not about what they appear to be. People seeking to get sloshed will be disappointed to find it contains no ethanol. Edison 19:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A very popular CD recording and emulation software as indicated by over 1,400,000 Google hits. As for WP:SOFTWARE - [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], and these are just from the first two Google pages. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I guess the key question is whether at least two of those sources count as "non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." If so, then Alcohol 120% is notable under either the current WP:CORP or the proposed WP:SOFTWARE. If not, then it's not notable under either guideline. I think download sites like the tucows page you link are pretty clearly trivial and I question whether they're independent, but I'm curious what people think about on-line reviews such as ITP.net Thoughts? Thanks, TheronJ 19:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    [36], [37], [38]. This is ridiculous. If you would do some more research you would probably find some offline sources and reviews (such as the Chips.de German magazine review for instance). Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the possible point of adding the link to allthescripts.com? Are you seriously arguing that that page constitutes a "non-trivial published" reference to Alcohol 120%? If not, why add it? I'm open to the question of whether the non-download sites constitute non-trivial published references and interested in hearing some reasoned opinions on the subject. On the other hand, I note that three of your links come from the same site, toptenreviews.com, and most of the others are one paragraph summaries on shareware download sites. On the gripping hand, if it's easy to find paper articles discussing Alcohol, go find a couple and add them to the article. That would far and away be the best result -- it would improve the article and resolve this debate. Thanks, TheronJ 20:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Even in case one or two of these might be considered trivial or non-notable, I believe the rest are a very solid evidence of passing that criteria. Toptenreviews.com contains subsites relating to different software types, in this case, CD burning and game copying software. I am concerned that although these reviews are enough to establish notability, that shouldn't be used as references since they have a point of view. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral pending further sources. I'm not convinced any of the links given so far constitute non-trivial sources (particularly download sites, as you say), but on the other hand, I am sure they must be out there for such a popular product. CiaranG 19:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A well-known piece of software in many circles; should be somewhat easy to verify notability, as for a time it was one of the only (if not the only) pieces of software capable of 1:1 bit copying of some types of CDs. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 19:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a pretty famous piece of software. Shrumster 21:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is definitely notable software. I will look for websites that show that it is notable. If there is a problem with its content then lets fix it. --BenWhitey 21:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the reference to Alcohol 120 winning the Epsilon Award 2006 by the European Shareware Conference, which seems to be somewhat notable. It is sponsored by notable companies/organizations including: Avangate, Digital River, Infacta, Microsoft, Plimus, Shareware Promotions, Software Marketing Resource, and Tucows. --BenWhitey 22:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a number of refrences on Google News Archive should meet RS (many not in English). --Dhartung | Talk 21:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely notable. adavidw 23:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As it is very notable. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone, obviously. JuJube 01:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Eh, wha, huh? I've seen several non-trivial mentions of Alcohol 52% and Alcohol 120% in print and online. Definitely notable. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is indeed notable. Rockhound 23:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The criteria are being taken too seriously here. As many others have noted, Alcohol 120% is very popular and references are easy to come accross even outside of computer geek circles. An individual unfamiliar with the product should be able to find information about it on Wikipedia, which, let's remember, is not paper. Furthermore, though the article does need some expansion and clean-up, its exstistence does not detract from Wikipedia's image or authority. Any reasonable observer can see the merit of the article. V-pizz 21:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm aware of the sockpuppet issues but I do not think speedy keep applies here technically as obviously good faith editors supported deletion. Anyway, this is an article with no references except a myspace page... if anyone can present genuine references I will strongly consider undeletion. W.marsh 20:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Lyons

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

person failing WP:BIO and lacking references Jeremiahlaughlin 19:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even adding 'wrestler' to the name doesn't bring up Google hits on this person... unless he can produce sources, delete. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. WP:FAN may apply here. Walton monarchist89 20:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article has only just been created, I hate it when ppl nominate articles like these so quickly. You really need to give it some time to develop to see if it is worth keeping. Govvy 21:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you search "Iron Mike Lyons" you will find out more about him, he has been wrestling for 15 years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.130.89.41 (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Person not notable. Having wrestled for 15 years means nothing for notability. ↪Lakes (Talk) 09:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close and default to keep, creator of AfD is a sockpuppet of JB196 (talk · contribs · block log) as established by this. –– Lid(Talk) 07:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scotty 2 Hotty and Funaki

Scotty 2 Hotty and Funaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This team isn't very notable. They've teamed only a few times: no tag titles, hardly any wins, no significant storylines, etc. Tag team cruft like this belongs on a wrestling wiki, not here. Wikipedia isn't a guide to every lesser team in wrestling. Relevant information (a sentence or two) only belongs on the Funaki and Scotty articles. RobJ1981 19:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Another classic example of WP:FAN. Walton monarchist89 20:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Govvy 21:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The info belongs on the Scotty and Funaki articles. - Geoffg 05:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. «»bd(talk stalk) 14:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Without sourcing, the basic foundation for article writing does not exist. - brenneman 01:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T.H.E. Fox

T.H.E. Fox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:WEB guidelines for notability.

  • The content itself has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
  • The website or content has not won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation.
  • The content is not distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

- Francis Tyers · 19:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my own nomination. - Francis Tyers · 19:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepDelete as above. Rintrah 20:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC) The arguments below establish its notability. Rintrah 13:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You realise that this "proof" is taken from an alleged interview with the artist, not from concrete evidence? They have not been verified and the artist may as well be making them up. - Francis Tyers · 13:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have any reason to doubt that the interview took place. It is part of the information archives of the GEnie Commodore board. Similiarly, the comics are all there for you to see. The claims made by the author are not unreasonable, either - we just don't happen to have copies of the items concerned from 15 years ago to check them (and this does not mean that copies don't exist). GreenReaper 19:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought this was notable since it is the first comic strip produced exclusively for the Internet. Ashibaka (tock) 20:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first Internet comic ought to be notable, but unfortunately googling for references on this one is difficult. —xyzzyn 22:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 01:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This should not be moved to Comixpedia, though it should certainly have an entry there. It is exactly the sort of cultural history article that adds worth to Wikipedia. The comic ran to several hundred strips (I have almost 200 just from September 1987 to the end of 1989, and it reportedly ran for over twice that period). Characters from it appeared in the San Bernardino County Sun, TC-128 and Carousel News & Trader (originally the Carousel Trader). At the time it was most active - before the web which the WP:WEB guidelines cover was even invented! - it was distributed on CompuServe, Quantum Link and GEnie, three well-known early online service providers. It had a separate section on at least the last of these. The only reason we still have any of it now is that people thought the comic worthy enough to keep archives of it from over fifteen years ago. GreenReaper 05:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • More info on the published instances of this work here. GreenReaper 09:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No proof of any of these. No assertion of notability of the Carousel Trader, or any of the others. In other words a non-notable cartoon published in a series of non-notable bits of paper. They have not been verified and the artist may as well be making them up. - Francis Tyers · 13:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[39] (page 7) gives a circulation of 71934 for The SBC Sun. [40] gives an establishment date of 1894. I’d say this hints at some sort of notability. However, I am far away from any archive of these publications, so I can’t check whether, how and when the comic appeared there. —xyzzyn 14:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats what I said, there is no proof that the comic appeared there at all. They might as well have said it appeared in the Rangoon Times. - Francis Tyers · 15:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you were right to ask. I’ve talked to Joe Ekaitis (the artist) and he said his work published in the Sun consisted of editorial cartoons, but no issues of T.H.E. Fox. —xyzzyn 19:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody ever said the strips were published there. It is the characters that were. GreenReaper 19:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was one of the first online comics, and existed before the web itself. —siroχo 09:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep, if deleted move anything not already in the Comixpedia wiki there; looks like it’s notable, but really needs better references. —xyzzyn 14:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To elaborate, I think the article really lacks references. However, it does seem to be a very early online comic, quite possibly the first, and that makes it notable. Furthermore, the nomination refers to websites, a historically later albeit related matter; my common sense tends towards keeping. Also, if Ekaitis’s book is/becomes notable enough, the whole thing could be merged in Joseph Ekaitis. —xyzzyn 19:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. It's notable enough, just needs more references and the like.--Wizardman 16:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As the article stands, it's a clear delete, however, it looks like the article could be improved if GreenReaper can better track down sources. I'd be satisfied with 1) Keeping this with notability and unsourced concern templates for a few months and then revisiting the deletion issue if necessary, or 2) Deleting it without prejudice toward recreation, moving it to GreenReaper's user space so it can be improved, and then back to mainspace when it is more properly sourced. -- Dragonfiend 18:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree quite strongly with your assertion that it is a clear delete. If a topic is worthy (and being the first comic regularly distributed online plus having its own section in GEnie is sufficient for me) but the article is not good enough, that just means the article needs to be improved - which has been the case for just about all Wikipedia articles at some time or another. This one certainly can be improved, and I had intended to do so myself several months ago (that's why I took the time to convert all the images that I have from Commodore format) but managing WikiFur, writing up my reports on a few conventions and the imminent release of Windows Vista have intervened. The latter has not yet happened, which is why I'm still busy. :-)
    I'm not really sure where you're coming from with "more properly sourced", either. An interview with the author taken at the time of the comic seem like a perfectly acceptable secondary source (the fact that the interview took place at all is also a measure of notability), and the comic strips and website are good examples of primary sources that can be used to confirm it. It would be nice to have specific references to confirm the specific claims about publication made in the interview. However, WP:V states that such information can be used as long as it is not contentious - and they're hardly claiming to have been published in the New York Times. GreenReaper 19:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since when was a bulletin board a reliable source? Its essentially self-publishing, which is one under vanity-press. I realise you're not going to be able to come up with something from OUP, but come on, surely something notable can do better than a BBS. - Francis Tyers · 00:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, that was pretty much the best there was online at the time, aside from NSFNet . . . and yes, I'd love to have more offline coverage, but it's hard to see who outside their community would have covered one guy "uploading" comics to an esoteric, mostly text-based service that maybe one in a thousand North Americans knew existed at the time. It took twenty years for online content creators to be recognized by Time. Ironically, given that BBS's were community-run, the closest equivalent nowadays would probably be an interview by Wikinews. :-)
Another confirmation of material mentioned in the interview - Spiffy Spring Special '95 is mentioned in a rec.arts.comics.info post, and T.H.E. FOX is listed as one of the comics featured within it. I haven't seen any further mentions of the comic, though the publisher has a few other publications that are available online at Mile High Comics. Note that the comic is not notable because it was particularly good (it's certainly funny, but Joe was not a professional artist at the time, and it is clearly outclassed in technical quality by more recent work), but because it is the first that we can confirm as being regularly distributed online. GreenReaper 04:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you have no proof that it was the first. No independent investigation or reliable sources which state it as such. A Wikinews interview would have the same problem. I realise we aren't going to have a published peer-review scientific or historical paper on the likely "first online distributed webcomic". But something independently verified and published by a reputable publisher or collator of cartoons (perhaps a large comic book house) should be possible. The problem is that esoteric here means obscure, and obscure for webcomics generally means non-notable. - Francis Tyers · 12:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. A Train take the 16:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WarCry (website)

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

It's almost a year since this was last put up for AfD and there are still no independent references or signs of fulfilling WP:WEB. Marasmusine 19:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Marasmusine 19:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, The alexa ranking of 11,000 quoted in the first AFD isn't anything special. Couldn't find any independent sources myself. If someone did find some decent sources to write an article from then maybe I'd reconsider. Recury 19:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. It looks like a blog with no comments, suggesting it isn't very popular. Article doesn't give us any way to verify notability, so failing that, delete. — brighterorange (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. CyberAnth 06:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unfortunately, the article does not contain any verified claims of notability which would comply with WP:WEB. --Alan Au 06:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete. It's better now that sources have been added along with some support for notability. However, being cited by less-notable venues doesn't really add a lot to the article. Would change to "weak keep" if better (i.e. more notable) references were provided. WarCry is indeed a moderately well-known gaming site. The main issue for me here is whether it's notable enough for an article, as determined by overall impact on the broader gaming community. --Alan Au 21:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Added some IGN and GameSpot references, as well as some acknowledgements by game developers for their Editor's Choice Awards. Hope that's enough. Shrumster 08:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stubify - 1.5M Ghits, and this is a rather well-known network of fansites in the computer gaming space. Based on the comments from a couple of the commenters above, I have to assume that some who voted delete are simply unfamiliar with the most popular sites in computer gaming. WarCry is rather venerable and while this article could be improved (and I would advocate stubification) I really can't imagine deleting it. Tarinth 14:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You need to sort of prove its popularity with some independent references. And only a small percentage of those 1.5M google hits actually refer to this fan site. Marasmusine 15:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The above statement is an inaccurate assumption. A quick statistical sampling of the top four pages of google for "warcry" turn up links that are 100% related to the site. The top four pages of google! While I'm comfortable admitting that some percentage of the 1.5M links are unrelated, I don't think that the percentage is "small" (whatever that means). Given that none of the core policies of WP:V, WP:NOR or WP:NPOV are violated with this article, it seems obvious that it should stay as a matter of common sense. Tarinth 00:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Google News uses it as a news source. This on its own doesn't prove notability, but they do have their own exclusive interviews with various MMO studios. These are linked to from stories at IGN such as [41], so I'm assuming they're a trusted news source for the MMO community. - hahnchen 16:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Thanks for the link, I added some of the IGN links and a short blurb saying how WCN is referenced by major gaming sites. Shrumster 08:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems like a pretty significant site, like IGN & Stratics. I added a couple of references to the article, mostly about other websites utilizing its (WarCry) as sources and the like. Also, it;s significant enough that they've been officially recognized (and somewhat partnerized) by at least one of the games they're covering (Lineage II - I added a reference to that too). And I also stubified it so that it gets more attention and hopefully gets expanded in the future by someone who knows more about the company's history. Shrumster 19:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No significant content (unlike Simtropolis), seems like a blog, forums pretty much empty except for Off-Topic. TheListUpdater 22:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a purely subjective observation that has nothing to do with either notability, or any of the policies pertaining to whether it should be included. It also demonstrates that this voter has only looked at the surface-level of the site: in addition, it is comprised of a large number of game-specific sites that are part of its network, each of which has its own additional content. Tarinth 00:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here's a summary so far of the major links I've added to the article per WP:WEB - #1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.. These are the best sources so far: [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] I referenced these as links that refer to the website itself, or consider it significantly notable enough as to source it for news/interviews/etc. These should demonstrate notability of the WCN. Shrumster 08:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it's looking much, much better. I wouldn't say that links 4 and 5 there have WarCry as the subject but I'm happy to change my opinion to keep. Marasmusine 09:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SakotGrimshine 18:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'd advise you to look at the article first. There already are a number of independent sources, and the site passes WP:WEB#3 by being reprinted/relinked even by other sites that it's supposed to be in competition with. Shrumster 19:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Oh, it's also been pointed out to me that the article now passes WP:WEB#1 with the new references added. Shrumster 20:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm laughing my ass off at these "reliable" sources. Just removed one which was a from a GameSpot forum, but was linked in such a way to look like it was a news link. --- RockMFR 05:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, this article is built on a foundation of sand. These references are laughable. --- RockMFR 05:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's hard to assume good faith considering the tone of your statements. Some of the links you removed are significant to the article. The GameSpot one in particular supported this statement "gaming websites such as IGN, GameZone and GameSpot reference articles and interviews done by the WarCry network." Some of the statements you removed were describing the context in which the references were used. Still, including your alterations, the article does show the notability of the subject there of. Shrumster 09:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. BTW, why edit the article and remove links/statements if you're going to vote delete anyway? While I'm assuming good faith, it's hard to do so when someone who votes delete makes alterations to the article that might be construed as weakening the article's significance. Shrumster 09:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Anyway, thanks for pointing out the GameZone link. I re-added it, this time pointing towards the proper page, and not to the print site. Shrumster 09:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. On contributions from *cough* very new members of the community, they were all suprisingly coherent and some even centered on wikipedia policies or guidelines. Refreshing. However, this debate was still only loosely structured, and the main argument appears to be regarding the strip's satisif-ication of the web material guideline. This hinges on the Web Cartoonist's Choice awards, and the consensus (as demostrated here) amoung the more established editors is that it does not count as a a notable independent award. This is quite arbitrary, and I've raised a section on the talk page of the guideline regarding this: Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)/Archive 08#Web Cartoonist's Choice award
brenneman 04:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures

Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:WEB guidelines for notability.

  • The content itself has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
  • The website or content has not won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation.
  • The content is not distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

- Francis Tyers · 19:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my own nomination. - Francis Tyers · 19:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it has achieved notability for having won the Web Cartoonists Choice awards, a standard which has been used in previous AFDs. Also, having been written continuously for six years (longer than many print comics), its longevity should be considered, even if it isn't officially part of the guidelines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.243.116.222 (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, per above. It's a shame that many of the webcomics can't be featured on Wikipedia because of the current Web notability. My opinion is that if a webcomic has lasted more than a year, it can have an article. More than 5 years, it should have an article. My rant is done Madd the sane 02:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't meet our notability or verifiablity standards. With no decent references, the article is all original research and personal point of view. -- Dragonfiend 04:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain, Well, "wikipedia's" requirements of "notability" basically exclude any and all web references including reviews and notables such as an Awards nomination, etc... a bit elitist... but slightly understandable because of the intent of which Wikipedia opperates... Sadly it's highly restrictive. In any case, I think Wikifur does not have this rigidness of "notability". Is there a Wiki for Webcomics (not comixpedia)? If not, there should be, without this "notability" rigidness... there needs to be a version of Wiki the is more inclusive of various Internet popularity. --Fesworks 05:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comixpedia sounds perfect for this type of article. Comixpedia has an article on this comic [47] that was originally based on this Wikipedia article. You could proabably merge this article into Comixpedia's. -- Dragonfiend 05:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comixpedia doesn't use Wiki technology, it's HTML I believe. Also I agree comepletely that "Notability is not the same as verifiability." which does seem to be the case with Wikipedia... It seems Wikipedia just wants to be an limited encyclopedia, excluding whatever doesn't seem to be in print or a favorite of the higher Wiki Editors. It seems very selective. Not just talking about this article, but numerous others. Some articles chosen for deletion make my head spin for the "lack of notability", even though a few simple click will prove you wrong because there it is, readily available on the net. Perhaps I'll print out a version and mail it in to you guys. But whatever. There are other reference sites less anal that I choose to use instead now. --Fesworks 21:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[48][reply]
        • Comixpedia seemed wiki enough. Might not be a complete and usable wiki… Madd the sane 03:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is not the same as verifiability. The two concepts are often confused as indicated [[49]] and [[50]]. Reading between the lines, Francis Tyers sounds like he's arguing based upon the fame/lack of fame of the comic in question - but this is not a wikipedia criteria. Though it may be a technicality, a large amount of material exists in the site's forum, which though hosted locally was produced by multiple sources that are independent of the site itself. WP:NOT and DMFA is obviously not WP:NFT. I see no reason for deletion. ANTIcarrot 07:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For clarity's sake, the forum is not hosted on the same server as the comic. In fact, neither was the old forum, nor the backup copy thereof kept for reference purposes. And all three were managed by independant people - although I'll admit the new forum is run by the author's relative. (since I host the backup, I must admit a touch of bias, and hence abstain from voting.) -- Llearch 15:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Notability rules and their application have been questioned often enough, and it's clear that they're hostile to webbased publications. Slapping well-known webcomics with semantics is a disgrace, and I don't believe that this is the aim of Wikipedia. DMFA has been nominated for an award and reviewed online multiple times. The comic is notable enough to be able to generate a healthy amount of monthly donations and has a dedicated forum with 450+ members. It's definitely notable enough for this single entry, and removing it would do more damage than good. --Sid 3050 20:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User has 3 edits, 1 from from this AfD. - Francis Tyers · 23:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep On the basis that it doesn't violate WP:NOT — "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." All the information presented can be verified, either through the comic itself, or through the statements of the author. —modelincard 19:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
User has 2 edits, 1 from this AfD. - Francis Tyers · 23:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleting this article would lessen Wikipedia, just as Francis' other AfD for T.H.E. FOX would. 740 strips, issued on a tri-weekly basis for the last few years, 8 years history in total. It even has its own audio version. People look to Wikipedia for information about such topics, and they should find it, not be shuffled off to Comixpedia or WikiFur. GreenReaper 15:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User has 2600 edits, 1 from this AfD - GreenReaper 15:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lacking reliable sources. bogdan 11:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you consider a reliable source? Most of the information is from the comic itself, or from the statements of the author. -Modelincard 23:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Best Fun Club

Best Fun Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

No assertion or evidence of notability; would be different if the video in question had already been released. Walton monarchist89 20:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If the group becomes well-known in relation to the movie, it'll be time to resubmit, but I can't even find much using Google about the movie and it doesn't appear on IMDb. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NawlinWiki 20:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James P. Howard

James P. Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Unverifiable per WP:V; no assertion of notability; discussion of 'rage' fails WP:NOR. Walton monarchist89 20:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per consensus. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 05:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Online

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

Does not meet WP:WEB guidelines for notability.

  • The content itself has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
  • The website or content has not won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation.
  • The content is not distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

- Francis Tyers · 20:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my own nomination. - Francis Tyers · 20:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Apparently the comic was regularly published in the Amiga Format (which is notable enough to have its own article), as seen in the tables of content available at [51]. The comic’s website mentions other publications, but those don’t seem quite so notable. There is a detailed (i. e. non-trivial) review on Comixpedia (not the wiki). I think this does establish notability. —xyzzyn 20:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The comic has won the 2001 Web Cartoonist Choice Award for Best Romantic Comic[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Web_Cartoonist%27s_Choice_Awards#Best_Romantic_Comic] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kchishol1970 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC). Furthermore, the strip's been a recurring nominee for the award's Outstanding Anthropomorphic Comic --kchishol1970 13:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for publishing in a regular magazine and the award above. (as an aside, can we try to avoid nominating groups of furry articles/comics all at once? I know a lot of them are necessary, but I'm getting tired of trying to tone down the "Wikipedia conspiracy against furries" discussions that break out. =P ) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! this article should be kept I really like it and think that it is truthful! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bantha child (talk • contribs) 22:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Please see WP:ILIKEIT on why it is useless to post this kind of comment. —xyzzyn 23:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Not only is Eric Schwartz one of the premiere A-list artists in furry fandom (his creation Amy the Squirrel, who also appears in this comic, was once an widely known (albeit unofficial) spokesmascot for Amiga in their final years), but also, as stated above, it has won awards and is printed in mediums other than the website. The vast majorities of the furry and webcomic fandoms are aware of this comic. I think that qualifies as notable. - EmiOfBrie 00:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't meet our notability or verifiablity standards. With no decent references, the article is all original research and personal point of view. -- Dragonfiend 04:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, Part of what makes Sabrina Online notable is that it has created a universe in which many other authors have created stories and comics. In addition to the previously posted more traditional measures of notability, having defined a sub-genre certainly seems to denote notability to me. TGIF 10:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You're kidding, right? Aside from being one of the THE furry webcomics, it has won the 2001 Cartoonist's Choice Award (Best Romantic Comic) and has been nominated in 2002 (Best Anthropomorphic Comic), 2003 (Outstanding Romantic Comic) and 2004 (Outstanding Anthropomorphic Comic). As per WP:WEB (which is already hostile towards webcomics in my eyes), this IS an indicator for notability (won one award, nominated in multiple years). --Sid 3050 21:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I’ve put the award stuff and the Amiga Format into the article. Would those who were in favour of deleting the article please take another look? —xyzzyn 22:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems very notable in its field. User:Dimadick
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Badly Drawn Kitties

Badly Drawn Kitties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:WEB guidelines for notability.

  • The content itself has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
  • The website or content has not won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation.
  • The content is not distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

- Francis Tyers · 20:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my own nomination. - Francis Tyers · 20:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that you don't need to vote again after nominating; per WP:AFD decisions are made on the basis of discussion and consensus, not 'counting heads'. Walton monarchist89 20:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How much does it matter? I feel more comfortable doing it this way... - Francis Tyers · 20:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't meet our notability or verifiablity standards. With no decent references, the article is all original research and personal point of view. -- Dragonfiend 04:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 advert (G11). AecisBravado 00:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Riccardi Collection

The Riccardi Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I'm simply completing an incomplete nomination that kept showing up on the January 23 AfD log. I'm not sure why the original nominator wanted to delete the article, but my guess would be that it looks like an advertisement. At the very least it's got a whole swath of article-killing issues relating to WP:V, WP:N, WP:CORP, WP:COI, and WP:NPOV. Probably qualifies for a Speedy Delete as well. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 23:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 20:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deadite

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

Seems to me like obscure fancruft; would advise deletion per WP:FICT, although admittedly I don't know much about The Evil Dead, so the article might be more notable than it appears. Walton monarchist89 20:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Army of Darkness - Very, very badly written article about a very, very important part of the Evil Dead fiction. As it is there's very little there that would survive pruning for WP:OR and WP:V. Nonetheless, the subject is an integral part of a fiction that covers three movies and (I think) five video games. It could develop into something quite good, but as it is the article is useless. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 20:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Army of Darkness. While the article is cruftilicious, that's not a reason for deletion. Lack of available sourcing is a reason, however, and I'm certain that you won't find any specifically related to Deadite. Cheers, Lankybugger 20:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect. - brenneman 01:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nip and Tuck

Nip and Tuck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:WEB guidelines for notability.

  • The content itself has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
  • The website or content has not won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation.
  • The content is not distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

Furthermore, the award which the author received has recently been deleted as non-notable. So... non-notable webcomic, written by an author who recieved a non-notable award. - Francis Tyers · 20:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my own nomination. - Francis Tyers · 20:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --ElKevbo 20:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Nip/Tuck per nom. SERSeanCrane 20:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Nip/Tuck as a possible search term for that TV show. Pomte 22:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What happened to the Ursa Major article was just absurd. Comments in the deletion log like "furcruft", "I hate furries", "furry spam" make it clear that a strong undercurrent of bigotry was a motivating factor. Some people *really* don't like the furry subculture. I can understand this personally but that attitude has no place in an encyclopedia, period. Notability standards should be evenhanded. Stan Sakai's article lists his Ursa Major award nominations. Samuel Conway's page also mentions the award. The Eurofurence page also has mention of the award as does the strip pages for Newshounds and Faux Pas (webcomic). In other words, this is an award that means something. It just happens to be an award for something that enough wikipedia users and editors just don't like, perhaps are offended by, that objectivity is going out the window. If the award is notable, so is the author and his body of work. TMLutas 02:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The three comments you quote from the deletion log were far after very valid and substantial arguments had already been made from which the closing administrator could have easily referenced in deciding to delete the article. The arguments for keep did not address the problem of reliably sourced coverage of the awards outside of its community. There does not seem to be anything procedurally wrong with the removal of that article as being on a non-notable subject. If you disagree you are always welcome to put it up for deletion review. ju66l3r 19:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I just looked at the Ursa Major AfD and can't help but agree with the absurdity of its deletion. So by extension, I have to conclude that winning the award is not non-notable. Bryan Derksen 08:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless rewritten. Subject is notable, as per Ursa Major award (deletion of the awards page does not make the award non-notable, it merely means that the wiki page was poorly sourced), but the article lacks sufficient information to justify its existance. If expanded beyond a one-paragraph summary and reference to an award, then change to Keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.243.116.222 (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - Pretty much nothing in the furry community is notable. Furry awards are so subtrivial anyway, but unless the author won the furry award for this very comic. I'm voting delete. - hahnchen 15:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Redirect -- no independent reliable sources = not notable. bogdan 23:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect, doesn't meet our notability or verifiablity standards. With no decent references, the article is all original research and personal point of view. -- Dragonfiend 04:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with the recreation as a redirect to the F/X show article per non-notability/failure to meet WP:WEB. ju66l3r 19:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Comment Non-verifiable, non-notable. Also, I should note that another of the author's webcomic articles was deleted a few weeks ago, so I'm not sure what makes this one different. 70.43.138.74 03:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mosjøen Airport, Kjærstad and mention there, it's a plausible search term apparently. W.marsh 19:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airport Helgeland

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

I could not find any sources (in English) that support the article's claim. When I first came across this article, it wasn't sourced at all. I added as many relevant sources as I could find, but the main point of the article remains unsourced. Does this qualify as a prediction?? SERSeanCrane 20:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless more reliably sourced. There still isn't a lot of information in the sources, and their independence is suspect. A linguist would be useful to check foreign-language sources. Trebor 22:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The thing is still very speculative, especially in light of this article and this report (sorry, both in Norwegian) where Avinor says they would prefer to keep the small airports as is. The most accurate the article could do is say something like "there have been proposals for a common airport for Helgeland" but this much uncertainty and still only at a "proposal" stage, it is not sufficiently notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have found two references, one from Avinor [52] and one from the Ministry of Transport [53] (sorry, both in Norwegian) that claim that there have been plans to look at a new airport in Helgeland. Both of these are dated in 2002 and the reports referenced by Sjakkalle show that these plans now have been abandoned. There are also some factualy inacuracies in the article, among others claiming that the airport would also serve Brønnøysund, which is not the case. Whether or not this process is notable enough to have a seperate article, I don't know. But it definitively needs to be rewritten to be encyclopedic, concluding with that at the moment it is seems to be abandoned. A paragraph (that I would be happy to write) in the Mosjøen Airport, Kjærstad article would be appropriate, though (I think it is a stub at the moment). Arsenikk 15:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So this project has been abandoned; the airport won't be built? In that case, I would say definitely delete and add a couple of sentences on the idea in the appropriate article (but bearing in mind that I am not able to evaluate the sources myself). Trebor 17:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Staalplaat Soundsystem

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

No evidence of notability per WP:MUSIC; a link to their website is not sufficient. Walton monarchist89 20:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete unless sourced. I couldn't find anything definitely independent and reliable in searching, but this band have received some interest so there may be sources out there. Burden of evidence is on those wishing to keep, though, so at present I say delete. Trebor 22:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Steel 15:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Service H1-H2 Exeter

Service H1-H2 Exeter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a bus listing, a non notable and impossible to expand article. No history to show evolution of the bus route RHB Talk - Edits 20:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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).--Húsönd 23:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Nervous Band

The Nervous Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Page makes no demonstration of notability per WP:MUSIC; although it claims they released an EP, there are no sources and no name of record label. Walton monarchist89 20:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as db-band - no assertion of notability whatsoever. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per db-band. Googling the band + the album gives zero hits, which is not persuasive evidence for notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A7; I agree with the above. Trebor 22:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - brenneman 01:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Limpidity

Limpidity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:WEB guidelines for notability.

  • The content itself has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
  • The website or content has not won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation.
  • The content is not distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

- Francis Tyers · 20:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my own nomination. - Francis Tyers · 20:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced, does not appear to meet any criteria of WP:WEB and a quick search brought up no independent sources. Trebor 22:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The thing's been running for over ten years, which IMO makes it inherently notable (very few webcomics can make such a claim). WP:WEB is just a guideline, we shouldn't be applying it with slavish literality like this. Bryan Derksen 08:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Namir Deiter

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

Does not meet WP:WEB guidelines for notability.

  • The content itself has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
  • The website or content has not won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation.
  • The content is not distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

- Francis Tyers · 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my own nomination. - Francis Tyers · 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this article was previously speedied and a deletion review upheld the deletion (citing consensus among established editors, though that would depend on one's viewpoint, I suppose). Neutral as I was one requesting an overturn but am not certain it would stand up as is. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sourced; at the moment, it does not meet anything in WP:WEB. Given the speedy and (slightly dubious) DRV, I think a proper AfD is the right way to go about this. Trebor 22:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to weak keep per sources provided. They're minimal but suggest that others may exist. Trebor 15:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User has 10 edits, all to do with this article. - Francis Tyers · 16:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here to bring information that other editors don't appear to have. Evaluate the information.Terra Misu 10:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know what; I don't care. As long as it's not just "keep" or "delete," and then saying that they like the noun the article discusses. If they have something insightful and useful, let's hear them out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madd the sane (talk • contribs) 05:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete no reputable sources suggesting notability. -- Dragonfiend 16:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Had someone else picked up the Studio Ironcat contract, I'd argue weak keep, but appears to be self-published, and of limited audience. Claw and Quill review is one independent non-trivial mention, IconSF review *barely* qualifies, for a total of 1.5 independent non-trivial mentions. Argyriou (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - a single self published source isn't enough. Addhoc 13:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeepers

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

Does not meet WP:WEB guidelines for notability.

  • The content itself has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
  • The website or content has not won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation.
  • The content is not distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

- Francis Tyers · 20:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of the Questor

Tales of the Questor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Does not meet WP:WEB guidelines for notability.

  • The content itself has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
  • The website or content has not won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation.
  • The content is not distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

- Francis Tyers · 20:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per my own nomination. - Francis Tyers · 20:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: lack of independent reporting required by WP:N and no significant achievements as listed in WP:WEB. Not verifiable except in the trivial sense of existing, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a mere directory. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This comic HAS won a notable independant award:

Tales of the Questor Volume 1 print edition was awarded the 2005 Ursa Major Award for Best Anthropomorphic Other Literary Work.

The Ursa Majors are the leading awards for anthropomorphic fiction and comics.

  • Comment The AFD page features 7 pro delete comments, 5 of which evidence animus to the subject matter. That was wrong for the awards article and justifying the deletion of further articles based on that animus laden AFD just stinks. Anybody can like or dislike furries, its fan community habits, or anthropomorphic art in general. Deleting pages on that basis is illegitimate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TMLutas (talk • contribs) 02:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. It's not a matter of liking or disliking the content of the comic strip in question... it is wether the subject meets the inclusion criteria established. In this case I am certain it does not. Jerry lavoie 02:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the well-articulated nom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CyberAnth (talk • contribs) 06:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, as with my comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nip and Tuck about the deletion of the Ursa Major award. That deletion looks inappropriate to me, eliminate the content-free "I hate furries" delete votes and there's no consensus there. Given that, this comic is both published and an award-winner. Bryan Derksen 08:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Comment: The deletion log for the award contained very valid and substantial arguments from which the closing administrator could have easily referenced in deciding to delete the article. Some of the "I hate furries" comments that you are lumping together do not actually claim any bias against furries. There does not seem to be anything procedurally wrong with the removal of that article as being on a non-notable subject. If you disagree you are always welcome to put it up for deletion review. The arguments for keep did not address the problem of reliably sourced coverage of the awards outside of its community in order to meet the guidelines of the encyclopedia making them wholly unconvincing (keep 'because people need to find this info somewhere' or 'because another article mentions it' are not valid criteria). In fact, the second argument presents a "notability creep" problem. If a notable subject relates to a non-notable one but notability is transferred in this manner, then if in the non-notable article (like this one) another non-notable subject is related, then this third article gets written referencing the second's "notability". Nip and Tuck, also submitted for AfD, is an example of this "notability creep" which is deriving its notability because Tales of the Questor won a supposedly notable award and both were written by the same author. This webcomic fails WP:WEB due to non-notability. ju66l3r 19:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and previous arguments by other wikipedians. 70.43.138.74 03:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reputable third-party sources, WP:NOT an internet directory. -- Dragonfiend 04:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 21:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Light Center

Red Light Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Not encyclopaedic; most likely original research (in particular, not properly sourced); and mostly reads like an advert, anyway. One might also add that the entry for this site was deleted in October 2006 as spam (without an AfD discussion, AFAICT). Schneelocke 20:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleteweak keep I haven't seen anything compelling to back up some of the claims. Upon creation attempts were made in other articles to not only link to this but make unsourced claims about it stature (on the Second Life article it was claimed that this was a prime competitor which was removed). An editor made an edit which indicated the majority of the article was written from in game experience which makes the integrity of it highly suspect.--Crossmr 20:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but not speedy - I agree with the nominator's decision to put this through AfD rather than speedy; whoever deleted the original in Oct 2006 was wrong. However, although this article isn't incoherent or spam, it still doesn't belong on Wikipedia (per nom). Walton monarchist89 21:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, the nominator is not proposing speedy. It was speedy deleted last time, but the content may have been different, so judging whether that was appropriate is not for here. --Dhartung | Talk 21:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know, I just wanted to make a point about the over-use of speedy deletes. Walton monarchist89 19:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Dhartung | Talk 21:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, sufficient coverage per WP:WEB (I accidentally searched for "red light district"). ITweek, Wired, New Scientist, [USA Today], among other sources. --Dhartung | Talk 21:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If its to be kept, then it needs to be reduced to verifiable stub size as the behaviour of the editor(s) involved in its creation and main editing is suspect as well as the integrity of the content they've added to the article. This edit [54] where the editor admits the article consists mostly of original research is a major problem. The attempts to put this in a position of prominence in other articles indicates a possible conflict of interest.--Crossmr 15:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I qualify this by recommending that it be seriously shortened/tightened up with an attempt to bring it into a wikipedia style article. Stormbay 16:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to wikipedia, but I started this article after seeing that there was no entry on Red Light Center. After starting with a two paragraphs, I have posted to the Red Light Center users forum to request that users who are familiar with wikipedia formats edit the article and add appropriate content. Since we have over 200,000 registered users, and since we are growing at about 40% per month, and since RLC has been featured everywhere from Wired to CNN, I think a wikipedia article is appropriate. That said, I am unclear how an article written and edited by people who use the software could be anything but original research. Since I am the creator, can I site myself when I give statistics? I can pull them from my database, which is how I report them to the press. In any event, I am unclear what about this article makes it weak or warrents deletion, but I'm happy to try to fix.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Obsidianac (talk • contribs) 02:31, January 25, 2007.

That's exactly the problem, and the Wikipedia-approved solution is to let somebody else write the article. Second Life, for example, has a page whose existence isn't controversial because it isn't written just by Linden Labs; there's a lot of journalists discussing the site, and even if editors of that page probably do include enthusiastic Residents, they don't have to speak for themselves but can quote those journalists. It's discouraged in general, and specifically disallowed if the referenced stats aren't publically available, because Wikipedia content aims for WP:Verifiability. Point is, as the creator, you basically can't. 89.103.97.43 13:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No you cannot, violates WP:OR. The problem with the article is that much is unsourced and a comment was made by an editor which claims most of it is based upon in game experiences (also a violation of WP:OR. That puts other editors in a position of trying to figure out what is good and what isn't. If there isn't any clean-up forthcoming with citations there will be little else to do but gut the article and only keep that which is expressly referenced.--Crossmr 21:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, complete re-write: I am pleased with User:Obsidianac's forthrightness in admitting that it is original research, but unfortunately that's not acceptable here on Wikipedia. Also, as currently written, it's a pretty good advertisement, thus violating WP:ADVERT and WP:POV. However, there is nothing to prevent another editor writing a new article/stub from information gathered off of the links already listed in the current version, as well as the links posted by Dhartung in his comments above (Thanks, Dhartung!).--Aervanath 20:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen McMenamy

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

This article has been deleted under CSD A7 multiple times, but I'm not totally sure about the notability factor for this article. I'm sending this to AfD for a community consensus on the fate of this article. To me, the subject seems to meet WP:BIO, and most probably WP:V, but I would like some confirmation from others. Thanks. Nishkid64 20:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Without too much effort I found [55] [56] [57] [58] and [59] (one of the reviews says there's a whole chapter on this person). While these mostly contain trivial or at least very brief mentions, it suggests that more in-depth sources can be found. Probably around the borderline on notability, but I think she's more likely to have sources than not. Trebor 22:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep notable enough, and there will be more sources. I hope that the practice is not to continue CSD after AfD fails. DGG 06:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • further references - please feel free to check the following references for Kristen:

[60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] She is regularly cited by many top photographers, journalists, and fashionistas. She has appered on the cover of all the major women's fashion magazines, including Vogue. She has modelled for many top fashion designers. lx 17:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crap I Drew On My Lunch Break

Crap I Drew On My Lunch Break (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Notwithstanding its name, Crap I drew on my lunch break is a neat web comic, also available in self-published print form. Unfortunately, being neat is not one of Wikipedia's major content inclusion guidelines. There is some information in the WP article which is not on Comixpedia, which might be transwikied, but the essential facts are already available on Comixpedia. So far as I can tell, the article does not, and could not, be supported by independent non-trivial reporting of the WP:N "notability is not subjective" type, and there's no way to verify the article beyond the trivial source that the cartoon itself represents. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless sourced. Nothing verifiable from which to construct an article. Trebor 22:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was the original author of this article; at the time of its creation it met the policy (or proposed policy) on the notability of webcomics, though I take it this policy has since been superseded by the stricter Wikipedia:Notability (web). The author of this webcomic will probably be aware of any third-party references to her work which would serve to establish notability and verifiability per Wikipedia's guidelines. The nominator (or another voter) may wish to contact her to ask about this. I regret that I'm unable to do so myself. —Psychonaut 05:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:LOL Jin Wicked 05:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hey, that is a neat comic! I may go back and read more of it. But it doesn't appear to satisfy WP:WEB requirements for notability, unless there are secondary sources that I can't find with Google. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't meet our notability or verifiablity standards. With no decent references, the article is all original research and personal point of view. -- Dragonfiend 04:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nonnotable teenager. NawlinWiki 21:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Levi miah

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

Obvious vanity page Mcr616 21:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. Obvious A7. Tagged as {{db-bio}}. -- Fan-1967 21:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete. --P4k 21:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kwiki

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

This article about a wiki engine was previously speedy deleted as non-notable; it doesn't pass the main criterion proposed at WP:SOFTWARE (a Google search doesn't reveal any non-trivial published works). This new version of the article also spends most of its time describing what is supposed to happen in the next version. WP:NOT a crystal ball. — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alexa rating of 208,106 + minimal non-trivial published works = no evidence of notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Rettetast
Keep, Socialtext is based on this. Vjdchauhan 06:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
Keep. What Vjdchauhan said. If there are concerns about the current revision, an earlier version is also available [67]. --David Iberri (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ‘Kwiki has been used by the Perl community as the de facto choice for wiki creation.’ would establish notability, but is unreferenced. —xyzzyn 23:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A statement which is also both dubious and unprovable. — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Sticks

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

Page is a stub and only restates some of the information that is found in article Mini hockey, a much more extensive article on the same sport. Nicholas_FJ 21:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change to redirect to Mini hockey, move any nonredundant information to that article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per FisherQueen. --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It Mini Sticks is NOT mini kockey. There is NO reason to delete this article. **** —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.237.218.162 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • If it is not mini hockey, how come all of the information found in it is found in the Mini hockey article? Furthermore, how come somebody saw it necessary to copy and paste the entire mini hockey article and paste it into mini sticks verbatim? --Nicholas_FJ 21:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No edit Is there any need to delete it? I think not. This whole discussion is pointless. IF you insist on doing sometingmerge it. Mini Sticks has some info not found in mini hockey Soupsportz 21:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The notability of basement ministick leagues? Non-existant. I don't like to get into notability discussions with people on WP, it gets messy... but this fails the guidelines (not rules) on Notability by a long shot. DMighton 08:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per DMighton. Skudrafan1 14:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonsense hoax article by the same author as International "mini" Hockey League, also slated for deletion. --Mus Musculus 15:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy close, relist individually (WP:SNOW). --Fang Aili talk 03:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boson (computer game)

Boson (computer game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I can find no evidence that these games are notable as Wikipedia defines it: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." Therefore, I propose that we delete them. To avoid any perception of a conflict of interest or some kind of bias on my part, I will note that a) I tagged all of these and a few more for PROD; the tags were removed by various editors, which is why I've brought the debate here and b) these articles were brought to my attention after my deletion of Super Mario War as non-notable. ♠PMC♠ 21:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Advanced Strategic Command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Armagetron Advanced (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Attal: Lords of Doom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blob Wars: Metal Blob Solid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bygfoot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
C-evo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Castle Adventure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Crack Attack! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Crimson Fields (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Crossfire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cuyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dark Oberon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dnafight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Freedroid RPG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
FreeOrion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Frozen Bubble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
GLtron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
HoverRace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kolf (computer game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Konquest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Liquid War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
MegaMek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) PMC♠ 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This is precisely my point: Wikipedia's policies are very exacting, and if followed to the letter relatively few articles would survive your deletion policy! A lot, in fact *most* games do not have "multiple non-trivial published works" associated with them. And especially older games, like "Castle Adventure," which you've tagged for deletion, would've had no "professional recognition" whatsoever. By deleting these are articles you are helping no one. I think you should focus your energies on proper classification of articles (which you admins have been doing a good job of so far).

Consider this, in the optimal case, with "perfect" classification of all information on Wikipedia, there would be no need to delete articles, since people will always find what they are looking for. The less "perfect" our classification, the more articles we will need to delete in order to ensure that things are still easy to find. Information is very strongly classified on Wikipedia, as I see it, so only articles that are blatantly useless should be deleted. Mindthief 21:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think these articles should be bundled together in one AfD. Unless I'm mistaken, all these games have in common is that they are games and that the nominator feels they're insufficiently notable. I don't see how that falls under the guidelines given here. Relist individually. Heimstern Läufer 22:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist a few at a time individually, please :( Whilst the articles may have a common flaw, notability (at least so it seems at first glance), they are individual subjects which need individual attention. A similar AFD with wrestling moves a few days ago resulted in nothing more than a lot of noise and no consensus whatsoever. I wholeheartedly agree that there are too many non-notable web/casual/MMOG etc. games catching free traffic from WP, and intend listing several myself after becoming familiar with listing AFDs. However, I seriously doubt anything productive is going to come out of this group nomination - I tried looking at some games individually, but picking through websites takes time and effort. Please consider this. QuagmireDog 22:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, like QuagmireDog, I'd be quite willing to consider these articles for deletion individually, but putting them all together like this doesn't make for a useful discussion. Heimstern Läufer 22:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative being contributors arguing about the nomination more than the actual articles. Seen it before, we're all reasonable human beings, I'm sure we can discuss these individually, sort the wheat from the chaff and locate sources for the ones which are notable. QuagmireDog 01:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in no position to comment on most of the titles you have nominated for deletion, but I can say that at least one title is a notable package. It is actively developed, has departed significantly from other related games, and is a very popular title in the Linux community. I'm not sure I see the harm in maintaining its article on Wikipedia. pbryan 22:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist individually. I would definitely consider Frozen Bubble to be notable, and I plan to fight for Konquest and some others, but there is no way I can pass judgment on all these titles at the same time. --Groggy Dice T | C 22:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, please re-list. Frozen Bubble, for example, is quite notable. Andre (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close and relist individually per everyone. JuJube 01:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close and relist individually per above. Except Liquid War. Why anyone things that would be listed for deletion is beyond me. It's actually won an award, and apparently been redistributed in many magazine, according to the homepage. Never should have been on the list to begin with.--Planetary 02:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 18:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rayman Raving Rabbids minigames

List of Rayman Raving Rabbids minigames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Listcruft, plain and simple. Wikipedia isn't a guide to every little detail. A desciption of mini-games in general should be on the main Rayman Raving Rabbids article only. If people want to read about the mini-games, there is gaming sites for that. A popular mini-game series like Mario Party has no list pages for it's games (to my knowledge at least), Rayman shouldn't be any exception. RobJ1981 21:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As non-notable, readers do not need to know the name and setting of each mini-game within Rayman Raving Rabbids, or if they really are that interested they can go to a fansite or GameFAQs like everyone else. Discussion of each type of minigame, in prose, would be better as part of the main article, perhaps copying the headings from here and using them as a springboard? QuagmireDog 22:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge only the main info into Rayman Raving Rabbids. Leebo86 22:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 22:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge right on (and mention it's the Wii game, too! DAAAH!) TRKtv (daaaaah!) 01:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The minigames are the same in the PC version (which I have); the article just has Wii-specific notes. To solve this, one should either remove the notes or include notes on the other versions. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 05:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean up and get it away from a listcruft state; it could be converted into a full article on Rayman Raving Rabbids minigames, for example. Also, per my reply to TrackerTV, I favor getting rid of (or balancing out) the article's Wii bias. We have articles on lists of mods and games with their own categories (Half-Life, WoW, ...). The Rabbids minigames came with the base game and are not fan-created. There's also nothing wrong with having separate articles on games like this, where the list can overwhelm the content of the main article. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 05:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopedic listcruft. Exarion 23:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Addhoc 13:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compton doubles

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

Not verifiable or notable. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. —ptk✰fgs 21:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even cross-googling this term with "dice" doesn't turn up any hits except Wiki mirror sites. No evidence that the game is widely known and played. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyke (rapper)

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

I have searched up key terms, the rappers name, and the record companies and other bands and could find nothing on him. Violation of WP:BIO, WP:VER, and it has basically been orphaned by the author with no sources. Darthgriz98 22:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, likely a WP:HOAX. No evidence any of the real world referents (such as DX Records) exist. --Dhartung | Talk 06:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found minimal evidence of Tyke's existence here and here, but unless I'm misreading WP:MUSIC, it takes more than a possibility that he may exist to establish notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 23:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YaYa Man

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

Dupe of Yes man - also WP:NEO at best. {{Prod}} removed by article creator without explanation. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - most of this is not notable, even in a dictionary. Paul 22:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources to verify that this term is widely used, and a Google search reveals nothing helpful. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 00:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inza Wood Middle School

Inza Wood Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Contested prod. Completely non-notable junior high school. Editor claims article is being used for a creative writing class, thus it is a vandalism magnet.Katr67 22:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no assertion of notability. —ptk✰fgs 22:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DividedDelete, having one unnoticed article as a vandalism target seems ever so slightly better than having the same folks distribute their vandalism throughout wikipedia. Of course, one can't be sure which inspires more total vandalism. —EncMstr 23:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being a target for vandalism shouldn't be part of my nomination, as this isn't a criterion for deletion. Let's just go with the assertion that most junior high schools are not notable and that I don't think this one is any different. Katr67 23:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, not notable. Opinion changed. —EncMstr 00:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete: just about school with a computer lab in the united states seems to have an article here. while i agree that this school is non-notable (and the article is poorly written) and should be deleted, i worry that a de facto policy of 'every school has a page' has already been set. -- frymaster 01:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless evidence of notability is introduced. "All schools are notable doesn;t count. Montco 04:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gently, this is an extreme version of WP:BITE. No harm intended, little done, but this school does not meet our notability guidelines (which are not so inclusive that every school with a computer lab gets to write their own article). I point the teacher to Wikipedia:School and university projects for some advice. --Dhartung | Talk 05:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wilsonville, Oregon per WP:LOCAL and proposed school guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 00:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:LOCAL.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if a well-crafted article were introduced, that would be a different story. I'd suggest that anyone wanting to make a legitimate article start with a 1 or 2 sentence addition to the Wilsonville page, or another appropriate page, and build gradually from there. The case for notability has not been made, and it appears that those wishing to keep the page are opting not to heed instructions to participate in this discussion. -Pete 03:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • deletethere really is nothing notable; if some should be found, which i rather doubt, then the article could be built up again. For those who do think it notable, what exactly in here is it that is notable?DGG 00:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wilsonville, Oregon per Yamaguchi as well as school and local guidelines suggest. No reason not to. Silensor 00:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:LOCAL, Yamaguchi, etc. --Myles Long 02:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence that this school is any more notable than its peers. WMMartin 15:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CONCEPT 5

CONCEPT 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article concerns a rumored new store chain from Abercrombie & Fitch. Despite requests for sources there are none. If the nonexistent, rumored chain ever becomes an actual, notable chain then it will probably have a different name anyway. Will Beback · † · 22:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait, it has a source! A A&F staff meetin! That's good enough for me! (sarcasm). I can't see anything worth this article. WP is not a crystal ball, Delete. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 23:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, you used sarcasm on an XfD page? That's unheard of! (!voting Delete per WP:Not a crystal ball, too) -- MarcoTolo 23:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above WP:NOT comments. In addition, a staff meeting most definitely fails WP:V in every way possible. Soltak | Talk 00:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Crystalballing, etc. Not only that, but if the author was present at such a meeting, there would also be conflict of interest issues. Leebo86 05:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There seems to be some press for Concept 5, for example here and here, but it certainly doesn't confirm the specific nature of the venture. Wikipedia not being a crystal ball, it's hard to confirm notability for something that doesn't exist yet. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above (WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V, etc). robwingfield «T•C» 23:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colleges that limit peer to peer trafic

Colleges that limit peer to peer trafic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory. Listcruft, Delete Kesac 23:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 21:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal mobility

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

Seems to be a mixture of stuff - reads like a spam email. All of the individual bits are real but all covered by seperate articles, so this hodge-podge serves no purpose. No idea what the purpose of this was. Could be a speedy but I'm not sure if you can use those for articles that have been around as long as this. Fredrick day 23:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete: this article seems to be about nothing in particular. grossly unencyclopedic, unsourced and poorly-written. i'd suggest "merge" if i could figure out what parts to merge where. -- frymaster 00:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That the article contained a 2-year-old copyright violation (63.174.190.3 (talk · contribs) copied and pasted a company's advertisement from its web site into the bottom of the article) is a reason to clean the article up, by removing the advertisement, not a reason to delete the article. See also Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Federal Standard 1037C clean up. Uncle G 00:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The 1037C articles need special handling, which is why there is a special project page just for them. Federal Standard 1037C is a public domain telecommunications dictionary, which was imported into Wikipedia a few years ago and lightly wikified (perhaps by bot, I'm not sure). In many cases the content in these little stub articles is more valuable than it first appears. Sometimes very little editing can turn them into good stubs. Other times, the content is best served by merging several related 1037C stubs into a single larger article. Sometimes they are best redirected to an existing article. Very rarely is AfD deletion an appropriate response. In this case, the article should clearly either be kept, or be merged into Universal Personal Telecommunications. Either way, it appears that the proponent of this AfD was misled by the article's poor formatting and the spam. I ask him to take another look at the article (which I have just wikified) and reconsider whether this AfD still seems appropriate.--Srleffler 03:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say merge looking at it - into UPT. Anyone know how to shut an AFD? I'll then propose the merge. --Fredrick day 09:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, but Uncle G, is there a reason that terms like this aren't part of a 1037C glossary or something similar, and a justification for wikifying the contents of an obscure (however widely applied) federal standard, when there are so many federal standards that could be so treated? Just askin'. --Dhartung | Talk 05:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's far from being the only case where editors expanded Wikipedia by adding lots of stubs containing public domain content. And one article per entry was simply the way that the editors who imported it chose to import it. As mentioned above, cleaning up the result has been an ongoing (and slowly progressing) project for several years. Feel free to help. Uncle G 13:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The purpose isn't to produce a glossary article, but to expand Wikipedia's coverage of telecomm in general. The telecomm area of Wikipedia is in general sparse and underedited. Creating lots of stubs from a public domain source forms a "skeleton" of sorts that can be fleshed out later. What is lacking is a few editors with time to spare and solid background in telecomm engineering. Somebody will come along eventually...--Srleffler 17:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Burren Action Group. Daniel.Bryant 06:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music in the Stone

Music in the Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Appears to be non-notable charity album SUBWAYguy 04:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The album Music in the Stone does meet the requirements as a notible album as the terms say. It actually meets it in more than one way. It has an artist who later went on to do more notable work (seven in total - Loreena McKennitt for example) who are also featured on Wiki, it was also releated in a 10 year ongoing project by Burren Action Group to raise money to prevent development of Mullaghmore whic is a project of some note itself. LordVeovis 05:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note LordVeovis is the author of this article SkierRMH 07:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge list of contributors to Burren Action Group, then re-direct. Many of the people who recorded on this work are notable, but there's no claim or evidence that the album itself is notable per WP:MUSIC. Evidence that it appeared on a national chart would suffice. Eludium-q36 18:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested by Eludium-q36 SERSeanCrane 00:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom... Addhoc 17:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 23:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as suggested by Eludium-q36. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Eludium. I would support a Keep decision only if most of the songs by the notable artists were recorded specifically for this record. Otherwise, if it's only a compilation, delete it. -Freekee 02:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grilled Cheese Aspiration

Grilled Cheese Aspiration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Why do we need articles on such trivia? Drat (Talk) 23:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • We don't. It's not encyclopedic imho, and belongs on a gaming site not Wikipedia. Delete. --kingboyk 23:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided - On the one hand, this is arguably trivia in its current form. On the other hand, the information presented in the article seems to indicate that there might be more significant meaning behind the existence of the aspiration. It definitely reads like a game guide regardless, and is not suitable for Wikipedia inclusion in its current form. The possibility may exist for cleanup though. As I said, I am currently undecided on this. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 23:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's nothing more than trivia, as asserted above, and the factors considered by Yukichigai only highlight how unencyclopedic this article is. No amount of cleanup will reduce the trivia and game-guide factor. Agent 86 23:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless game trivia. --- RockMFR 00:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia not a game guide. Pascal.Tesson 00:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • undecided: i admit it seems ridiculous that such an amount of time and effort is invested in one component of one game... however, wikipedia does have an entry on just about every possible chess opening, even the disasterous and grossly-unnotable Grob's Attack. hm. -- frymaster 00:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ROFL ;-) CyberAnth 06:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I really want to say 'Keep.' It's considerably more noteworthy than some of the cruft we get around here. But it's more appropriate for a game guide, and the sentence on the Grilled Cheese Aspiration in the main The Sims 2: Nightlife article is probably sufficient for Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Delete. Mindless trivia. Per nom. Tomstdenis 22:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete. It really does belong on a gaming site. Wodup 01:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My eyes, my eyes ! It's burning them with its triviality. Non-notable cruft. Delete. WMMartin 15:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (CSD A7). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gianna Distenca

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

Teenage girl who appeared in one (yes, *one*) music video. There's very little reliable information about her, and whilst the video is great I don't think she counts as notable. More importantly, I'm not seeing the sources. kingboyk 23:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Nothing in the article meets WP:BIO. Agent 86 23:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Stacy's Mom - There is a vague possibility someone will look up the name, and redirects are cheap. Article content is worthless and makes no real assertation of notability. Put a link to her IMDb profile in the Stacy's Mom article and you'd contribute as much as this article does. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 23:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete: heck, i've been in a music video. there needs to be a cutoff for notability somewhere, and it's probably far above this person. -- frymaster 00:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unlikely search term and it's not like we're going to write much about her anyway so the redirect will turn out to be dissapointing. Pascal.Tesson 00:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LivIsoc

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

Came across this on Category needed. Appears to be a non-notable university club; nothing to distinguish it from thousands of other school clubs. I'd have prodded it, but I don't want to seem to be biting. If kept, which I'm not advocating, it should be moved to one of the re-direct pages that were created to go to this article. Their titles make much more sense and are more likely search terms than this title. Agent 86 23:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The claims to notability (some student group awards) are weak, and unsourced anyway. Leebo86 04:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. According to WP:ORG, "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable third party sources can be found." -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As usual, we need to see evidence of notability, and none is presented. WMMartin 15:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spyder Green 300

Spyder Green 300 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Non-notable product advertising. No citation provided. —Moondyne 23:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NO hope for this to ever be something else than an advert. Pascal.Tesson 00:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the weakest of all possible keeps: not really advertising as there is no link for sales, not really spam since there's not linkage to the company's site. so... advertising? probably not. it is however grossly un-sourced, poorly written, heavily unwikified and probably not notable enough to merit an inclusion. i submit tag it with needing sources and a rewrite then check back in a couple of months. -- frymaster 00:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cool product, but googling didn't reveal much in the way of external writing verifying the notability of it. Add it to my Christmas list, but delete from Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm with FisherQueen. I want one, but this article is not strong enough. MRoberts <> 01:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per FisherQueen. ← ANAS Talk? 15:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/move. W.marsh 22:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presidents of the Pennsylvania State University

Presidents of the Pennsylvania State University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Relevant information on this page has been merged into History of the Pennsylvania State University. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 23:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Audio Visual Institute

Pacific Audio Visual Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Self-promotion. More of a brochure than an encyclopedia article. adavidw 23:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as copyvio and per CSD G11. The entire advertisement article is lifted from the company's website (with unsigned unverified assertion of permission to copy on the article's talk page). Agent 86 23:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete If the permission to copy is bogus and this should be speedied as a copyvio. But what if we found out that the institute somehow gave permission to release their brochure under GDFL? Well then it would be a blatant advert, speediable under G11. Pascal.Tesson 00:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - most of the article text has been removed now, meaning it probably doesn't qualify as a copyvio. It still may fail some test of notability, although I have no idea how to judge notability for a trade school. I'm considering withdrawing my nomination unless someone else wants to take up the issue of notability or finds something else wrong. --adavidw 05:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would still weak delete, as there is no indication this corporate enterprise meets WP:CORP. While removing all the copyvio stuff helps, the stub still seems to be advertising the services of this company rather than being an encyclopedic article about it (but not so much so that I'd say CSD G11 anymore). Agent 86 15:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The article says the school is accredited, though I can't find confirmation of this on their web site, and although it appears on school directories, I don't see much non-trivial media coverage. I'd normally say colleges are notable by default, but dubious accreditation and lack of external review makes it seem really iffy. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Colleges are notable by default - respectfully disagree. Every entity is subject to WP:N. Luke! 23:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails to establish notability through WP:V. Luke! 23:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. WMMartin 15:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (CSD G1). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Car's Film

A Car's Film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This will tell you all you need to know. Violation of WP:POINT, directly threatening other wikipedia editors... need I say more? The article itself is a complete hoax. Esn 23:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Obvious hoax. Linked old version of the page pretty much slams the last nail in the coffin on this one. It may even need to be salted. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 23:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as pure vandalism. This is not a case of ignorance. As the diff shows, the creator is fully aware that the whole thing is junk. Pascal.Tesson 00:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Pascal.Tesson, and block Lyle123 as a blatant vandal. JuJube 01:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD G11 and G10. --210physicq (c) 00:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muvy

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

Fails WP:WEB. Furthermore, a likely WP:COI since article was created immediately after an attempt to add its external link to Reddit. SpuriousQ 23:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Blatant spam, non-notable. adavidw 00:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete: holy spam batman! and it's not even properly sourced spam... -- frymaster 00:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete this shouldn't have been brought to AfD in the first place as the speedy tag was removed by an anonymous user without explanation. Clear failure of WP:WEB and clearly no attempt whatsoever to argue that the website is notable. Pascal.Tesson 00:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Fails WP:CSD #11 so very, very hard. To top that all off, it even attacks Digg and Reddit (and Wikipedia) as well, making it WP:CSD #10 to boot. Two CSD violations in one article. Amazing. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 00:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_23&oldid=1116878151"