Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 10

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< March 9 March 11 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:32Z

One-piece garment

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

Article is a category improperly implemented as an article Anonymous55 00:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This came out of a discussion on Category_talk:One-piece_suits. The One-piece garment article is essentially a list of links to other articles with very little other content, and has existed for over four years. The One-piece suits category was created three days ago. They're not identical in scope; the article includes non-bifurcated garments like dresses, whereas the new category does not. My idea is to replace the article with a category called One-piece garments, and make One-piece suits a sub-category underneath it, but I don't know if that's the best solution as the two categories may be too similar to justify keeping them both. Looking for input on that. Anonymous55 00:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as Category:One-piece suits already exists. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as improper article format and as per Mr.Z-man Nol888(Talk)(Review me please) 00:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --Dennisthe2 00:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant when considering existing category - no new or different information. Frickeg 01:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — non-informative, non-encyclopedic. — ERcheck (talk)
  • Delete' as redundant, unencyclopedic.-- Dakota 02:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hardly any real information just a bunch of lniks to other articles--양복42 06:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons given above. I have recently been extensively organising the clothing categories, and have been in discussion about this with proposer. Bards 20:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- It's just a pointless list that is unencyclopedic. It should have been nominated for deletion YEARS ago! ~~Eugene2x Sign here ☺ ~~ 00:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article that is really just a dicdef with a list of examples, this is not an encyclopedia article.-- danntm T C 01:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete uncyclopedic. —dima/s-ko/ 01:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an utterly useless article. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 07:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Friday (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Redpath

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

Insufficient notability, fails WP:PROF and possible vanity. DWaterson 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I'm not able to find a bit of sourcing for this. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 05:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The first online MBA in a major country is notable, but I don't think she's notable. There was a third-party interview of her, but I'm not convinced CIPS is a reliable source. --Charlene 19:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, due to notability, but the article does need a bit of a cleanup job. Mo0[talk] 00:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Aspinell

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

Former local councillors are unlikely to be notable, only 525 Ghits, claims he "gained national attention" are probably somewhat exaggerated and relate to some minor local dispute of no lasting notability. A couple of third-party news reports cited, but I cannot see sufficient overall notability here to warrant an article. DWaterson 00:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems notable enough. Keep and clean up. Notability is local, but the articles point to what seems to be a larger problem: child welfare abuses. --Dennisthe2 00:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Not a former councillor but a current one; appears to have some claim to notability with regards to the child welfare situation. ObtuseAngle 00:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Apparently subject of considerable news coverage, considering the links. Frickeg 01:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Frickeg. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:BIO with a large number of articles specifically about him from reliable third parties such as UK newspapers. --Charlene 19:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This will be just another bio of a living person clogging up wikipedia, and an example of the overwhelming systemic bias towards current events. If this had happened in 1982 there would never be an article on it. This guy's 15 seconds of fame will shortly be up, but his article will remain, and it will be a liability. -R. fiend 22:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...um, how is this even remotely a possible liability? =O.o= --Dennisthe2 02:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having articles on nearly everyone who exists (which seems to be the direction we're heading) is a liability because it only takes one vandal among those millions of articles to get a severe case of libel on our hands. Having articles on every person who makes the papers for a day (hundreds of thousands of articles which no one will pay attention to for long) is therefore a liability. We have to maintain quality control on these articles than anyone can edit. That's quickly becoming more and more unmanagable. This article isn't such a problem per se, but it is a very small part of a larger problem. -R. fiend 04:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's what WP:LIVING is for. As for nearly everyone who exists...well, that's still what WP:N is for. Note that I don't have an article outside of my userspace. It's also understood that anybody can edit this. But really, if you're worried that this can cause a legal liability to Wikipedia because somebody with a stick up their arse doesn't like what they see about themselves on a vandalized article, then I'm sure Jimbo has some answers. --Dennisthe2 07:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:LIVING is nice and all, but it assumes that someone is looking after these pages. Who will be watching Barry Aspinell a year and a half from now? It's creator? Apparently he hasn't even noticed that it's at AfD. All it takes is someone to add "He's a pederast" to the bottom of the article and we've got a serious problem on our hands, as such vandalism is likely to go unnoticed for long periods of time in the future. And even if this particular article is not such a problem (maybe some of the people who voted here will put it on their watchlist and keep an eye on it, I don't know) think of the thousands upon thousands of similar articles on people who were in the papers one day and quickly forgotten (I was exaggerating about "nearly everyone" getting an article, but it's a staggering number of people). This is an example of a growing problem. Among our already 1.6 million articles, it's basically a statistical certainty that we have substantial cases of libel; Seigenthaler was likely the tip of the iceberg. And I don't think "I'm sure Jimbo has something up his sleeve" is a real solution. -R. fiend 16:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's a straw-man argument. I'm done. My !vote stands. --Dennisthe2 18:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- As demonstrated above, this councillor has had a large amount of external writing about him - making the article notable and verifiable. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 07:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Could use more info, but worth keeping. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Result was withdrawn by nominator. I appreciate the input. -- Dhartung | Talk 20:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mila Rechcigl

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

Unclear notability per WP:PROF, additionally apparent WP:AUTO. Dhartung | Talk 00:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Background. Mila Rechcigl (talk · contribs) has a short time on Wikipedia, and has helped wikify Czech-American and worked on Frederick Philipse and Augustine Herman, two early Americans of some importance; but has also authored this apparent autobiography, as well as Demuth family (which I successfully prodded) and added links to several articles pointing to his AOL website on Czech-American genealogy, including George W. Bush, Barbara Bush, and John Kerry. I have cleaned most of that up per WP:NOT (although it's an interesting history it isn't notable in any way). Coming to this page, though, I'm undecided -- there are some real academic credentials and recognition by the Czech government. Putting this to the community to decide. --Dhartung | Talk 00:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks notable based on the article. 6000+ ghits, and its an uncommon name, so its likely that they are almost all relevant hits. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The founder and president of a national academy, the Czechoslovak Society of Arts and Sciences is unquestionably notable, no matter who edited the WP article. The article badly needs wikifying, and I've added a tag. What is a "successful prod"--one that gets the article improved, or one that gets it deleted? DGG 04:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No snark, please. The Demuth family article was a hugely detailed family history of no apparent notability, very similar to the offsite version. It's genealogically interesting, but we're not a genealogy site. (One or two individual members of that family tree might merit articles; Barbara Bush already has one.) This article was different, so I asked for input. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean up AlfPhotoman 14:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable scholar worthy of his own page even if he did create it himself. ObtuseAngle 16:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. There are positions which are so eminent that their holders are by definition notable, and the presidency of a national academy is one of them. --Charlene 20:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Skapunk. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:33Z

Skacore

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

Delete -An article about this topic was already deleted using the normal Wikipedia procedures. There are no references, and there is not enough information to adequately differentiate it from the ska punk article. A recent deletion proposal was deleted on its fifth day in a bad-faith edit by an anonymous IP user without any justification. Spylab 00:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 17:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is a recreation of an article that was deleted through prod or AfD it can be speedily deleted as {{db-repost}}. Natalie 01:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Note, this doesn't appear to be a candidate for a db-repost. --Dennisthe2 01:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment nominator has been blocked for repeated (about 10 times) replacing of a contested prod notice. ViridaeTalk 03:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Grudgingly. One editor's bad behavior does not justify a deletion. There is a german and french version of the article. --Infrangible 03:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unreferenced and apparently neologistic. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect to Skapunk. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect per Ben Aveling. I expected to find some decent sources for this, but was suprised by how little I could find. It's a subdivision of skapunk, so in the absence of sufficient material for the article to stand on its own it should redirect there. Oldelpaso 10:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:34Z

Black Ratchet

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

See talk page, there seems to have been some dispute over notability here. Personally, I can't see anything in this article that establishes notability - being a moderator on a forum and running a payphone list website fails WP:BIO DWaterson 00:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Insufficient notability. — ERcheck (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not at all notable. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dude was born after Ma bell and MF signalling --Infrangible 03:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be more of a non-notable eccentric than anyone who has done anything revolutionary. Kazmarov 17:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was wrong spot. I'll list the articles in the category for deletion as a mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Investiture of the Gods (chapter 1) as I agree the stuff should be deleted and that's probably what the nominator meant anyway. Please comment over there. MER-C 06:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chapters of Fengshen Yanyi

There is no need for an article for the summary of each chapter of a book.}} SyBerWoLff 00:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close, this is a category. Please see WP:CFD. --Dhartung | Talk 01:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think they were trying to nominate all of the pages in the category. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, none of the articles has a deletion notice, only the category page. The nomination is thus invalid if it's for the articles. -- Dhartung | Talk 02:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unconvincing reason for deletion... Wikipedia is not paper so whether someone thinks we "need" an article or not is basically a WP:ILIKEIT argument. Are these articles original research? Could the content not be merged somehow? At any rate they look like orphan articles so I'd suggest at least a navigation template to organize them. --W.marsh 02:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, please refer this to WP:CFD for proper deletion procedure. --Dennisthe2 02:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close I do agree that all the articles in the category should be deleted though, do a mass nomination of the chapters. TJ Spyke 03:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close so this can be properly listed at WP:CFD. Krimpet 03:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really don't think the nom was trying to delete the category, but the articles in it. --W.marsh 04:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it would make more sense to bulk nominate all these articles for deletion, and then WP:CSD#C1 the category if the result is delete. –Pomte 03:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly, we are just telling him what he should do. WP:AFD gives instructions on how to nominate multiple articles in one AFD (which should be done in this case). TJ Spyke 05:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the verifiable information from E-wrestling to Fantasy wrestling. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-wrestling

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

Non-notable hobby. No reliable sources, full of original resarch, fails WP:A. One Night In Hackney303 01:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Fantasy wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

One Night In Hackney303 01:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fantasy Wrestling as its the same thing as E-wrestling but with less content. However, Keep E-wrestling, 29000 Ghits suggests its a major internet trend. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just looked through all 21 pages of results, and didn't see a single source that an article could be written from. Perhaps you could provide some rather than just providing irrelevant search engine results? One Night In Hackney303 00:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no attributable sources. Nol888(Talk)(Review me please) 12:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as much as the article gets loads of spam, it is a a major and popular internet trend. Englishrose 16:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Englishrose. --EazieCheeze 06:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge into a single article. Just because it's not sourced doesn't mean it can't be, and there's enough of these out there that I'm sure a source can be found. --UsaSatsui 15:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article was created over two years ago and it's been tagged as unreferenced since June last year, how long do you suggest we wait until a source is found? If sources can be found then the article can be re-created using those. I refer you to WP:A, which states - The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. One Night In Hackney303 05:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Just because something isn't attributed doesn't mean it's not attributable. However, looking through this article again, I noticed that a lot of it is most likely OR and therefore unsourceable...and pretty poorly written, too. What really tipped the scales for me is this talk page comment. Therefore, I'm switching to Delete for E-Wrestling until such time as someone can write an unbiased, sourced article on it, or just put any useful info (none I can see) into Fantasy wrestling, for which I still say Keep.--UsaSatsui 16:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just not notable and no reliable sources. SakotGrimshine 09:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I agree no reliable sources is a problem but the fact that it has millions of hits on google shows it is a notable and popular internet roleplaying game. Englishrose 21:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, doesn't assert notability, fails WP:CORP and WP:COI. NawlinWiki 13:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NRD Studios

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

Not notable. Also, full of original research -- it seems to be written by the company's principals. Novalis 01:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "All current infomation on this profile is writen by both CEO Robert Mizen and Nathan Gibson - Project Manager", can you say major WP:COI? Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 01:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt - vanispamcruftisement with intention to repost. MER-C 08:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete article on a non notable company that makes no claim to notability. Nuttah68 12:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Result: speedy delete under A7, notability. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Kraus

The result of the debate was result :Kenneth Kraus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) This actor does not seem to be particularly notable. The article says he was “offered contracts with some of the well known agencies” but no evidence is provided that he ever took or fulfilled any of those contracts. The article says that he “vanish[ed] from the acting industry...” IMDB has not heard of this person. A Google search does not seem to turn up anything relevant. No sources are provided with the article. ●DanMS • Talk 01:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense, hoax, how much you wanna bet that USDS is a high school? NawlinWiki 13:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USDS Syndrome

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

There are zero Google results for this syndrome. The scientist who allegedly discovered it, "Noam Benson", does not appear to exist (or at least has not made much of an impact in the field). Prod tag contested by article's author. Delete due to lack of verification. ... discospinster talk 02:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Has every single feature of a hoax medical article I can think of. No reliable sources, badly written with terrible grammar, "condition" makes no sense (there's no such thing as a "contagious" psychological condition, at least not in the medical sense of the word), uses layman's terms repeatedly where medical terms should be used (and often uses the wrong layman's term ie. contagious), reference to authorities who don't actually exist (there is no notable psychologist named Noam Benson), article created by single-purpose account with same surname as supposed authority, etc. Were there such a thing as USDS Syndrome and had it been identified in 1981, there would be at least one article on it or the expert on Google Scholar. There is none. --Charlene 02:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure hoax. —Celithemis 02:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No documentation, no references, and google search ("USDS Syndrome") turns up zilch. --Dennisthe2 02:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Bucketsofg 02:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G10. Possibly. Am I the only one picking up "Jews, especially Jewish males, are cultish and overly concerned with exterior social status (totally unlike American Christians)" from this? --Action Jackson IV 05:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Kolias

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

not notable enough person Mayumashu 17:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable landlord. --Charlene 02:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wealth does not equal notability. --Infrangible 04:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep CEO of a billion-dollar company does seem to equal notability. Quoted by Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail in just the last month. 832 Google hits. -- TedFrank 04:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above Macktheknifeau 05:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, tagged for references since December, lacking sources and failing WP:A does not make it easy to keep this article. AlfPhotoman 14:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Assuming the article can become referenced, the person seems to be plenty notable with his position as CEO, large wealth (being in the top 100 wealiest people in a G8 country seems to be notable to me), and charity work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NorseOdin (talk • contribs) 17:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per NorseOdin. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 07:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NorseOdin. Added a reference along with some minor cleanup of the article. -- Black Falcon 05:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected to the main article Stranger Than Fiction (film). Friday (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Crick

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

This article does not contribute anything that isn't already in the article of the film. It is not an encyclopedic treatment, as described in the Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction) article, nor is the section on the character in the film page too long Donaldd23 02:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is to short to provide any context, and it is redundant to the main article. Nol888(Talk)(Review me please) 03:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FICT on major characters. –Pomte 03:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this cannot be it's own article, Redirect to stranger than Fiction. kzz* 17:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question/Comment I don't want to have this "convo" in the wrong place but, what of articles like mr Creosote? is that justified or possible because monty python has a massive "cult" following? kzz* 17:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My feeling would be that the answer to your question is: Mr Creosote isn't the main character in The Meaning of Life, yet he does have enough encyclopedic stuff that can be said about him (other references in popular culture and such) that it's unwieldy to have it all in the main article about the film. I dunno. Maybe we should delete that one, too. —Carolfrog 23:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Stranger Than Fiction (film). Likely search term for the film.—Carolfrog 23:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Carabinieri 14:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moosebutter

Moosebutter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Comment - I hasn't... but that by itself doesn't mean they're not notable. On the other hand, if you know of any reviews or sources independent of their website with a review or report on them, that would help. ◄Zahakiel► 04:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a very super incredibly amazingly famous song, but yeah, the major problem with this article is that its only source has long been the band's website. No good. --Masamage 04:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is not notable, due to the fact it does not produce multiple, reliable published sources. If they are found, I might be swayed toward keeping this article. Yuser31415 06:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've added a link, but this DOES need serious clean up. Reads like a fan site. Neonblak 22:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand to justify claim of notability. --Masamage 06:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN; what element of WP:MUSIC do people contend they fulfill? RGTraynor 18:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm pretty sure they have been covered in at least one magazine. Certainly that will have to be proven. --Masamage 18:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And failing that proof (which I see has not yet arrived), this fails WP:ATT and so should be deleted. RGTraynor 17:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • No need to be confrontational. I don't disagree. --Masamage 18:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no refs at all. NBeale 17:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

demoscene.tv

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

Notability not established or sourced per WP:WEB, WP:ATT. RJASE1 Talk 03:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I admit the attribution part is a bit sloppy (largely due to my lack of time, e.g. see [1] [2] and many more - ~50000 google hits should be enough to pick from), but let's hope we can expand on it in the next few days. // Gargaj 07:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete counting hits is no substitute for non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources, of which there is, to date, precisely none cited. Guy (Help!) 17:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't attempt to substantiate its own reliability. Lacks sources. Autocracy 20:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable, one of the channels in negotiations with Joost.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If there are no published and reliable sources (not some random web page) the article needs to go. Googlehits doesn't matter. Pax:Vobiscum 23:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, maybe google hits don't themselves matter, but they are an indicator, Why not go through some of those google hits and actually see if the subject is notable? I found a couple hits in my couple minutes of searching. McKay 16:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We can't go around deleting every article that's not properly expanded yet, instead we should try to make them better. I suggest adding one of them "help expanding this article" tags to it. Demoscene.tv is a well respected source for streamed demoscene material, and there are plenty of sources to back this up, the lack of said sources listed here is just sloppiness for now but give it time and it'll get fixed. --Tobias Lind 10:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is an article that has been up for more than 6 months, that's plenty of time to find sources. We can't wait forever for sources that may not exist. Just because you consider it well respected doesn't mean that we can ignore policy. "Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." (from WP:ATT) Pax:Vobiscum 11:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment .. 6 months and not a single "help expanding this article" or "needs citation" tags? I for one didn't even know you wanted more sources to begin with. It's unreasonable to delete every article that needs work, you should tag articles accordingly first to indicate that it needs work before trying to delete said articles. --Tobias Lind 21:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there are some proper references from reliable sources to establish notability. There are none in the article yet and it's almost finished its AfD. NBeale 17:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are enough sources now. McKay 16:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the references recently added to the article, plus the additional points available on the internet. Burntsauce 23:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Arfan (Talk) 16:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico (disambiguation)

Puerto Rico (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A disambiguation page when there are only two possible uses and only one minor use makes Wikipedia unnecessarily difficult to navigate. WP:DAB would suggest that the best possibility is to use the {otheruses4} tag in the Puerto Rico article to point directly to the alternative page rather than to force readers to click two separate links after typing "Puerto Rico" in the "Go" box, in which case the disambiguation page is extraneous, but one editor insists on that additional step. TedFrank 03:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand; there are two non-US municipalities, a ship, a street, and a maritime feature, none of which are in Puerto Rico. A browse category link has also been added. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I withdraw the nomination per Dhartung's edits. -- TedFrank 13:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many articles appear to be listed now, so it's a valid disambig now at least. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deletion; non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 08:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ajikan yoga

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

The only 5 G-hits I got for this particular yoga were from other language Wikipedias. This is not encouraging. I have just enough doubt about my judgment in this case to bring it to AfD instead of speedy. Pigmandialogue 03:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. The three not-very-well-written sentences in this article are the only contribution of the editor. If there's a there there, someone will write a real article. This one isn't it. -- TedFrank 04:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - incoherent and rambling personal definition on what the subject is. Definitely a case of "no meaningful content". So tagged. MER-C 06:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Talk to me 10:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounddogs

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

Doesn't really assert notability, doesn't add much to the encyclopedia. I've sent it here seeing as it has been prodded and de-prodded. Picaroon 03:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and look what the username of the creator was. I'm just barely not bold enough to delete it as an A7, G11 combo, but there's no rush. Picaroon 04:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ignoring the creator for a second (which should always be done; article content > creator, insofar as AfD goes), I would say that Sounddogs is well known, at least where I come from. A total rewrite is probably in order; though it's no longer as spammy as it was, wiping the article and starting from a stub is probabl indicated. But, again, a straight-up deletion seems unnecessary; rewrite, yes; delete, no. Ourai тʃс 04:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I posted the PROD. Enough cleanup has happened to remove the original reason, and I've managed to dig up an article that provides some indication of notability, and also clears up some facts. The article still needs much work, and I'm still undecided as to its value on Wikipedia. I'm also not yet familiar enough about precedent for company pages, particularly outisde of my field of work. Autocracy 07:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment Notability is also established as given by the owner's record listed on IMDB which cites his involvement (and by extension, company's involvement as a source). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Autocracy (talk • contribs) 19:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per the improvements to the article (see diff, including referencing. The claim that this "doesn't add much to the encyclopedia" is a subjective one with which I disagree. Also, the identity of the author, although always a factor to note, should never be a criterion for deletion. The article and its topic are all that matter, not who wrote it or why. -- Black Falcon 06:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless properly referenced from reliable sources to establish notability. Nothing there yet. "Owner is on IMDB" does not make a site notable!! NBeale
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete for lack of content. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:35Z

Ai Bandō

Ai Bandō (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Ai Bandou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Ai Bando (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)

Articles like this are why the word otaku is often translated "creepy nerd" Nardman1 03:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I really would have gone for a WP:CSD#A7 on this one, but while we're here... this person appears non-notable, the article is completely unsourced. There's nothing here to write an article from. — coelacan — 07:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nardman nailed it. Weird, obsessive, trivial. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could find only one citation for any voiceover work (a brief Japanese TV show). Nothing notable found. Arx Fortis 17:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7, and yes... general creepiness. Name, birthdate, and... blood... type...? Autocracy 20:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well it's been said before and it will probably be said again, but the Japanese consider blood type to be analogous to a zodiac sign; otaku are just in on this, unlike most Westerners. 213.172.246.68 15:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7. Resolute 02:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Negima, if it has a section for voice actors of the anime. - (Ninsaneja 02:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • WP:CIVILITY, please. This AFD is being conducted in a very uncivil and possibly culturally biased manner because of ignorance of other cultures. blood type is often included in biographies of Japanese celebrities. It appears in Japanese wikipedia articles quite often. Her bio on Japanese wikipedia is considerably longer, but the information would be considered trivial here. Delete without prejudice towards recreation --Kunzite 06:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And there are cultures where pedophilia is not only common but accepted, but I doubt anyone would pound on any visceral reaction we might have to articles including it; let's get a grip on the PChood, shall we? That being said, Delete as NN, fails WP:BIO. Ravenswing 18:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the wonderful strawman argument. Blood Type is a trait. It's like having blue eyes or brown skin. It is not comparative to sexual devient behaviour. I objected to this because multiple members disputed the validity of thise as biography (and the editors who wrote it) because they included a common element found in native language biographies as a reason for deletion. That is cultural bias if I've ever seen it. --Kunzite 13:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and move to List of black inventors and scientists. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable black innovators, inventors and scientists

Notable black innovators, inventors and scientists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unprecedented list, overall pointless. Wikipedia isn't like a Middle School Black History Month powerpoint presentation. There is nothing *unique* about being Black and being one of these things so a separate article like this is just plain ridiculous. Categories already exist for any relevance here anyway. Usedup 04:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - while I'm still undecided in re: Keep/Delete, I do feel it's important to bring up WP:USEFUL --Action Jackson IV 05:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am aware of said essay (not policy or guideline); my reason for voting keep is because of "encyclopedic content." That it also happens to be potentially useful is a contributing factor, but not the main rationale. That being said, I would be in favor of a rename to "List of black inventors" per various comments below. ◄Zahakiel► 07:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if kept, the article needs to be renamed to remove the words "notable" and "innovators." The former is redundant (anyone with a Wikipedia article has to be notable) and the latter is not objectively definable. Otto4711 05:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I personally think that it is more or less identical to List of Jewish actors and actresses and List of Jewish inventors. Comment on deleting: even if this is to be deleted, it must be done in a professional way, lest we got flagged by NAACP on this. This is a dangerous territory, best to keep it. George Leung 05:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to List of black innovators, inventors, and scientists; might as well bring into line with aforementioned Jewish list(s). --Merovingian ※ Talk 05:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fear of being "racy" is not a valid reason to keep a list. This, plus vote stackers, is the reason lists like this haven't been deleted yet. Usedup 05:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, this page isn't very well done, for one thing, I think the name choice is poor. But since Category:Inventors by nationality does exist, I'd say there's no inherent objection to identifying people by race or ethnicity as appropriate. But this page is poorly doing it. I don't know if List of Black Inventors or List of African-American Inventors or what would be the better name to work with though. FrozenPurpleCube 05:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I personally am leaning towards deletition, though the easiest way to express my reasoning is a reverse violation of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (WP:OTHERCRAPDOESN'TEXIST), and as such, I feel it's best to hold off on voting for now. I also think that articles / sections / lists like these are just begging for "counter-article-section-lists" - that is, Notable white innovators, inventors, and scientists. I think it's important to come to some form of consensus on what would happen to such an article, before acting on this one. That said, one statement that I definitely feel strong enough about to bold is, If kept, rename per Otto4711's statement. --Action Jackson IV 05:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment also, it seems the List of Jewish _____ is being thrown around. I will say that there's several distinctions between being "Jewish" and being "Black" - two of which would be the ease of figuring out if someone is black (generally, and yes, there are exceptions), versus the relative difficulty of determining, from sight alone, whether someone is Jewish or not. Additionally, Judiasm is a religious choice. While we can bicker this way and that about determinalism and whether or not people actually "choose" their religion, it all comes down to the fact that it's a lot easier for me to pretend to be a goyim than it was for Michael Jackson to pretend to have light skin. --Action Jackson IV 05:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's amazing how easily most of these "keeps" were influenced by the fear that deleting this list would be controversial. While List of African Americans which is COMPLETELY precedented will likely get deleted anyway for other reasons..which gives off a way bigger tinge or racism. I wish everyone could just vote on the worth of the article and not on the "social statements" it makes or doesn't make. Usedup 05:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good call. --Action Jackson IV 05:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please assume good faith, both of you. My keep vote was influenced by no such thing, nor can the determination be made that "most" of the above were. I made the comments I did above knowing full well this could turn into a "hot" issue; nevertheless I voted what I believe to be the proper call regarding this particular entry. ◄Zahakiel► 07:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm just saying I think most of the keeps wouldn't be keeps if it was a different subject matter. Not necessarily that you didn't think this through. Usedup 23:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - upon further review, this would make a better category than an article. The article does seem rather subjective, "notable" is bullshit and "innovators" is worse. Innovators? Why isn't Michael Jordan on there? What about Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, inventor of the sky hook? What about Jesse Jackson and his many political campaigning innovations? What about, what about, etc, etc - anyway. Category:African_American_inventors already exists, I see no need for this article. --Action Jackson IV 05:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we already have Category:African American inventors for this topic, making this list unnecessary. All persons with an article on Wikipedia are already "notable," making that superfluous, and "innovators" and "scientists" is far too broad. Krimpet 06:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A common way of organizing biographies: [3], [4]. Move to List of black scientists and inventors, dropping innovators as too broad. If scientists ends up being too broad then the article can be moved to List of black inventors.—eric 06:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As noted by eric above, race-occupation and/or nationality-occupation classifications are quite common and themselves rather intuitive. The suggested reasons for deletion of "pointless"ness and lack of "unique"ness are subjective and incorrect (or at best, irrelevant). Articles on Wikipedia need not be "unique" and the fact that dual classifications by race and occupation outside of WP exist attests to the fact that they are not pointless. That being said, rename to List of black inventors or List of black inventors and scientists per above. -- Black Falcon 06:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but split into List of African American inventors and List of African American scientists. They aren't nearly the same thing. This would fit existing categories better, as well. -- Dhartung | Talk 08:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per above, using "African American" as the adjective since everyone in the list is an African American. The list can provide additional information not found in the category. Note that Category:African American scientists was deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 1#Category:Fooian scientists. The fact that the category exists is not a good argument, but as eric demonstrated above, these fields are notable. –Pomte 09:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - But I agree that this article needs a lot of work and that it needs to be expanded and renamed. The list is far to short and far from comprehensive. "African American" might make more sense for the time being. At some point a "lists of lists" should come in to being. futurebird 11:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the black/white issue isn't a relevant world view, race is alway debatable, soon enough we are going to see actors that are 1/4 this and painters that are 5/8 that. besides, don't we have categories to provide, hmmmmm, categorization? why the manually updated lists? they are just meant to fall out of date if not manually kept. Is the person relevant because he was an inventor? yes. did his race contribute to that relevance? I think not. and about the other lists, all the other lists, the same applies. if someone realy needs this information, i'm sure using google to search through the site will provide the same result. i'd also like to add that Claude Steele, who is on that list is not even described in his own article as black, but is categorized as such. Galf 12:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I have no opinion on the actual list, but should point out that just because Claude Steele's article doesn't say he is black doesn't mean that he isn't. Other famous African Americans aren't direclty identified as such in their articles (Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesse Jackson). And at least for the 19th century scientists, their race did contribute to their notability, considering nearly all college and universities in the US were segregated at that time, as were most professional organizations. I would say that becoming a scientist when denied most opportunities to do so is pretty notable. Natalie 19:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and probably rename per eric's rationale. A recent query at one of the reference desks showed that there are readers who might be looking for a compilation of this kind. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because as an European scientist I fail to see the purpose in the American obsession to divide everything into 'black' and 'white'. If it is renamed with 'African American' in the name obviously even scientists from African countries couldn't be listed (and they I would have thought make up the majority of 'black scientists'). But then at least it would be clear that this list is for Americans to divide themselves. Optimale Gu 13:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, as a European scientist you might be particularly unsuited to comment rashly in this discussion because it neither involves your culture nor your expertise in science. And yet you have no compunctions about saying that it's "clear that this list is for Americans to divide themselves." You might want to be a bit more hesitant about assigning motives to people in other cultures not your own. You might also want to refamiliarize yourself with the Wikipedia principle of "assume good faith." As someone from a continent where ethnic tensions in almost every nation from the Atlantic to the Urals are higher than in America, you might want to treat your self-description more as a humble caveat than a credential. Let me educate you: For those of us in a culture where there are many ethnic groups at different levels of social and ethnic power, and where there is a history of those levels constantly changing over time, these lists perform both a practical and emotional purpose: practical in that they can be used by both middle-school students researching reports and graduate students or researchers studying ethnicity; emotional in that particular career fields have widely varying proportions of ethnic groups and it is often useful to people considering entering those fields to find out about the prominent people from that person's ethnic group who have gone before them. Ethnic organizations often refer to members of their groups who have succeeded in various fields, and one purpose of this is to discourage bigotry from outsiders who have said, in the past, that members of such-and-such a group can't do a particular job. It's not as important, but worth noting that it also happens to be verifiably true that certain ethnic groups, for cultural reasons, often predominate in one field or another for a period of time. That is also useful to study, and these lists might possibly help in that in some way. Particularly among ethnic groups where many people live in impoverished neighborhoods, it has been thought useful for children to know about people from that group who have been successful because despair and discouragement can smother ambition. Most of what I've just written are familiar points to most Americans, whether they agree with them or not. I encourage you to bring up the topic with an American, but when you do, try not to seem presumptuous. Noroton 16:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC) (just edited a few words, no change in meaning Noroton 17:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep - As for those complaining that ethnic and occupation categories don't exist elsewhere (except for jewish), the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese Americans seems to imply that these lists should, as it makes lists of people by ethnicity less broad and more WP:USEFUL. Depending on what happens to the other lists at that AfD, there may soon be such lists for various ethnicities. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and listify according to above renaming proposals. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This could be taken care of by a category rather than its own article. Arx Fortis 17:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename into "African American" SecurID 19:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons given in my comment to Optimale, above. Noroton 17:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I simply do not understand the current fervor to attack and delete ethnic lists. There's a disturbing xenophobic undertone to all this. StudierMalMarburg 14:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wish you would read the reasons why these lists are being deleted before just assuming we're deleting them because we're "xenophobic" white people. Usedup 20:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did read the reasons, I just don't buy it. After all, why are only American ethnic groups targeted? Why not go after all these listings as well Lists of people by nationality? After all, by the logic being used here, they too should be deleted. All I'm saying is that this bandwagon got started because some provocateur created a "List of Caucasian Americans" for no reason other than to get it deleted so he could use it as justification to start the process of deleting ethnic lists. So regardless of the arguments presented to argue for deletion, I do think, if one looks closely enough, this is being fueled by xenophobes who don't like to see the accomplishments of ethnic minorities listed or highlighted in any way. StudierMalMarburg 22:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you think that the 'provocateur' who created this article did it for the purpose of creating a bandwagon? Or do you think that they don't like to see the accomplishments of Caucasian Americans listed or highlighted in any way? Cloveoil 23:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, StudierMalMarburg makes a valid point about the "List of Caucasian Americans" -- it received over 100 edits by dozens of contributors within hours of being created (over 40 by 8 editors within 20-something minutes). I strongly suspect that list was created only to present a WP:POINT. -- Black Falcon 06:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Which is? Cloveoil 02:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Encyclopedic, notable topic, subject of multiple sources.--Vsion 07:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category seems unnecessary (no lists of inventors of other races.) Captain panda In vino veritas 02:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable and encyclopediac list.--Sefringle 04:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are no List of Asian innovators, inventors, and scientists or List of Caucasian innovators, inventors, and scientists. We separate this by nationality, not race. Why is being black such an exception to this that it merits another list? Nobody has addressed that Usedup 05:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Probably for the same reason that there is no article for Music of Caucasian Origin Awards. Cloveoil 13:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply. Race (and by extension ethnicity) is highlighted in this case because it is, at least in the United States, a more salient dimension of social and political cleavage than nationality. -- Black Falcon 20:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:37Z

Ewar

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

Delete. Does not satisfy notability guidelines for fiction; only one (irrelevant) Google result for "ewar"+"Nuclis". ... discospinster talk 04:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems like an unpublished or made-up story. - PoliticalJunkie 19:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sarcasticidealist (talk • contribs) 22:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete I originally placed the notability tag and have since found no indication this is anything other than someone's unpublished ideas. Doesn't meet notability standards for fiction. --DanielCD 01:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 01:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Books

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

It's a book series without any assertion of notability aside from a few mentions in non-notable websites, nor any that I can discern from a quick search. There are neutrality concerns which would require repairing should the article be kept. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per my nomination. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete serious problems identifying any independent sources about the books. Guy (Help!) 17:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, over 10,000 copies of the book were sold, and there are numerous reviews on Amazon.com about the book. If this article is to be deleted, then so should all but two articles about (spiritual) mediums. --Snooziums 22:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • If this article is to be removed doe to lack of notability, then the following should be as well:
Channelled entities:
Aiwass, Count of St Germain, Djwal Khul, Dr. Fritz, Kryon
Spiritual mediums:
Derek Acorah, Ailene Light, Rosemary Altea, Mina Crandon
Benjamin Creme, Allison DuBois, Eva Pierrakos, Arthur Ford, Colin Fry, Ronna, Herman, Esther Hicks, Gordon Higginson, Estelle :Roberts, Jane Roberts, Betty Shine, Doris Stokes, Swami Laura Horos, James Van Praagh, Lisa Williams, Mary Ann Wintkowski, Patience Worth, and Chico Xavier
--Snooziums 22:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, there is a review of the books and interview with their author on the Meria Heller show, a well-known radio show in the links section.
--Snooziums 22:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the section "Other reviews of the books" to the page. --Snooziums 23:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as there are a couple of reviews of the books from independent sources, and a high volume of the books have been printed and sold, and there are numerous reviews. In addition, this author has appeared on a couple of independent shows. --Snooziums 20:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Note: The author of these books, Suzanne Ward, is a regulator guest on BBS Radio, and in fact, is listed on the "shows" section of that Wiki page. Clearly, there is enough notability to be listed on a radio station that has enough notability to be listed on Wiki.

  • If this article is to be removed due to "lack of notability," then I would suggest removing Guy Finley and James Gilliland, as the notability is about the same.
    • Hmm. After commenting about being hesitant to keep the article about Guy Finley without more reliable sources, I checked out your contributions and noticed the activity on this page and the nominations for deletions of the other pages. I'm concerned about WP:POINT. On the other hand, some of these do need to be scrutinized. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 11:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this book is sold through many Unity Church bookstores (I know because I have seen it there, and have seen it sold, and members have talked about it), and as it appears to be doing well on Amazon.com (no, not a "best seller," but still not a obscure book, I am not sure how the "notability" concern applies here. A Google search appears to yield at least a few thousand hits on these books, especially the first book in the series. There are numerous reviews of the book, some hosted by actual companies or non-profit organizations, and a couple of them are listed on the page in question. --Snooziums 19:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will admit that this article does need to be "cleaned up," and I have been working on that. However, posting an article for deletion within 24 hours of it being created because it needs to be "cleaned up" is not a practical way to go about it. If there were issues about neutrality and notability, they should have been discussed in the talk page, not just mark the entire page for deletion. --Snooziums 21:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. I nominated it because, while a few sources are provided, they're far from notable and I was completely unable to find any better sources despite trying. An AfD affords a decent amount of time to come up with sources. The Wikipedia is not a place for advertisements or for articles about particularly non-notable subjects (especially when they're products); if you can't attribute the statements and claims of notability in this article to reliable sources, and indeed make any substantial claims of notability, then the article should not remain here. If you figure out these sources after the AfD, and if the AfD closes in favour of deletion, you can bring them to deletion review to attempt to have a second AfD or outright overturn the deletion. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all sources listed here are either COI or unreliable otherwise. If there are real outside sources to be found, they should have been found by now.DGG 00:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that there are a few pages within Wikipedia that link directly to this page. Removing this page will create a few "red links" (no page exists yet message) on those pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snooziums (talk • contribs).
  • Delete unless properly referenced from reliable sources to establish notability. Nothing there yet. NBeale
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. James086Talk 10:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ki Longfellow

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

Notability not established or adequately sourced per WP:BIO, WP:ATT. RJASE1 Talk 04:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: ugh. For one thing, grotesquely prolix, and ludicrous in the way it drops names. Quote: ... in 1964 she briefly migrated to Los Angeles instead, following the destiny of another friend, Zekial Marko, a pulp fiction writer. Marko’s work, though totally unnoticed in the land of his birth, had somehow become serious fiction in France. Thanks to this, he was asked to write a film for a young French actor called Alain Delon in order to introduce him to an American audience. The result was the rather poor “Once A Thief” [3] directed by Ralph Nelson (who’d just made Father Goose with Gary Grant and Lilies of the Field with Sidney Poitier). It starred Jack Palance, Ann-Margaret, Van Heflin, Tony Musante, and John Davis Chandler. It also featured Longfellow, her first and last appearance in film. Again from her radio interview, she said the experience taught her acting was not to her taste, mainly because it was so dependent on the taste, actions, and "meddling" of others. As Jack Palance said to her while he whiled away the tedious hours between shots: “This is no job for real artists” (plus markup). This one reeks of va -- of, ah, conflict of interest. It's full of fascinating (or not) little asides that aren't backed up, probably couldn't be backed up, and don't look as if they're worth the effort of backing up. It's an embarrassment. (Can promotion by/of/for somebody who's clearly articulate and intelligent be so shameless? Then again, perhaps it's a joe job.) There seems to be a pattern to this: earlier, I had to zap Stanshall-irrelevant Longfellow stuff from Vivian Stanshall (see this). ¶ Yet the woman does indeed seem to have written two or three books that have been put out by major publishers. Hmm. -- Hoary 06:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Currently a terribly written article, but it has at least a lot of constant work going into it, and the Author in question did manage to get several books published, at least one by Random House (major publisher). Her most recent work made Publisher's Weekly for review. Give it more time to hopefully straighten out as it's still less than a month old. It would seem much better to post "provide reference" notices for this than deletion. Autocracy 08:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article reads like a collection of reviews copied from the backs of the book jackets or at least a collection of critical reviews gleaned for positive statements. Arx Fortis 17:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A writer who has published six books, three with extremely major presses (Harper-Collins, Doubleday, and Random House), and who has been the subject of a Publisher's Weekly article *and* a brattleboro.com interview passes WP:BIO. Considering the fact that she publishes under at least three names in English alone, Ghits on one name may not be terribly useful. --Charlene 19:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Charlene. Sarcasticidealist 22:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wrote it. I did try to follow what I'd read in the articles of other writers. The first coment is that there is so much name-dropping, and I can see that person's point. The problem is, this writer has been there and done that so much, it was hard not to name drop. If it would make things better, I could drop the movie paragraph because I can see it might be too much. I can't back up everything I've written, not by quoting published articles, but so much of what I've learned is taken from English radio and television documentaries. Is it really so terribly written? I admit that hurts a bit. But I do want to learn. I've googled a lot and more is coming out on this writer all the time. Perhaps I could work on it again. Or perhaps someone could take a red marker to it. There's someone else contributing, but I started the article (I admit, I am a fan), I take the blame for it being "terrible". But really, I am sure it shouldn't be deleted just because I did a a bad job since it meets wiki's criteria for an article. Shanalk 00:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It may be hard not to name-drop. Well, try harder. Look, here's something that's quoted above and that is still in the article: The result was the rather poor “Once A Thief” [3] directed by Ralph Nelson (who’d just made Father Goose with Gary Grant and Lilies of the Field with Sidney Poitier). It starred Jack Palance, Ann-Margaret, Van Heflin, Tony Musante, and John Davis Chandler. The fact that Nelson had made Father Goose and Lilies of the Field can be explained in the article on Nelson. The fact that Once a Thief starred all those people can be explained in an article on it (if it's worth an article, and since it's "rather poor" perhaps it is not worth one). Et cetera et cetera (the namedropping isn't the only problem). Please get back in the article wearing an apron and welly boot and armed with secateurs. -- Hoary 03:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep because her books seem notable. If kept, a rapid pruning is in order. I think there's about 2 paragraphs that's encyclopedic.DGG 02:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite -- The article's in pretty bad shape, but the subject is notable, and can be verifiable. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 07:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and some rewriting. I can see it needs some work but some comments are, in my opinion, way over the top. The subject is suitable. The writing isn't bad at all. I do agree it is not encyclopedic, therefore needs to be worked on. I've seen things here go unchallenged that are really poor. I sometimes wonder more about us 'critics' than I do about those who contribute articles. Palmrow 13:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I've removed the entire offending paragraph. Also touched up a few perhaps too-non encyclopedic comments. Please, anyone, go in and do some pruning.Shanalk 13:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've now trimmed it quite a bit. There's still a load of ho-hum biographical stuff that, if it's worth keeping, needs precise sourcing. What do I mean by ho-hum? Well, before meeting Stanshall she spent a lot of time in various places, meeting various people, but I don't see that what she was doing for most of this time was any more significant than what most people do. Can we skip the filler and just get the highlights? -- Hoary 16:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment All artists, scientists, musicians, writers, etc. have a life before they make whatever it is they make. People find that interesting. If a person ends up doing something notable, then what they did before, or what influenced them, is of interest, at least to me. I'd like to know how they got there. That's what biographies are for. There are many writers here, some with long articles, some with short ones, a lot with unreferenced materials, many with quotes and accolades. I know, I've been reading them to understand what is wrong with my effort. Who wouldn't be disappointed when there is only a list of their books, discoveries, albums, included? You say ho-hum biographical stuff. Because you are not interested in this artist? Or any artist? Or only particular artists? I don't want to read about many of the notable people included on wikipedia, so I don't bother. But if I do want to read about them, I want to know some of these, to you, ho hum, details. I can understand your earlier comments about name dropping, but not cutting out real biographical material. Shanalk 00:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a fair question. It's possible that I've viewed this article with excessive coolth, prompted by its initial extravagances. First, there's a question about the status of this biographical material. Typically (although not necessarily), material about somebody's life while they were little known comes from that person. But in WP it must first be filtered through a source not controlled by that person. So we can't cite a web page written or controlled by KL, but we can cite the book Ginger Geezer even where the latter is doing little more than recycling what KL said. This requirement may knock out a lot of what's written here. Secondly, let's suppose that we have sufficiently independent evidence to assert that, say, KL spent a year in Paris, Nice, and elsewhere in Europe. Because it's a whole year, it's something that's probably worth saying even without any obvious reason; still, a good article might attempt to explain what effect this year had on KL, whether in the short or the long term. -- Hoary 03:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My earlier irritations notwithstanding, this is somebody who merits an article, and the article about her is certainly good enough to remain. -- Hoary 03:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thank you, Hoary, for listening to me, and even more for hearing me. I shall work harder on making this a proper wiki article, using points about the writer's life that influenced her work. This is my first article and I have other artists I would like to include. This discussion is proving invaluable to me for any future articles. I would also like to work on already existing articles that I feel are not "right" now that I've learned quite a bit discussing what is wrong with this first article.Shanalk 15:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry to have made you feel unwelcome at the start, and am glad that you feel welcome (or anyway not so unwelcome) now. -- Hoary 02:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the dramatic changes and significant improvements to the article since AFD (including the addition of sources). See diff. As noted by a number of users above, the article was initially in very poor shape, but it has been largely cleaned up now. -- Black Falcon 06:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Does this interesting discussion mean that the deletion notice will be removed from this article? If so, will it be soon? I've checked around among other articles that have still this tag, no discussion, and are months old. I'm hoping an active ultimately favorable number of Keeps will allow the delete tag to disappear.Shanalk 21:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Attempted explanation You've asked at least two questions here. First, while I don't want to prejudge a decision that should be made by somebody else (somebody who hasn't participated), it does look likely that there'll be a "keep" verdict. If/when that happens, three changes will be made more or less simultaneously: the person deciding it will mark this discussion as finished, will remove the deletion-discussion notice from the article, and will add a comment to the article's talk page saying that the article survived AfD. There's no reason to push this. However, some discussions such as this do fall through the cracks, as it were; if you, I or some other participant here thinks this has happened, the normal thing to do is to contact some administrator who hasn't participated in the discussion. The other articles that still have this tag but are months old: you could mean any of several things by this; if you name one or more of the articles in a message on my talk page, then I'll take a look at them and get back to you. But let's not discuss them here. -- Hoary 02:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lost and Found (Christian rock band)

Lost and Found (Christian rock band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not established or sourced per WP:MUSIC. RJASE1 Talk 05:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete generic Christian band, no evidence of importance or notability Guy (Help!) 17:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article states that the band has won the John Lennon Songwriting Contest, and I count no less than thirteen published albums for them (not including one triple album best of). They seem more than qualified for their entry I think.Cloveoil 23:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They won a National Contest in 1998. They influence thousands upon thousands of people in their concerts, over 100 per year. They have over 13 albums. There are at least four qualified references. This page was kept before all the references were even on the page from research done by others. There are notable effects of this band all over the country and in Germany as well. I do not see how this is not notable or important. Also, I am not certain how one can say that this band is not notable or important when two of the references are from Youth Specialties (the biggest Youth Ministry network in the United States) and Youth Encounter. Stein Auf! KagomeShuko 06:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, this has been discussed when this article was being established and was only a stub. The vote then was to keep the article. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lost_and_Found_%28band%29 Stein Auf! KagomeShuko 20:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable enough Captain panda In vino veritas 02:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Oh, come on. 13 albums, and a number of non-trivial references already included in the article. The article just needs cleanup, but the band clearly meets WP:MUSIC. -- Black Falcon 06:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it needs a cleanup, sortening and some proper references from reliable sources. NBeale
  • The Lutheran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lutheran) is not a reliable source? Stein Auf! KagomeShuko 06:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted per author's request. JDoorjam JDiscourse 02:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Lisel

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

Non-notable teen model. Already deleted under WP:CSD#A7. I guess this is going to keep coming back, so it needs to go through AFD once so that it can be deleted under WP:CSD#G4 from now on. — coelacan — 04:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted per request of original poster. JDoorjam JDiscourse 02:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniella Morris

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

Non-notable teen model. A bunch of blogs for "references", and websites apparently run by her or her family or her promotional company. (probably User:Mtoa). Nothing like reliable sources to write an article from. Part of a "series", apparently. Image is probably a copyvio. — coelacan — 05:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are websites such as Pageantry Magazine, Seventeen Magazine, and Youthnoise run by her, of her family, or promotional companies? Also where are their blogs listed on the references? I don't see any. Image isn't a copyright violation since I'm her manager and I run the website it was put on. You cannot just make accusations for fun or just because you want to because none of what your saying is correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mtoa (talk • contribs).

The Youthnoise site is a blog, her entry there is created and self-published there by her. Self-publishing is not reliable sourcing. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Pageantry? Seventeen? These are the links you've provided: http://www.pageantrymagazine.com/ http://www.seventeen.com/ On neither of those pages do I see anything about your client. And the image still can't be used here, because it's a copyrighted image of a living person, that you haven't released under a free license. See Wikipedia:Image use policy. You can release it under the {{gfdl-self}} or the {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}, and then the image can be used on Wikipedia, but keep in mind that this means anyone will be legally able to edit the image in any way and re-release it. So be very certain this is indeed what you want to do. — coelacan — 06:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually NOT a blog, she wrote the article after Youthnoise contacted her asking her to write it, but it was received and published by Youth Noise. Pageantry Magazine and Seventeen Magazine were magazines which covered her stories just like Turn for the Judges magazine.

  • Comment Please see WP:A and WP:CITE for further information on what sort of sources are to used in articles, and how those articles are to be cited. It's not enough to say that your clients have been mentioned in Seventeen or another magazine without letting others know exactly where they've been mentioned. And no, we're not going to Google it for you. You might want to take a look at WP:COI while you're at it. It is generally regarded as a conflict of interest around here to participate in deletion discussions about subjects in which you have a professional interest. ObtuseAngle 17:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's something of a flexible rule, especially as long as the article creator is candid about that professional interest. In this case, Mtoa has been asked, by myself and an admin, to participate in these deletion discussions. — coelacan — 17:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. I don't have a problem with that. ObtuseAngle 17:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mtoa, I checked YouthNoise again. Right there on every page it says very clearly: "Register and post content". That's a blog. That means anyone can put anything there. I see no indication that Daniella was personally invited to do so. — coelacan — 17:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the contest appears to be very minor (hosted on tripod?). Notability isn't clear and cites aren't clearly covering the topic. --Hobit 23:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable ROxBo 00:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable and written by someone directly involved. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable --Slp1 01:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted per request of original author. JDoorjam JDiscourse 02:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Teen New York

Miss Teen New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable beauty pageant. Part of a "series" by User:Mtoa (stands for "miss teen of america"). Links to blogs, a general link to some pageantry magazine. All blatant advertizing. I would speedy but these things keep coming back (like Katie Lisel) so I'd like to get one AFD done so that future deletions can just be WP:CSD#G4. Anyway, nothing here like reliable sources to write an article from. Just say no. — coelacan — 05:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete Seems to be borderlin notable (just this one, don't know about any others) based on google searches, but if concensus is to pitch it until more good sources come along/later years, go for it. - Denny 05:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - The Miss Teen of America article can, in my mind justify notability, but little more. This isn't that big. Unless something makes New York particularly special other than being the state of the current title holder, we definitely don't need another, narrower scoped article. I'd hate to see one of these for all 50 States. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Autocracy (talk • contribs) 08:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong delete. This is a state pageant for a national pageant, Miss Teen of America, which itself hasn't been established as notable. Most of the sources linked in this article don't go to web pages which mention this pageant -- they just go to the front pages of other web sites without establishing any direct connection to this pageant. --Metropolitan90 17:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with Miss Under 12 Mudhole Flats Idaho. There is no practical limit to the number of pageants one could find if one put one's mind to it, and no, that is not an invitation. Guy (Help!) 17:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am guessing this is related to Miss Teen of America below and not Miss USA or Miss America. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's related to Miss America's Outstanding Teen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.100.90 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete The pageant is actually related to Miss Teen America, not Miss America's Outstanding Teen. I've gone looking for news articles on Factiva, and actually relate to Miss New York Teen USA and get the title wrong. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 22:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS I just went through the entire Factiva search results for "Miss Teen New York" and didn't find one source that wasn't mistakenly talking about Miss New York Teen USA. Factiva references news articles dating back to the 1980s. I think this is a pretty strong indication that the subject is not notable. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 23:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deletion; non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 02:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Teen of America

Miss Teen of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable teen beauty pageant. Note, this is not Miss Teen America which was up for AFD not too long ago. This is part of a series by User:Mtoa. Sources are blogs and general links to internet magazines that may or may not have covered this at some time. In any case not reliable sources to write an article from. Image is probably also a copyvio. — coelacan — 05:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable (and possibly fake) pageant. The fact that the "official" site is a Tripod site hurts the credibility. It's like being hosted on Geocities. TJ Spyke 05:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this is also hosted at tripod http://misswesternnewyork.tripod.com/ and it's an OFFICIAL miss america preliminary you can double check at www.missamerica.org to see for yourself

you can also view a fully paid for ad for miss teen of america and miss western new york in supermodels unlimited magazine and pageantry magazine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtoa (talk • contribs)

  • Please sign your comments. It still fails WP:N for not having any reliable sources. TJ Spyke 06:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For an overall article, I found enough news articles about pagaent happenings and mention on several school websites. Be careful to make sure you take special care when researching as noted by the nom. Autocracy 08:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, I consider the school websites fair enough notable sources as he information published about such event on an official school site and page can be assumed subject to independant review. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Autocracy (talk • contribs) 08:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Delete per comments in first vote. Real organizations have real websites and are covered in major media sources. Until this org. (real or not) reaches that standard, it is non-notable. Antonrojo 14:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Antonrojo. There are a lot of pageants out there, many of which are non-notable. In this case, not only is this pageant's web site hosted at Tripod (rather than having a domain of its own), but the Tripod site is a placeholder page with no content. The pageant should receive mainstream news coverage before it gets a Wikipedia page. --Metropolitan90 17:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My first impression of this page is not as positive as I would have expected it to be by the title. Also, a non-notable pageant in my "eyes". TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:ORG, WP:N, WP:ATT and other policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is not for making things notable; it's for things that are already notable. The vast majority of pageants are not. --Charlene 20:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 22:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable --Hobit 00:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Friday (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lariat car rental

Lariat car rental (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - orphaned article about a non-notable fictional company that appeared for a few minutes in a couple of television episodes. Otto4711 05:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 08:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Christian Fellowship

Victory Christian Fellowship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Only sources for the article are affiliated with the subject, and I cannot find any significant secondary or independent sources. This seems to violate WP:ATT in that self-published and potentially biased sources should not be the basis for an article. The article also appears to be promotional. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 05:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Withdraw nomination, source information has been found. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 08:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Brago-Mitchell

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

Minimal notability asserted: in the news for having taken her clothes off; since that time, has done a very little of this, that and the other. Not a speedy because not a re-creation of the article created before, this is more carefully done and more comprehensive than its predecessor. Hoary 05:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the previous AfD. -- Hoary 05:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No sources, and the only possible claim to fame is being the first person to post nude for a campus magazine (which is unsourced, and i'm not sure if that is a big deal anyways). TJ Spyke 06:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given total lack of sources. Nothing against a polymath, but while all of the separate bio snippets are not without interest, its not clear that togther they add up to notability. Robertissimo 07:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on "sources". Three have been added since this was nominated for AfD: one showing that Time mentioned her stripping, one to the top page of her husband's site (thus not independent), one to a page selling her computer graphics. So all that's sourced so far is that, yes, she really was in the news for taking her clothes off. -- Hoary 08:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the various activities or occupations she has practiced in her life is itself enough to qualify under WP:BIO. --Metropolitan90 17:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep Though it seems unnotable now, her early appearances were notable at the time, and thus remain notable for our purposes. Better sources till needed, tho it isn't easy for that sort of thing so far back. The Time ref. is just a single paragraph; I'd want to see at least 1 or 2 other such references. DGG 02:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: That there could be an online source forty years down the road from her principal fame is marginally impressive. Come to that, though, there was an AfD that passed a few days ago on the sole strength that the subject made the cover of Playboy once, and this gal was in the mag twice, the main appearance being in the Sept. '68 issue. There's also a citation on the Stanford cite under corporate figures who attended (under her maiden name of Bowles) [6]. RGTraynor 18:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the added sources (see diff). I would, however, like to contest the point that she was in the news only for taking off her clothes. She was in the news for taking off her clothes in the 1960s in the United States (yes, it was California, but still ...). Also, the fact that she merits a mention in Time 40 years after the peak of her fame suggests some lasting notability. WP:NOT#PAPER and we can always revisit the issue later on. -- Black Falcon 06:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you suggesting that taking one's clothes off in the 60s in the US was more significant than doing so in the 90s in the US or in the 60s in France? If so, how? Also, I've looked at the links, but they really do little more than confirm that she took her clothes off and that she sells computer-generated artwork. I'm still underwhelmed. -- Hoary 09:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And there is indeed nothing about which to be overwhelmed (or even regularly "whelmed"). Yes, she took her clothes off, but that's not all that happened and certainly not the relevant part. What's relevant is that she appeared in the news because of it and also in Playboy. And, yes, taking one's clothes off in the 1960s in the US was more significant than doing so in the 1990s in the US. Why? Because social norms were different then. I don't know about 1960s France, but someone taking their clothes off in France now probably wouldn't even get a mention in the local evening news (and rightly so), whereas the US media was captivated for over a week with a "wardrobe malfunction". Should she be in an encyclopedia based on her 1960s stripping? That's the wrong question to ask. Should she be in the encyclopedia because of the news coverage and her Playboy appearances? Yes. And again, if she is noted in Time magazine 40 years after her disrobing, that seems to suggest some lasting notability. -- Black Falcon 17:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paring Bol-anon

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

Unencyclopedic, a directory of Roman Catholic priests in a particular geographic area. I guess if I had to pick a criteria for deletion, it would be WP:ORG or WP:NOT#IINFO. (As an aside, I'm probably going to Hell for nominating this article for deletion.) RJASE1 Talk 06:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Most of the information on the page is clearly not notable, but I think we need to consider the possibility that the order, as an entity, may be notable. Seeing nothing on the page to establish notability right now, I'm a weak delete, but if somebody who actually knows something about this subject (unlike me) wants to edit the article into something else (a history of the order, any important effects the order has had on Philippine society, and the like) I could certainly be persuaded to change my vote.Sarcasticidealist 22:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the article's author, I have no qualms about making the deletion painless by tagging this {{db-author}}. The former redirect, I guess List of Paring Bol-anon will serve its purpose the best, as a link to the article Diocese of Tagbilaran, Bohol and the Immaculate Heart of Mary Seminary. Furthermore, I am certain that this present article will find its best place in the Cebuano Wikipedia. I will appreciate a message in my talk page giving me the go signal to tag it db-author! Thank you so much for the chance to participate in this democratic process in the English Wikipedia. ----Ate Pinay (talk•email) 00:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is basically a list of parish priests in an area, and Wikipedia, in any language, doesn't need that. --Howard the Duck 00:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Unfortunately I could find no independent, non-trivial, reliable sources for the order, so delete. RJASE, you may just want to add us both to Category:Wikipedians destined to eternal damnation. ;P -- Black Falcon 06:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:39Z

Overseas Chinese Youth Language Training and Study Tour to the Republic of China

Overseas Chinese Youth Language Training and Study Tour to the Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article has been around since 2002, but seems full of speculation, rumor, original research. Sources are almost all self-referential or self-published. RJASE1 Talk 06:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nothing currently in the article establishes its notability, and nothing is sourced.Sarcasticidealist 22:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup. It's a bona-fide government sponsored program, the problem is finding English sources. Chinese sources should not be hard to find. By the way, the original nominator may want to re-tag this page (someone deleted the AfD tag from the article). Wl219 14:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page re-tagged - RJASE1 Talk 17:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Massive trimming and cleanup. Government-sponsored program, reasonably known in Taiwan. AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 17:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google search shows a journal article, an online magazine article, a book at Amazon. This program is almost a rite of passage for college-aged overseas Chinese in the US. --Ideogram 18:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup Article is now footnoted and attibutable to reliable sources such as the Canadian National Paperthe "Toronto Star" and the Taiwan National Journal These two articles substantiate the relevance and length of the program in English. Chinese source includes the Institution that ran the program in Taiwan for 40 years, the China Youth Corps. The relevance and length of the program can be substantiated there in Chinese. As previous commentator said, it is considered a rite of passage for many overseas Chinese internationally --Studydoc 20:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:41Z

Investiture of the Gods (chapter 1)

Investiture of the Gods (chapter 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Investiture of the Gods (chapter 5) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Investiture of the Gods (chapter 6) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Investiture of the Gods (chapter 10) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Investiture of the Gods (chapter 11) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Investiture of the Gods (chapter 12) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Investiture of the Gods (chapter 13) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Investiture of the Gods (chapter 14) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Investiture of the Gods (chapter 15) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Investiture of the Gods (chapter 16) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Investiture of the Gods (chapter 17) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Investiture of the Gods (chapter 18) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Investiture of the Gods (chapter 19) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Investiture of the Gods (chapter 20) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Investiture of the Gods (chapter 21) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Investiture of the Gods (chapter 22) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Investiture of the Gods (chapter 23) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Investiture of the Gods (chapter 24) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Investiture of the Gods (chapter 25) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Investiture of the Gods (chapter 26) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Investiture of the Gods (chapter 27) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Investiture of the Gods (chapter 28) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Investiture of the Gods (chapter 29) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Investiture of the Gods (chapter 30) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

All these articles constitute is an unsourced plot summary, which may be construed as unattributable original research. Also, this plot summary is far too detailed, thus failing WP:NOT#IINFO. Merging isn't really an option here due to the sheer size of what we're dealing with. MER-C 06:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Investiture of the Gods (chapter 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Investiture of the Gods (chapter 31) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Investiture of the Gods (chapter 32) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
Category:Chapters of Fengshen Yanyi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
  • Delete all There is already an article on the book, we don't need seperate articles and summaries for every chapter. TJ Spyke 07:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Thanks for doing this, MER-C. I wasn't up to pasting 30 separate AFD templates. -- Dhartung | Talk 08:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could these possibly be transwiki'd into Wikibooks or some other sister project as an extensive plot outline? –Pomte 08:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Al-Bargit 11:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. A plot summary isn't OR, but this is still a bit much ObtuseAngle 13:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • - Originally, I thought it to be pointless to list a source around the plot summary -- for it would obviously be based off of its specified chapter. I know that making individual chapter articles off of a novel is rather strange to Wikipedia's norms, but I believe such actions could easily make this foundation be seen as a more creative society. You would think it to be rather strange, but won't it make Wikipedia a greater place within the end? All the information within each individual plot summary is word-for-word with my own knowledge (excluding a few quotes) and is thus liable information to be told. I could however make it slightly more organized and creative by organizing the info within bold headline titles -- such an action would make the information more organized and is thus probably recommended. Thus, to avoid any problems, I will specify the exact page numbers that the plot summary is based from.

Overall, you could say that my chapter articles could be used as external informational links to each character within the Fengshen Yanyi characters category. If these chapters remained in existance, I could take every character and organize them into a few different character list article (such as "officials of the Shang Dynasty", or "Superiormen of Fengshen Yanyi"). Within each biography, I could say a general amount of information, and then provide bold subtitles of the characters' specific actions that will lead to a chapter; Thus chapter articles could combine "trivial" information with general information that is wanted by Wikipedia. Thus, these actions will make Wikipedia more creative and will combine information with Wikipedia's standards, and the want of the people. User:Tathagata Buddha, 10 March 2007 (EST)

    • Those are suggestions that currently run counter to Wikipedia consensus, so if you want to put that kind of stuff on here you're going to have to go to the relevant talk pages and try to change consensus.Sarcasticidealist 22:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all The book itself is extremely notable, but this level of detail is a bit much. What's more, each article itself is disjointed - going to one article (via random article, for instance) I would have no idea whatsoever what it was talking about, and I'd likely stick a speedy delete on the page. I strongly suggest the creator either userfy these pages, see if Wikibooks would find them appropriate, or create his own website. The information really is valuable, but it's both too detailed and too disjointed for Wikipedia. --Charlene 20:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh Lord, WHY? Make it stop, please! (that's a delete vote, btw). -R. fiend 22:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. The book itself is notable, but mostly for reasons unrelated to plot, which works against the notability of this information.Sarcasticidealist 22:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Wikipedia isn't Sparknotes. --Wafulz 23:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per TJ Spyke. —dima/s-ko/ 01:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per the nomination. We aren't a detailed synopsis of a book's chapters. Barring that, a possible transwiki to Wikibooks might be in order. --Dennisthe2 02:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if so, these chapter articles could be used as a source of trivial information that may wish to be known. For example, see Characters of Kiba; this is a grand example of an unorganized - far too uncategorized article. My objective is to take a page like this, trim down it's information, and basicly you could say transfer it to external articles (such as a chapter article in this case). For example, I could take every character currently within the Fengshen Yanyi character category and put them into a few different mass article pages, such as "Offficials of the Shang Dynasty" and "Superiormen of Fengshen Yanyi". After telling a certain amount of general information for each character based from each specific plotline (or chapter in this case), I could label the corresponding chapter within parenthesis.

Example:

Su Daji Su Daji is a major character featured within Investiture of the Gods who has contributed greatly to the Shang Dynasty's fall. Throughout Daji's many torture devices, the Bronze Toaster (6) would be her first creation. The Snake Pit, and the Meat Forest (17) would be her additional creations throughout the course of the novel.

Thus, instead of rambling on amount information that is "trivial", but yet needed in order for an individual to completely understand the plotline, the chapter articles could serve as information containers. As of the moment, my Category:Fengshen Yanyi characters is rather unorganized and generally says information that is already said within my chapter articles. Thus, by keeping these chapter articles alive, far more organization within the Fengshen Yanyi characters could be achieved and "trivial" information could be at a set base, while "general" information is at another base. Even if it is not seemingly right to have chapter articles within this foundation, it will avoid overcrowdment and will instill creative organization; and I thus believe they should be contined. However, if the chapters are still linkable from wikipedia to wikibooks, then I will conclude that such an action could be acceptable. User:Tathagata Buddha, 11 March 2007 (EST)

  • Comment: Adding a delete vote would be gilding the lily, so I'll just confine myself to these remarks. I appreciate that you think Wikipedia ought to be more creative, but what Wikipedia is is an encyclopedia. We all want "creative" encyclopedias like we want "creative" telephone books or "creative" computer instruction manuals. These entries would have no place in a telephone book or in a computer instruction manual, and they have none here. RGTraynor 18:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, this is a pretty clear case of what Wikipedia is not. Chapter summaries simply aren't in an encyclopedia of anything. --UsaSatsui 15:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 using the snowball clause. The article was nominated without the realization that, at that point, the article had been vandalized.--TBCΦtalk? 08:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crump

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

Vulgar nonsense NorthernThunder 07:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for lack of sources. However, please remember that Wikipedia is not censored. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hemlock Martinis (talk • contribs) 07:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Speedy keep - Apparently this page was originally a legitimate disambiguation. I have reverted the last few edits from an IP with a history on only this article and some apparent vandalism to Nayef Hawatmeh, so the deletable content is now absent - although for some bizarre reason it shows my reversion as coming from an anon. IP itself. ◄Zahakiel► 07:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Current page does not match nom at all, and does appear clearly useful for disambiguation. Autocracy 08:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, original research, should be covered at NASA if anywhere. NawlinWiki 13:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why Nasa was created

Why Nasa was created (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An essay of sorts containing likely original research. All of the good info is already covered in the NASA article. PROD was removed by the article creator. Wickethewok 07:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not for essays. MaxSem 08:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MaxSem; also the section named "Conclusion" in the article makes it pretty clear it's OR. I'd suggest Speedy Delete, but there's no policy support for that. Autocracy 08:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 11:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete! Al-Bargit 11:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmonk nest

The term "chipmonk nest" is a non-notable neologism used in one movie. It is not encyclopedic on its own and likely does not even merit inclusion in the Nacho Libre article. Hemlock Martinis 07:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Given no other reference for notability, I'd call this article patent nonsense. Autocracy 08:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not even spelled right! ObtuseAngle 15:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable neologism which is not even a notable expression in the context of the movie it was supposedly taken from. --Metropolitan90 17:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Silly excuse for an article. Doesn't even clearly explain the subject (How exactly is using "Chipmonk nest" [sic] as a substitution for "cool" or "hip" a "play on words"?). I suspect the author doesn't know quite know what a "play on words" really is. No sources given (and a Google search doesn't give any support for the term used in this context--even in the correct spelling). Wavy G 19:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could say redirect to Nacho Libre but that doesn't seem necessary. Lotusduck 19:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per pretty much everybody.Sarcasticidealist 22:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Horribly written, apparently the phrase, like any other phrase, can be used in several different ways - either as an insult, a compliment, maybe even a statement of fact. Seems the work of a precocious eight year old, or thereabouts. WP:SNOW? --Action Jackson IV 23:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tremblay Road

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

Prod contested by an IP address with no reason given. Yet another road article that makes no claim to notability, offers nothing more than directory information and provides absolutely no sources. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NOT a directory/gazeteer and WP:ATT. Nuttah68 08:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The information in the article actually serves to help show that it's not notable. Autocracy 08:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would say a major road in a major city (captial of Canada, no less) is notable. --Oakshade 00:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oakshade. Consensus is plain that principal roads in major cities are notable. RGTraynor 18:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it is a major road I'd agree. However, there are no sources in the article to confirm this and Google news provides nothing either. Likewise, the first 100 GHits offer nothing more than trivial mentions as business addresses, the location of a station or as part of directions. Nuttah68 18:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The road fails to make it on this template: {{Ottawa Roads}}, which is even in the article for some reason. --Holderca1 14:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Esmée Denters

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

Internet singing "star". Delete as non-notable per WP:MUSIC, article also contains violations of WP:CRYSTAL. RJASE1 Talk 08:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. She's currently also in Belgian news. That alone does not make her encyclopedic enough to be kept, but this should be mentioned nonetheless. Sijo Ripa 10:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the original author of the article, I oppose the nomination with the following considerations: the subject is legitimately noteworthy as may be seen from the citations in the text. That she is a popular entertainer is borne out by her fan base and her notoriety in her own country (Holland). Will she be as famous as Madonna or even the Numa Numa guy, who knows? The subject is a project in the works - maybe we should place a "current events" notice instead of a deletion notice! And another thing: More proof of her fan base is here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfSWCbUSd_o Is this fan devotion or what? Verne Equinox 16:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most internet memes, even the ones that get some news coverage, do little except maybe get some people to put up fansites. This one is actually getting record companies seriously interested. She's at the cusp of a historic moment in the music industry, as it tries to figure out whether Myspace and Youtube popularity will translate to the real world. This gives her lasting notability even if her nascent career doesn't take off. --Groggy Dice T | C 18:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As Groggy put it so well, she might be famous someday if her popularity translates into RW. Wikipedia will be around when and if that happens. Galf 22:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She's clearly gotten some media coverage, and the points raised by Groggy Dice are right on - her notability is not merely proportionate to her success, but is based on the importance of the phenomenon she represents.Sarcasticidealist 22:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Jessica Lee Rose (lonelygirl15) was up for deletion as well. The wiki community chose to keep her bio. Geriatric1927 also has his bio on wiki for six months now. Ms. Denter's is currently the 18th most subscribed to person and is the 41st most watched person ever on YouTube - all achieved solely on her own merit in 6 months. One of her original songs "Anything is Possible" is the most watched (over 1.4 million times) songs of any unsigned recording artists on YT. She's been watched nearly 10 million times. She is referenced on over 90,000 places on the web (google her). Is it unusual to have Billy Mann a top 10 rated U.S. record producer travel to a small town in the Netherlands to meet a and sign a non-native english speaking R&B YouTube singer? Even the record labels are reportedly puzzled over the metrics of measuring notability of popular artists emerging from their bedrooms online. Heck, even KrucialKeys (Krucial Brothers and Alicia Keys) are reaching out to connect with their fan base with homemade video interviews (something Ms. Denters has an apparent handle on). Ms. Denters has been the subject of at least 14 known Dutch newspaper articles (all the leading ones included), has been on at least 4 major Dutch TV shows (the dutch fans also translate and subtitle the shows for us non-dutch speaking folks), on Dutch radio, gets a major Reuters/Billboard article written about her and her plans in the music biz, etc. Not just an article on the internet, but then to have this non-english speaking YouTube singer find herself on the cover of BillBoard Magazine, March 3rd, as the inset story? Kelly Rowland formerly of Destiny's Child even had Ms. Denters record one of Ms. Rowland's new songs she wrote. This may be Ms. Denters’ first single release (speculating). However, my opinion is just that Ms. Denters has caused a laser sharp focus in the music business in regards to the metrics of popularity and the transformation to record sales and distribution methods. All that said, I half-heartly agree with the wiki editors that the article should be considered for deletion - but not because of her notability, just because I think the article is premature and there is scant evidence on the actual mark on history she may have. I guess it comes down to what is notable vs. what is popular - I leave that to you folks. I just wanted to respond with some of the facts about Ms. Denters’ 6 month career. Jsfunfun 22:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Has gained a tremendous following (Jsfunfun describes her populartiy in great detail). One of the more popular youtube stars to emerge. For those that care for WP:BIO, she's been primary subject of a recent Reuters article [7]. , was featured heavily (not just a "passing mention") in another Reuters article by a different author [8] and was profiled and inteviewed in the respected Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant [9]. --Oakshade 00:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I think the real question is how far down the Youtube rankings we want to go. The top 1% is a narrower criterion than usual, but here it translates to tens of thousands of articles.is a lot of articles. If it the top 0.01%, she apparently qualifies. I know this is not really a individualized approach, and I am not !voting, but numbers help focus things. DGG 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as she passes WP:BIO, especially since she's from YouTube. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The 2 Reuters sources alone establish notability; add to that everything mentioned by Jsfunfun, and it's clear she passes WP:BIO. -- Black Falcon 07:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep. Article needs cleanup, citations and tone modification. But it does seem to pass Notability.--ZayZayEM 02:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (o rly?) 15:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Films featuring a white protagonist in Africa

Strikes me as a rather random topic. Would make a great essay topic- looks like it's got it's thesis with how Africa is used to appear "exotic" and that it consequently gives Africa a poor image- but Wikipedia isn't the place for that. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, enough sources to convince me it's a real topic- the article needs sourcing, but IMO the editors should get time for that. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Compares too easily with Wikipedia:Listcruft#Examples. I can't imagine who would be a targetted audience for this list, but I do believe it would be very small. Autocracy 08:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article gives a documentary, an academic paper, and 2 news stories on this specific topic. This is hardly a random topic, and I could imagine a lot of people being interested in this list, such as Africans and sociologists. Any WP:OR or WP:NPOV can be taken out for the article to solely list the films. –Pomte 09:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this article works from sources, that's not very clear. And the documentary doesn't look like it's about this specific topic, namely, a movie about a white person in Africa. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 10:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep why is this article up for deletion again. the issue has already been discussed.Muntuwandi 11:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC) see discussion[10][reply]
  • Delete per non-existence of Films featuring a black protagonist in Europe or Novels featuring a generic caucasian antagonist in a high-fantasy setting. This level of arbitrary specificity in detail is not necessary and would lead to an overly-bloated Wikipedia. Shrumster 16:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep Issues directly related to race and ethnicity are not "arbitrary specificity". At the heart of this lies very serious issues. There are but a handful of hollywood blockbuster movies that have a theme about africa. But for a few exceptions most are told from the perspective of white superstars. The Los Angeles Times published the article

Tarzan's children: Why movies about Africa require white saviors.[11]

    • If the la times could write an article about this, then it shows that this is a very critical aspect and not some arbitrary characteristic. The article further mentions the changes that the movie industry is going through. without the history of movies in Africa, one may not appreciate the significance of films like hotel rwanda or even understand why Forest Whitaker won an oscar for The Last King of Scotland (film).
    • "Films featuring a black protagonist in Europe"- if all European movies featured an African protagonist and were told from the perspective of africans wouldn't that seem odd. It hasn't happened so we would not need to create such an article.Muntuwandi 22:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Shrumster SecurID 19:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original Research. This article may use published sources, but it does not follow them closely. Lotusduck 19:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article holds no function other than being a superfluous list seeing as there's an eponymous category which does a splendid job already. --Joffeloff 01:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • but the list has no descriptions and the article does.Muntuwandi 01:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasoning by Pomte and coverage of the issue by highly notable sources. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: there is no question that it has enough sources to establish that it is a notable topic and capable of being verified. There is no violation of WP:NOR - compiling a list of things that obviously belong in a given category does not constitute "original research." Otherwise every list on Wikipedia that is not a direct copy of a list somewhere else would be original research.--Fagles 22:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is a very important topic and one that deserves an article: it is perhaps a result of its title that it finds itself here. I can't think of a better one though. Driller thriller 07:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I had a thought that maybe the subject matter of the article could be broadened and the article could be renamed to something like Ethnic stereotypes in depictions of Africa to match up with Ethnic stereotypes in popular culture and Ethnic stereotypes in American media. It's just a thought, but it might help step away from the problem of "listiness" that the article has now. Driller thriller 11:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the topic is obviously encyclopedic, verifiable and nontrivial on a serious subject. Noroton 02:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The topic is interesting but the title may be incorrect. This should be Western films featuring a white protagonist in Africa. Besides that I think it's a worthwhile look at a segment of American and European film making. --68.114.61.89 04:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is by no means "cruft". A number of sources are provided in the article that show this to be a real and valid topic. We don't have "African protagonist in Europe" because such a genre of films does not exist and/or has not been written about. Also, the nomination was withdrawn. -- Black Falcon 07:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft, trivias. Pavel Vozenilek 01:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:46Z

Roman Catholic Diocese of Honolulu - Clergy

Roman Catholic Diocese of Honolulu - Clergy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. RJASE1 Talk 09:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- per nom Astrotrain 13:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ObtuseAngle 15:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP is not the place for this sort of list of red links. Very few of the clergy will be notable enought to warrant an article. Peterkingiron 00:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:46Z

Just Men!

Just Men! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced article about an apparently minor game show. Reads as original research, and fails to estalish the significance of the subject. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of TV-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 17:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found two references, one small one from the cultural arm of the Smithsonian and an MBC bio. I'll fix the article momentarily, but the importance of this specific show is that, although it only ran for a few months, White won an Emmy for best game show host for the show - the only female to have done so at the time, and perhaps ever. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability is permanent, just because this show is old doesn't mean we shouldn't have a page on it. Also Betty White is a huge figure in the history of televsion. Also what Jeff said about the awards makes this show notable. I'm assuming the writer is using the show as the Primary source so it's not OR. - Peregrine Fisher 18:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course, the article establishes notability, not to mention Jeff's comment proving notability, requires in-line citations however. Matthew 18:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Betty White or something, after removing all un-attribute-able material. Lotusduck 19:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unattributed does not mean unnatributable. Almost all of this can be taken from the show itself without resorting to OR. The OR that should be removed is "(hence the title)." And 'such as "Have you ever been in trouble with the law?"' should be changed to 'An example question is "Have you ever been in trouble with the law?"'. - Peregrine Fisher 19:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep References look solid. Legit TV show and certainly notable per badlydrawnjeff. --SubSeven 20:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the Emmy is certainly sufficient for the show as well as for White. DGG 02:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Badlydrawnjeff. Also, just because it's a "minor" game show doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. Just needs a clean-up/strong write-up. And quick question, Viera recently won a "Best Game Show Host" emmy herself, right? FamicomJL 01:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 but note that the discussion trended keep in the last couple of days after the article was modified.-- Chaser - T 10:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faux pause

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

Unreferenced article about a TV show. No idea how long it ran for, or indeed pretty much anything else about it. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment It ran for 12 episodes in 1998 and was subsequently dropped for lack of popularity. (this from what I've found on a brief Google search). Suriel1981 10:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by the way. Suriel1981 10:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per this search, which I think is just below our notability threshold. Addhoc 12:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was sort of in the middle of getting screenshots/more info about this show. There are dozens of other television articles that don't belong here. FamicomJL 16:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Please add any sources you can get, before this AfD discussion is over (they usually last five days, if a clear consensus has not been reached). Also, you may want to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And if you feel that other television articles don't belong here, perhaps you should consider nominating them for deletion. —Carolfrog 00:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. How would you do that? Sorry, I'm still a newbie at this kind of stuff...Its not very easy to find a lot of info on this show, without it either being a post saying "IT SUCKED. YEAH...", or anything. I'm trying the best I can to get this article done. It truly WAS cancelled by Game Show Network because it was considered tasteless, with particulary bad jokes, and especially disrespectful ones...I do believe one of those heads said that it was cancelled due to "high demand". I wish GSN had archived such press releases from way back then...FamicomJL 04:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Game Show Network.--TBC

Φtalk? 02:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Actually... that doesn't sound like a bad idea. Maybe just a small blurb? I would like for it to get full article status...but whatever makes everyone else happy is okay with me. FamicomJL 04:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I added the first realiable source reference I could find. It's from Time Magazine, which is the only searchable, free news archive that's any good that I know of. It's going to be hard to find info about this game show, but not impossible. Let it live. If I have to cite a guideline, I guess it's that Notability is permanent. If famous newspapers didn't charge to search their archives, I'd ref it a bunch right now. Let it live until wikpedians can get some sort of bulk discount on the reliable sources of the past. - Peregrine Fisher 10:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOT#PAPER. Matthew 10:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And now I say Keep per Fisher. FamicomJL 14:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Veinor (talk to me) 01:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S.C. Esmoriz (2nd nomination)

S.C. Esmoriz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)(2nd nomination) – (View AfD)

Notability hasn't been established. Completely unsourced. No results from Google books or News Archive. Virtually no english language results from google apart from Wikipedia. Addhoc 10:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 09:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to Portuguese Second Division this team plays in the third tier of Portuguese football. Is that level notable? I'm not sure..... ChrisTheDude 09:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletions. -- ChrisTheDude 09:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if English clubs are notable down to Level 10, I see no reason why Portuguese clubs are not at Level 3 (or possibly several layers lower). - fchd 16:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mr Rundle. The Portuguese league, whilst not up there with the Premiership or La Liga, is still a strong league, so I'd say that a club just two levels lower should be notable. The article does need some serious work, though - you can understand why someone would look at the minuscule amount of info here and assume non-notability...... ChrisTheDude 21:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems a bit of a non-brainer really. The stub certainly needs expanding, infact I'll add a sentence or two now. aLii 12:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIAS: it's a level-3 team. Anyway, a lack of English-language sources is not a reason to delete the article. I could suggest linking any Portuguese sources in an "External links" section along with {{pt icon}}, then tagging the article for translation per {{notenglish}}, and finally describing the situation on the talk page. This is, however, not the actual intended use of {{notenglish}}, so whether anyone chooses to do this is up to h(er|im). -- Black Falcon 07:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - my basic rule of thumb for notability for a club is they are notable if they participate regularly in their respective national association's senior cup (this is where the level 10 rule for English clubs is derived from). Based on [12] that is clearly the case for this club, so it should stay. Qwghlm 17:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hop (drug)

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

Article is a very well written dicdef, belongs at (and already is at) wiktionary Vicarious 10:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's just a slang term for heroin and a fairly obscure one at that. I can't see any justification for keeping it here. Peter Isotalo 16:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:WINAD. The entry in Wiktionary is unfortunately just this: "a narcotic drug, usually opium". No history, no sources, nothing! Despite the discrepancy between the two entries, this is just a dicdef. I don't think there is enough content to justify a merge and I don't think a redirect would be useful if no one will search for the term (slipped from use in the 20th century). -- Black Falcon 07:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (o rly?) 15:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli Pro Wrestling Association

Israeli Pro Wrestling Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I've done searches for this wrestling promotion, and found nothing to prove it's notable enough for Wikipedia. RobJ1981 10:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel or Palestine-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 17:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 17:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Check out their "official" website for any doubts. Suspect sockpuppetry involved, since the two main contributers are named User:BLidor and User:Lyder, and, along with a bunch of anon IPs, their edits are all restricted to this article and its off-shoots. See also Nadev Rozenfield, which was recently nominated and was speed-kept, only because the nominator was accused of sockpuppetry himself. Wavy G 03:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Their match results are listed on a number of noted indy sites, their website isn't any significantly cheesier than that of a lot of local indy promotions, their vids are on Youtube, and they have matches shown on UK TV. Many local indy promotions already have articles, and aren't any particularly more notable than this outfit. RGTraynor 18:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established.--Sefringle 04:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RGT--ZayZayEM 02:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orff's Carmina Burana in popular culture

Orff's Carmina Burana in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The way to fix excessive trivia in articles is to prune it, not to split it out into articles which are entirely composed of trivia. I absolutely love Carmina Burana and can sing much of it fomr memory, and I grew up with the Old Spice advert, but this is still just a collection of cruft which got too big for the article and should have been hacked down to size. Guy (Help!) 10:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. KrakatoaKatie 03:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quinta das Lágrimas

Quinta das Lágrimas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page not only reads like an advertisement, but included no more than the lore available from the Hotel's website Galf 10:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw The article is now properly sourced and is focused on the site, not the hotel or the lore.Galf 15:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it's part copied from [here]. After a google seach that was as encyclopedic as I could get on the subject.Galf 11:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think this article should be deleted. Quinta das Lágrimas is an important and historical place in Portugal. The article needs however some major clean-up, and the Hotel section should probably be removed altogether.--Saoshyant talk / contribs (please join WP:Portugal or WP:SPOKEN) 01:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Keep Changed my vote, see below. I removed the Hotel section. Keep the rest, fixing any copyvio issues. --Richard 07:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (Copied from my Richard|Talk Page) Hi, you cleaned up part of the article, however, I feel that the rest of it is little more than lore and next to impossible to source. even ignoring the language, reading it gives good hints. the Pedro and Ines affair has been the subject of a lot of writing, most of it heavy on the fiction...that's why I nominated it for deletion. Galf 08:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The fiction can be sourced as fiction. It is reasonable to say "According to legend..." as long as the story is properly characterized as legend and there is a verifiable source for the legend. I'm sure one can be found if someone digs around. Lack of sourcing is not a reason for deletion. What we should be trying to do is make sure that this isn't just a legend that someone made upon their own and inserted into Wikipedia for fun. --Richard 15:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the article hints at the sources.
    The love of Pedro and Inês, has survived through the centuries in the works of authors such as Camões, Victor Hugo, Ezra Pound, Stendhal or Agustina Bessa-Luis.
    All that's left is for someone to go find the specific works in which the legend is mentioned. (Unless, of course, this is a hoax.) --Richard 15:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The legend is based on historical fact (see Inês de Castro). What remains to be done is to prove that Quinta das Lagrimas is connected to the legend (I think the website is sufficient), resolve the copyvio issues and source the works of the authors (Hugo, Pound, Stendahl). --Richard 15:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to point out that the addition to the Inês de Castro article was done by the same user that created the Quinta das Lágrimas article [diff] and here [diff]. Plus the Hannover website was published by a secondary school and lists the said hotel as one of the sources [here]. Hardly what I would call reputable, which leaves us on the same problem once again, the only information comes from the hotel itself. Which leaves us at the same point and convinces me once again this is nothing more than spam. The literary references are also extremly vague, the Pedro-Ines affair is well known, but HEAVILY covered in lore. The article now has 3 lines on the farm and the rest of the article covers the affair... Galf 08:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge with Inês de Castro and Redirect Galf has a good point that the current article has very little on the farm/hotel and is now mostly about the affair which is covered in the Inês de Castro article.
    There's no problem with Wikipedia covering lore provided that the lore is notable. However, the article is now more about the Pedro-Ines legend than about the hotel/farm. We should merge it back into the Ines article and redirect this title to the Ines article. I think the hotel is worth mentioning in Wikipedia because of the connection to the legendbut it does not merit a separate article unless someone can add additional details that are encyclopedic rather than advertising. --Richard 20:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  09:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the improvements made since AFD (see diff) and also per Richard's convincing arguments. -- Black Falcon 07:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to the Hotel should not have been deleted. The last time I visited the place was 20 years ago, and to suggest the place to foreign friends, reference to the hotel is important. Having accomodations in such a beautiful place is important information.

I strongly urge that the Hotel information may be diluted but absolutely not erased.

  • Keep I have found proper information about it. It's a classified historical Building.I'll rework the article into shape.Galf 10:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I'm surprised you didn't know that, Galf. Unless you aren't an "alfacinha". That may be it, i.e. people outside Estremadura not knowing of it. For all it's worth, I think the article is starting to shape up.--Saoshyant talk / contribs (please join WP:Portugal or WP:SPOKEN) 16:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashique Mostafa

Ashique Mostafa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Also listing the non-notable student film Phulkumar in this AFD.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ragib (talk • contribs) 11:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC). Vanity page on Non-notable film maker. Subject himself created the entry. only 176 google hits, most of which are from personal websites by the subject himself. The film mentioned is a student film. Ragib 11:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non-notable film maker. --Ragib 23:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete not notable--Sefringle 03:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per WP:N. The article claims that the film was shown at many festivals, but makes no claim that it won any awards/acclaim. -- Black Falcon 07:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:47Z

Special effects of The Lord of the Rings film trilogy

Special effects of The Lord of the Rings film trilogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

First off: a prod was on this, and removed because the creator of the article claimed it was "vandalism". Anyway: this is pure fancruft. Lots of movies have special effects, Lord of the Ring being a popular series doesn't make this any more notable. Put this on a fan wiki, not Wikipedia. RobJ1981 11:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep - Bad faith nomination. The Lord of the Rings was an enormous production and it already has two subpages on the Production Design and Principal Photography to help the main article cope with the mountain of information. This article is fully referenced by the DVD and is not fancruft. WikiNew 11:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Bad faith? Wrong. My opinion isn't bad faith. If you want to talk about bad faith: removing a prod by calling it "vandalism" is bad faith. Anything can be referenced: it doesn't mean it's suitable for Wikipedia. RobJ1981 12:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Film articles generally have information about special effects in the production section, and it's standard procedure to break off if you have too much information. Bignole 18:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This meets notability requirements by policy. The effects of the films were ground-breaking and award winning and were the subject of many reliable publications and articles. I wish we could ban "cruft" from deletion arguments, especially from nominations. It's a lazy derogatory argument that means little more than "I don't like it" and does nothing to indicate non-notability. --Canley 13:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Canley. and per, uh... it's unsigned, but timestamped, so keep because it's clearly notable for inclusion in the film page, and large enough to break into its own. Autocracy 18:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is a long and well-referenced subarticle of the LOTR article. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let's see, I know I saw more than a few mini-documentaries describing how the special effects in this series of movies were created. And I didn't even pay attention to them, but I know they exist. So I'm satisfied that this is notable, and given that it is three movies produced in the same time frame, I'd say covering their special effects in one article is quite convenient and handy. FrozenPurpleCube 05:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the other votes, but I'm not too sure about the name of the article, it doesn't seem right somehow...just a comment.--UsaSatsui 15:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a list of characters of the (video game) series. - Bobet 18:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Private First Class Stephan "Obi" Obrieski

Private First Class Stephan "Obi" Obrieski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This set of articles covers the main and support characters in the Brothers in Arms series. Individual characters are not notable enough for their own articles and lack reliable sources that are not in-universe. These articles are little more than a collection of what happens in the game to each character, which often overlaps and should already be covered in the game articles. I would merge, but considering the length of the article name and non-standard rank usage, it's unlikely that anyone will input the whole title for a merge. Scottie_theNerd 11:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments: Clearly, these articles have been hastily put together by one person without realising the significant overlap of each article. Also considering the names are practically unsearchable due to the use of rank, name and nickname (never presented all together in the game) and the creation of a category just for these characters, I don't see much merit in keeping, merging or even redirecting these. As mentioned above, some of these characters are barely notable in the games, let alone as standalone Wikipedia articles. --Scottie_theNerd 12:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. --Scottie_theNerd 12:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that. I'm simply listing this here as a reminder to put Category: Brothers in Arms characters through the CfD deletion process after the articles are deleted, since there would be nothing left in the category. --Scottie_theNerd 15:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect I can accept that individual articles may not be appropriate, however, having information on these characters is somewhat desirable. Even if it's unlikely somebody would use the whole title, it's not impossible, and it doesn't cause a real problem, it might even prevent more in the future. So, make a page Characters in the Brothers in Arms Video game series or whatever you want to call it, and merge there. FrozenPurpleCube 16:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't address that notability issue. Most of the characters are one-off and have little development beyond what's in the game manuals. Compiling them into one article doesn't make them any more notable, and there are no independent sources. Wikipedia isn't a fansite, and therefore should not be storing in-universe information without any encyclopedic value. --Scottie_theNerd 17:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really an issue for me, since the games themselves are notable, and if there's not enough information to make a characters page, I'd be comfortable with redirecting to one on just the individual game. I really don't care if there's an article on the characters or not, but the game's article should at least describe the characters in it. I don't insist on independent sources for simple biographical information. Now if say, one of those characters got compared to Jesus, that would be something for which an external reference would be needed. Otherwise, if it's in the game or the manuals, I'm satisfied that it can be sourced.. FrozenPurpleCube 17:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with the gist of what he has just been saying in this comment. Mathmo Talk 03:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Brothers In Arms: Road to Hill 30. These characters have no individual notability, but I wouldn't object if they were mentioned *briefly* in the appropriate game article. --Alan Au 17:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commment: In the likely event that it is merged/redirected, keep in mind that these characters span all three games. --Scottie_theNerd 01:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Right, sorry I wasn't specific, but I meant that characters should be moved to their corresponding game, not just the one. --Alan Au 16:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per FrozenPurpleCube. Or similar. Mathmo Talk 03:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. W3stfa11/Talk to me
  • Delete - Mentions as they relate to the plot of their respective video games are all that is necessary. Wickethewok 22:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into List of Brothers in Arms characters per Pomte Characters in the Brothers in Arms video game series or something similar and per WP:FICT point 2. Articles on individual minor characters should be merged into a "list of characters" for the whole work of fiction. -- Black Falcon 07:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing admin: I would be glad to do the merge and subsequent cleanup if someone would drop me a note on my talk page after this AFD is closed (assuming, of course, it's closed as merge). -- Black Falcon 07:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can also follow through on the subsequent deletion of the category. -- Black Falcon 07:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Brothers in Arms characters by the convention in Category:Lists of video game characters, with Black Falcon to the rescue. –Pomte 06:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (o rly?) 15:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of band name etymologies

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

It's a list of information that belongs in each bands article. The list will become so big over time that it will be impossible to maintain. Sourcing the article would be a superhuman task. Delete Pax:Vobiscum 11:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If you wanted to know the origin of a band's name, wouldn't you just look in their article? Nice to know there's a band called "Ravioli of the Drooling Cereal," though. ObtuseAngle 13:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per:
--Infrangible 16:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As noted elsewhere, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't justify this article, which would be completely indistinguishable from List of bands named after anything at all or List of bands named after nothing in particular. ObtuseAngle 20:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 08:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep not attributed does not mean not attributable. Sourcing will be difficult is not a reason to delete. If you want to be hardcore, remove all bands that don't have a ref. I'll add a couple refs while I'm at it. - Peregrine Fisher 08:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Peregrine Fisher. Mathmo Talk 09:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain what you think is useful about the article? Just because something is true and can be sourced doesn't mean it should be included in Wikipedia. My main point is that the info about name etymology belongs in the articles about the bands. Having a list that will grow to be gigantic is of no use. Pax:Vobiscum 12:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Indiscriminate, unmaintainable, unverified, information. What can be verified belongs in the articles for the bands, not bunged together into an artificial list. Otto4711 18:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pergrine, certainly very useful list per WP:LIST. Wikipedia is also not paper. Matthew 20:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOT#PAPER is not a blanket pass to put up anything that comes to mind. If an article otherwise fails WP:NOT or some other policy, then the fact that this isn't paper doesn't save it. Otto4711 21:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-Important article, no point in deleting..
  • Keep fascinating article. Should be footnoted. Noroton 00:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, indiscriminate info that can and should be noted on individual bands' pages instead. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT are not solid reasoning to keep this article on. Krimpet 18:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:50Z

Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story

Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, valy non notable documentary film (Google only 241 hits) and fan film. Lopineg 12:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - self-referential, non-notable and crystal-balling fancruft. Ooh, I have 40000 edits, do I get to be on the film as well? MER-C 12:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - murky crystal ball-ery. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —dima/s-ko/ 01:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete Spring 08 is too long a stretch.DGG 02:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per reasons given so far. It may become notable and verifiably referenced in time, but it doesn't seem to be now. It's just too soon. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep References have been added. Also, article is not crystal-balling as it refers to a living, real-time collaborative media document as well as an upcoming feature film (no doubt the filmmakers would love to hear from deeply experienced editors as to why they might think a documentary film about Wikipedia would be non-notable or 'depressing'; this would be a great point in a film which is still very much open to the broadest possible public input. Be bold:wikidocumentary.org.) -- MFG 08:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now per Mermaid from the Baltic Sea. And why haven't I been asked to appear? Geez! (that's a joke). --kingboyk 15:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm too depressed by the very thought of this film to type out a full rational reason for deletion. Please accept my apologies. Cloveoil 23:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and the one reference only mentions it near the end. Veinor (talk to me) 22:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/keep.-- Chaser - T 09:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

365 Fri

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

this article is about debut album of the Norwegian band Tre Små Kinesere it appears to fail WP:MUSIC other then the statement was an instant hit in their home country the article makes no claims of notability for the album or the band. The prod I placed on the article was removed and some minor changes made. ghits are low in English and Norwegian mostly blogs and mirrors. Jeepday 12:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 16:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 16:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Would have suggested a merge into the band article, but it doesn't even exist. Definitely a notability problem. Femto 13:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed default to merge, not to be taken as statement from me on the notability of the band itself, one way or the other. Femto 15:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Normally an album is notable @ the lowest bar if the group is notable, doesn't appear that either of them meet the notability bar. SkierRMH 16:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as (debut) album of notable group Tre Små Kinesere (they received two Spellemann Prizes.) To point out the obvious, the fact that we don't have an article on something doesn't mean it isn't notable (we have an article now.) Spacepotato 20:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The Spellemann Prize or Spellemannsprisen is the Norwegian equivalent of the Grammys. Having a more diverse selection of nationalities is not a bad thing. Shimaspawn 14:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Normally, articles on albums are allowed iff the group is notable. In this case, the group has been shown to be notable, having twice won a prestigious national prize. -- Black Falcon 20:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:50Z

Swan Cut

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

This article has no sources, it's not notable, and mostly nonsense Latulla 12:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:50Z

Bitch move

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

Only source is Urbandictionary.com Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 12:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intimo

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

Nonnotable company. Prod contested. Delete as nominator. Femto 12:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Orphaned, non-notable company. Article very short, almost does not provide enough context. Nol888(Talk)(Review me please) 13:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No attributable independent sources. Google search reveals lots of false positives, as well as websites selling the underwear, but nothing beyond that trivial and incidental coverage which would meet the criteria at WP:CORP.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Orphaned and non-notable. Only one sentence of info. Should be deleted. Captain panda In vino veritas 02:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted by User:CambridgeBayWeather. NawlinWiki 13:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie walker

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

I would tag this for speedy, but I am not sure it meets the criteria, so I brought it here. Do we really need a page detailing silly nonsense vandalism?>< RichardΩ612 ER 13:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whoops! Looks like someone deleted it before I noticed! Sorry! ><RichardΩ612 ER 13:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 11:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scenes (sociology)

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

Rambling and imprecise dictionary definition. Has one source (not on web), so bringing here just to make sure. NawlinWiki 13:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 01:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Rotenberg

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

Not a notable person. DavidCBryant 13:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A Google search for "Alexander Rotenberg" + torah got 177 hits, many of which duplicate each other. A search of Google Scholar showed no hits at all for math papers. This person is not notable, and this biographical article should be deleted. This article also promotes a book entitled And All This is Truth, so WP:SPAM may be applicable. DavidCBryant 13:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Book listed appears to a be a self publication (website) and is not listed in Israel's national library catalogue [13]. No reliable sources providing attribution in the article, and there appears to be some heavy promotion going on for this book (see [14]).--Fuhghettaboutit 14:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable in the Bible code community. His name appears alongside Eliyahu Rips in many cases. As hokey as the field may be, it is notable. --Infrangible 16:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Of course willing to consider further evidence. Can you cite some examples of independent reliable sources providing non-trivial treatment of him as a subject, or other evidence meeting WP:BIO? The fact that he is mentioned in passing in an unsourced statement in bible code, and simply as a study partner of someone else who has an unsourced Wikipedia article, is not very substantive.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I think we need are either reviews or significant mentions by other better known scholars. This is not exactly an easy subject to judge for N. DGG 02:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject is Biographies of living people. What's so tough about that, DGG? The article claims that AR is a mathematician, but he's unpublished. That's notable? How? DavidCBryant 12:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously is a mathematician in a somewhat specialized sense, even if that is the closest word to describe him.I might choose "numerologist" The general idea behind the N rules for academics is more N than most of the others in the field, and this is not a field where the ordinary sort of publications and faculty positions seem to be applicable. The standards that apply are the ones in this special subject. It further is obviously afield with different groups, who consider their group N, and not the other guys, so selecting any one is inherently POV. This is not that uncommon in some non-science areas. I do not see how BLP is relevant--he meets BLP. Based on what is being said, DGG 08:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep because there are obviously factions involved, and choosing between them would be POV. If someone is opposed by what seems to be a POV faction, that makes a very good argument for keeping it. NPOV applies to choice of articles as well as to what is said in them. DGG 08:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid your argument is not making a whole lot of sense to me, DGG. Just because a non-notable researcher is part of a faction does not make him notable. Not having a bio for every non-notable researcher is not POV. Also, I don't see at all why the subject is "obviously afield" with groups that consider other groups non-notable. It seems to me even obvious that those with particular POVs are well aware of who the big players on the opposing sides are. Just as obviously, not everyone is going to be a big player. How is your argument (whatever it is) related to the notability of the subject? For example, how does the existence of factions change your earlier statement about requiring some reviews or significant mentions of his research for notability? --C S (Talk) 10:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not sure whether Rotenberg's name "appears alongside Eliyahu Rips" because Rotenberg is such an influential figure himself, or whether there is a large dose of self-promotion here (by User: Iser.unl). I think any claims to notability because of reasons like "I know Rips" or "I worked with Rips" ought to be viewed skeptically. By the way, Brendan McKay edits Wikipedia (as User: McKay) and should have a good idea of who is a notable Bible codes researcher. Why not just ask him? --C S (Talk) 20:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asked for my opinion. I don't want to vote on this. Rotenberg is a small player in the Torah codes business. People familiar with the Israeli codes community know of him. Mostly he is known because of one example about the sons of Haman. He isn't mentioned in the books of Katz and Satinover that claim to trace the history of the codes. His book, which I have, shows "Lavi P. Enterprises" as a distributor not a publisher, so I guess it is true that the book is self-published. A large part of the article appears in that book or on its cover. I couldn't locate any mathematical publications of his in Mathematical Reviews unless he is the "A.R. Rotenberg" who published in Russian in the 1970s. McKay 02:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- David Eppstein 03:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can it also be listed at Judaism?DGG 08:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious what DGG means when he says "The general idea behind the N rules for academics is more N than most of the others in the field …" Doesn't this imply a sort of relativism that would automatically make a "notable" person out of the lone "researcher" in a "field" that nobody else in the world views as meaningful? What sort of a standard is that? DavidCBryant 18:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is he being referred to as an academic? Nothing in the article or in his book says that he is an academic. McKay 01:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean, why should he have been listed as such for deletion sorting purposes: Because the first thing the article says about him is that he's a mathematician, and someone whose primary identification is as a mathematician is generally a type of academic. And because even if he's that rare kind of mathematician who's not a really an academic, he still is reasonably likely to be of interest to the Wikipedians who watch that deletion sorting category. But if you mean, why should he be evaluated according to WP:PROF rather than WP:BIO, I don't know, because I'm not convinced he should be. —David Eppstein 05:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP BIO should trump WP:PROF. As I see it, WP:PROF is intended to try to specify some objective criteria in an area that might otherwise be hard to judge.
Factions-. In any field,there's a certain tendency to consider the people who agree with us more important than the other guys, who by definition have a lesser understanding of the subject or else we'd be on their side. Thats why there's a bias that needs correction. I don't say it happens always, but a determined effort to judge a particularly idiosycratic scholar NN is at least capable of being based on COI. If he is a leading exponent of his position, he's N. And if he were the only exponent of his position, yes, he would be all the more N. And if he were the only worker on the subject, and the subject were encyclopedia-worthy for intrinsic or popular interest, he would be N. I accept DavidCBryant's logic. If he were the lone worker in it, he would be N. if the field is N. DGG 07:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability is not subjective. The Flat Earth Society, living on our generally spherical earth, are a bunch of nutty, delusion kooks spouting banana talk, but they are worthy of an article because they are written about in multiple, independent reliable sources, and not because they go against the flow of sanity. Likewise, the notability of one of a small group of exponents of flat earth belief is judged based on his own write up in multiple, independent... and not because the field of adherents of that belief is small.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. (Per request by DGG) -- David Eppstein 05:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could someone identify a few key independent sources for this individual's notability (not counting his own books or private web sites) on this page? Thanks. --Shirahadasha 05:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this guy, he is just not notable. There are thousands (tens of thousands probably) of Jewish professors who have published all sorts of stuff, and it even lands up on the web, but that does not make them notable enough to warrant Wikipedia biographies. (Is this guy even a professor?, sure doesn't look like it.) Similarly, this person is not famous or notable in the Jewish or Orthodox world, regardless of the claims as to his ancestry or activities. There are millions of Jews with famous ancestors and tens of thousands of rabbis who do lots more, but they are not notable to be worthy of Wikipedia biographies. IZAK 05:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Author of a self-published book and coprogrammer on a program that's not sufficiently notable for its own article don't seem like enough to me. —David Eppstein 18:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per IZAK, non-notable and not academic. --Buridan 16:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless properly referenced from reliable sources to establish notability. No there yet. NBeale
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:51Z

Consology

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

Not notable, orphaned page. Zaian 13:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Varol Akman (2nd nomination)

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

A self promoting article of a non-notable academic. Created by User:Akman, this article doesn't meet WP:A or the notability requirement for biographies. See also: First nomination Alan.ca 14:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The earlier AFD discussion has no consensus, but the "keeps" there pointed out that Akman's lengthy list of publications can be confirmed, and the fact that he is known outside of Turkey must imply that he passes minimum notability requirement. That there may be some vanity involved in his creation of the article may make some think less of him as a human being, I don't think that in itself can justify the deletion. semper fictilis 14:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly a person of such stature should have an article written about him by some well known reliable source? Alan.ca 18:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  09:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence presented that he passes the "professor test". --kingboyk 15:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep There are over 160 total citations to his 37 papers listed in Web of Science. This is more than average both in productivity & citations. DGG 08:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question What is web of science and where can these citations you had located be found? Alan.ca 20:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Web of Science is a database of academic publishing--it is where you go to find out what scientists/scholars have published. semper fictilis 00:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is nothing here that is cited. What secondary source says he is "interesting and influential"? In fact, what secondary source other than Akman's own pages justifies the inclusion of any of the claims in this article? There isn't a source for any of the sentences. People that are notable have numerous secondary sources that will talk about them, Akman doesn't and thus should be removed. Vivaldi (talk) 05:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:TruthbringerToronto in the previous AFD and User:DGG here. In addition, this many publications by and citations for a non-Western (i.e., US, Canada, Western Europe) academic is very rare. -- Black Falcon 20:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DAS Games

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

nn website, fails WP:WEB, last afd hung on by the skin of its teeth because a few people brought up a mention on a minor cable network. This still is not a WP:RS and the article/subject does not (and will not) get multiple reliable sources. The alexa was never in the top 100,000 and is currently around 3,000,000. It's just another video game site, and there's around 100 on here, way too many. Booshakla 06:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - seems to have gone; the website link now leads to a car accessory site!! BlueValour 22:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Majorly (o rly?) 14:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as failing WP:WEB, esp. since as BV points out its url is now a deadlink. semper fictilis 14:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa side

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

Neologism; non-notable location of high school fights. ObtuseAngle 14:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as undersourced and intrinsically not notable. (If schools are of borderline notability, as seems often the case, their fighting grounds will be less so.) semper fictilis 14:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fight is local news, and would not be notable enough for an article in its own right. The fact that the location is passingly mentioned by this name in an article or two about the fight, shows only trivial an incidental coverage which does not meet WP:N, nor is this location likely to ever have enough attributable material for an independent article.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deletion per CSD G11/A7 by Steel359. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 23:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SHARP (showband)

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

Only claims to notability are touring in Sweden and that they were interviewed by a minor Italian magazine. Antonrojo 14:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 17:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under G12 and A7, not to mention the "best band in the world that will kick your ass" POV. TheLetterM 17:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete "Boredom brought this band together," and boredom of them by third-party sources qualifies this for A7. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 17:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a3, just a photo. NawlinWiki 01:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liam R Neville

Liam R Neville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page created and edited solely by subject. Just plain Bill 14:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Phrase that Pays

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

Vague description of a non-notable song. Antonrojo 14:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 17:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Band has a good article on Wikipedia, song is on ITunes from multiple records, has a professionally produced music video, backed by a label, hosted by many lyrics websites etc., etc. I'm fixing the article to standards myself, now. Autocracy 17:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per reasons given by Autocracy. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Almost Here (The Academy Is album). De-merge if the album article grows much longer (say 30 times the current size). —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:53Z
  • Keep. Individual album articles are normally acceptable iff the band is notable, which in this case it is. If the description is vague (and indeed it is), tag it with {{expand}}. -- Black Falcon 20:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:54Z

Advanced Chess

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

Advanced Chess appears to be the name used by a very small group to describe computer-assisted chess. Of the few references cited, at least one calls it ocmputer-assisted chess, not Advanced Chess. A measure of its significance is that the Advanced Chess Association uses a free webhost and does not even have its own domain name. The article seems to be written form personal knowledge, and is essentially unreferenced save for the aforementioned associations. This should either be significantly rewritten, referenced and moved to computer-assisted chess, or deleted. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Well, the page does mention some relationship to Gary Kasparov so if true, that would establish enough that I'd go with mergemake that keep though with some concerns, but I don't know if it is true. Have you contacted the folks at WP:Chess to see if any of them know better? FrozenPurpleCube 16:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a follow-up, I posted on their discussion page, hopefully we'll get some informed comments. FrozenPurpleCube 16:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, thank you, FrozenPurpleCube. Chessbase.com, a reputable information source, has this page about AC - I added the link into the article. This means for me that this chess variant is notable enough to stay here. Therefore keep.--Ioannes Pragensis 19:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep on the basis of the chessbase page.--Pan Gerwazy 21:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an established chess variant that has been played several times in elite events by the top grandmasters. Also keep the current article name; the most important chess competition where this is played (Cuidad de Leon) does indeed bill the game as "advanced chess". --SubSeven 01:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments Reviewing the page, apparently, it's sourced from somewhere else, but with a license that while it may be compatible with the GFDL and wikipedia, also may not. I think somebody needs to check that out, and see if it would be worth starting this article over from a clean slate if the license, such as it is, is a concern. FrozenPurpleCube 06:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Pinto in popular culture

Ford Pinto in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - an indiscriminate list of trivia seeking to capture any appearance or mere mention of a specific car with no regard to the importance or lack of same. See for precedent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring Mini cars which was deleted despite being composed strictly of actual appearances of the car rather than just someone saying "Mini." Otto4711 15:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the same as I say with the rest of the in popular culture AlfPhotoman 15:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, subject is covered adequately (3 sentences) in Ford Pinto. ObtuseAngle 15:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per:
--Infrangible 16:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a compelling argument for keeping this article. The other articles you've listed should probably also be deleted. Otto4711 19:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in popular culture mind you, I laughed when the Pinto in Top Secret! burst into flames after a tiny "ting!" from a truck. But no amount of precedent can make a collection of cruft with no article around it into anything other than a collection of cruft. Guy (Help!) 17:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's see if it can be done better. Half of the incidents in there have a Pinto used just as a cheap small unreliable car, and amount to negative product placement. But half are more specific about its more sensational defects, and might make an article. I'm going to remove the nonspecific ones right now. Then, maybe a title change. We have "exploding whales;" I know that kind of precedent is not a good argument, but "Exploding Pintos", maybe. If it still doesn't make sense, then out with it. It didn't take much work.DGG 05:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I don't see your edits as an improvement. It's still just a collection of times that the word "Pinto" was used in a movie or on a TV show. Otto4711 05:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TRIV. As with previous cases, I reject the notion that this violates WP:NOT#IINFO as "indiscriminate". It is, on the contrary, rather discriminating as to its subject. The subject receives some coverage in the main article and expansion (sourced and in prose form, of course) should be undertaken there. -- Black Falcon 20:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.-- Chaser - T 10:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of most expensive streets by city

List of most expensive streets by city (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No criteria for inclusion and unreferenced making it unverifiable listcruft. —Moondyne 15:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 17:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator. —Moondyne 15:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC) See changed vote below. 07:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT and WP:LIST —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alf photoman (talk • contribs) 15:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep- surley the criteria for inclusion is obvious? Astrotrain 16:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep interesting list and certainly source-able. That it needs improvement isn't a reason for deletion. The number of streets seriously considered "most expensive" in a city is going to be relatively small, and limited to large cities anyway. --W.marsh 17:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added references to a half dozen of the retail districts, just as an example. Referencing the entire list will take a huge amount of effort, but it could still be done. --W.marsh 17:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete you can't buy streets. Estimated property values are just that: estimated. Guy (Help!) 17:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well you can buy streets... but that's neither here nor there. Change the title to reflect that these are just lists someone has bothered to write an article calling the "most expensive" street in a given city, e.g. these are streets considered the most expensive. --W.marsh 17:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But many of them are *not*. Stephen Avenue in Calgary is just an extremely busy pedestrian mall - half the storefronts on it are things like falafel stands, music stores, Winners, donair houses, etc., etc. There are a few high-class shops but they're in between the law offices and Vietnamese noodle shops. If that fact is wrong (and not attributed), how about the others? --Charlene 20:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • If a source can't be found for an item on the list, the item can be removed... same as with any list or claim on Wikipedia in general. The fact that one item on a list was incorrect isn't a good reason to delete the whole thing. --W.marsh 21:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's 106 items in the list (my rough count) and only 10 are referenced. If we start deleting the unreferenced ones the article starts to be a bit of nothing. —Moondyne 01:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Preferably people would only remove ones they think are incorrect, or try to find a source for and can't. Assume good faith and all. Again, the list could be improved. That it hasn't been yet isn't a good reason to delete. --W.marsh 01:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • There are about 35 referenced now. Considering there were zero when the AfD started, I think this shows referencing can be done. --W.marsh 02:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • When this was nominated there were zero references. It has since improved and several mistakes have been fixed or removed. Changing to very weak keep as I still feel that its not particularly encyclopaedic. —Moondyne 07:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't know these streets were for sale. Delete. Unsourced listcruft. -R. fiend 22:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't unsourced... and a name change has been mentioned. --W.marsh 00:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nom says "No criteria for inclusion" although that must be clear from the title, and the fact that many of the streets have their own articles supports the implicit claim of notability, and "unverifiable"--much of this is fairly objective and well-published information. I have no problems with deleting any that isn't, but keep the article. Matchups 01:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep People refer to expensive neighborhoods, and they mean neighborhoods with expensive houses; same with streets. There are true practical criteria--the real estate ad subculture, supported by the frequent articles in newspapers. If one really wanted to get exact, there is always property tax records, an unimpeachable RS. DGG 05:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per guy: "you cant buy streets" SMBarnZy 05:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no way properly define inclusion on the list, making it totally subjective and unusable. How would it even be possible to calculate the value/price of a street? It wouldn't. Most of the sources don't even talk about streets, just about single houses. Pax:Vobiscum 08:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the Cushman & Wakefield study actually does calculate the "most expensive" street in a mathematical way, by finding the average price per square foot of space on a street, and ranking streets based on that data. [18] Saying a street is the most expensive because it has the most expensive house/restaurant in a town is an original conclusion, and that stuff needs to go. I was careful that the sources I added actually claim a given street is the most expensive in a city. --W.marsh 14:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But using another method of counting you would get a different result. There is no accurate way to measure the expensiveness of a street. Do you count the average cost per square meter or do you just pick the street with the highest total? Are we measuring the cost of renting space or actucally buying the buildings? Do we use the total value of all the buildings on the street or take the street with the single most expensive building? Saying which street is the most expensive is subjective and totally dependent on definition and method. That is why the list should be deleted.Pax:Vobiscum 22:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is not really Wikipedia's problem, publications and research groups have put these studies out under their name, Wikipedia is really just organizing that information. If their methodology is suspect, people will question them... if people wrote articles questioning the studies, we could cite that. I admit it's a fine line, but researching this I found that a lot of articles are written about "expensive streets" (I had no idea) so I think there is a great deal of interest in this, and I think the information is verifiable. It isn't our job to make sure a source is true (within reason), we aren't investigative reporters. Wikipedia just looks for verifiability. --W.marsh 23:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh yeah, I think this stance makes more sense when you consider I'd like to figure out some way to communicate that items on this list are merely considered the most expensive by our sources. Another subtle line, but an important one. --W.marsh 23:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak delete: I am convinced by the "keep" argument because it is reported on by sources, but I am leaning towards "delete" because there are not very strict requirements for inclusion on the list. I may live on the most expensive street in a city in central Illinois, but I certainly wouldn't put that street on the list. I may be swayed to keep if the phrasing of the article is improved upon. Is there a certain amount of money a street must stay above to be included on the list? Are cities of a certain size only included on the list? It needs to define its criteria. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 01:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: a lot of the entries don't look correct, and the fact that they're largely unsourced make it worse. Thunderbunny 01:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are just too many big cities to make an accurate list on this topic. Not encyclopediac.--Sefringle 02:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doesn't and shouldn't "expense" refer to the cost of renting or buying on those streets? Sources are potentially available to make this a good long list, probably meaning it would need to be broken up eventually. Noroton 23:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Going from 0 referenced to 35 referenced within 4 days shows that the article can be improved significantly (see diff). Also, the nominator has withdrawn the nomination (albeit weakly). Lastly, whether researchers use different techniques is not a problem we have to fix: that would be original research. We simply report what's published. If there are (published) disagreements about various methods, we can discuss them. -- Black Falcon 07:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bucketsofg 15:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Michael Jenkins

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

Unsourced, promotional artist biography - fails WP:BIO, WP:ATT. RJASE1 Talk 16:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This reads like a resume. As per nom . Freshacconci 16:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources are added that prove critical acclaim and/or inclusion in a major art collection of his works AlfPhotoman 17:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, there has been work done on the article that show some degree of notability and as Michael144 is trying to work on it we should give him some more time AlfPhotoman 16:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Alf for the support - i am trying to make this work. Mike. --Michael144 10:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First of all, i want this submission to meet all the standards of WIKIPEDIA and would like some help putting it together before we think about deleting it. I have many sources of the artist, particularly all the newspaper, magazine, and other publications that prove his worthiness for inclusion. Sponsoring a historic tournament in the Athletic Club in NYC and having your work (and the only work of art) present for the entire event is also noteworthy. Many of the worlds top chess grandmasters collect his chess works, and the chess collection is 10% of his output. He has done an anatomy collection, mind collection, spiritual, and abstract collection. he also has over 200 paintings, some appraised as high as $50,000. The artist has sold works for as high as $10,000 and i also have that proof. In my opinion, this artist, through his knowledge of many aspects of life as shown in his entire body of work and the level of quality, deserves to be recognized on WIKIPEDIA. I had one fellow, an Air Force officer, email me to have him deleted. If we have people who aren't even aware of art or the art world and then without any research into the person, file them for deletion, then this is a flawed system. Air Force pilots judging the level of quality of an artist? Im sure Da Vinci (and i'm not saying Justin is a Da Vinci, but if you study all he's done, he is similiar in a modern way), who wasnt even known during his time, would have loved to hear a military person tell him he shouldnt be included in an encyclopedia. I find Justin Michael Jenkins to be as worthy as most living artists right now and i can back it up with many more documents. Than k you for your time (: - Mike Retla. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michael144 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • User's only edits have been to this article and AfD. Tyrenius 02:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The place where you can find the very stringent guidelines for the inclusion for artists is WP:BIO(<-Click there). You will notice that the threshold for artists is pretty high. If you can get it verifiable above that threshold I'll happily will say Keep AlfPhotoman 00:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi Alf, i have placed many links to support the documentation already. What exactly do the wikipedians need to see. If i visited the artists page as it is now, it would seem to me he is definitely on the rise and worthy of inclusion. Just being Susan Polgar's full time artist/designer should be enough. That makes him already of a high credibility? Creating a biography/article for an artist is rather tough considering the bias and broad idea of what it takes to get into this encyclopedia. Thanks, Mike Retla
  • Comment Hi Tyrenius, would you help me get Justin on WIKIPEDIA? Between me and you i can send you documents to support why he should be on. I would even provide you with a phone number to reach me at to talk about his possible inclusion. Thanks for your time and keep up the good work - Mike Retla. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michael144 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • weak keep Still needs some improvements--there should be more selectivity--winning a 6th grade art prize isn't notable, and a description of developing style based on your own personal knowledge is OR--perhaps you can find one to cite. Each of the prizes and so on needs an exact citation, not just the name of the newspaper. This is within the range that can be made encyclopedic. And thanks for all the good GFDL you gave WP. DGG 05:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi DGG, i am trying to put together everything for his inclusion. How do i place links to a newspaper, magazine, and other article? Do i scan each one in and upload a photo? Yes, i agree the 6th grade thing is weak (LOL) but i am trying to make it interesting , like a timeline, but i will try to cut back and focus more on the critical and important material. I am not even close to being done yet. IN fact, it goes as far as 1989, and he was only 18 at the time. IF i make a list of what he ahs done can anyone help put this together. I am not the best writer of biographies for encyclopedias. Thanks for all your input and let me cross my fingers i can get him on here!! (: BTW - what is GFDL? - Thanks, Mike Retla.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michael144 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • GFDL is the GNU Free Documentation License, under which all Wikipedia content is licensed. In regard to this article, the subject seems to be borderline in terms of whether he merits an article. I recommend looking up other contemporary artists of comparable professional success who have Wikipedia articles, selecting the better articles among those, and then using those articles as a model for this one. Also, I would point out that all Wikipedia editors have an equal right to participate in this deletion discussion, whether they are artists, chess players, military personnel, or anything else. Ultimately, the decision to keep or delete is supposed to be made based on the quality of the arguments on each side, not on who is making those arguments or even how many there are on each side. --Metropolitan90 08:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi Metropolitan90. Thank you for your input. I'm not sure about we he meant by thanks for all the good imagery given to WP, doe's that mean hes going to use it irresponsibly? I would hope not and i had no choice to do that although i would much prefer to keep the images just for this site. In terms of getting Justin on this site, i have absolutely no problem hearing from anyone , but at least research someone before stating the person is unacceptable to the wikipedia. I have checked stats that go to the artists website and no one has even clicked any links to visit and learn more about the artist. In the end, through the quality of work and hundreds of sources online that show what Justin has accomplished, i feel i can get him accepted. Hopefully everyone will help me and teach about how to make this more acceptable. If you use other articles from other comparable artists as role models then perhaps we can use their format to make Justin's presentation as nicely as theirs. I have found many artists on here with less credentials and with very little information , yet they are on here? Does knowing someone on the inside help get on here? These are interesting questions and i intend on fighting every step of the way to get him accepted and using various examples. I hope others will help me or at least show some support (:. Thanks for your time, Mike Retla.
    • I don't think DGG meant to imply an intention to use the images "irresponsibly;" however, perhaps you should read the article on the GFDL closely, just so you know what rights you've given up. The images are now licensed under the GDFL, and are no longer your property, and you can't control how they'll be used. Also, I just wanted to point out that the artist's website itself is not the kind of independent source we're looking for to establish notability, so gauging hits there probably won't give you an accurate idea of what research people might be doing. —Carolfrog 00:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi Everyone. Added references to some articles although he has many more that haven't been scanned. I need some serious help with the layouts like how to place pictures on the right side neatly as opposed to stacking. I am trying to bring more details into the article, but need more feedback (: Thanks, Mike Retla. --Michael144 14:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Carolfrog, i do not wish to let these images be used by anyone other than for this article. How do i go about doing that? Any image by an artist is still copyrighted under his name and he retains the rights for at least 100 years after its creation based on the visual arts copyright laws. I find WIKIPEDIA to not be very user friendly (: Could someone tell me how to make these images strictly for use on the article bio page? Thanks, Mike Retla --Michael144 02:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As they are uploaded as fair use, they can only be used in an article about them or the artist. Tyrenius 04:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic.

This is blatant advertising, in as much as it exclusively promotes a person. That in itself is not a reason to delete. The reason to delete is that it exclusively promotes a person and needs to be fundamentally rewritten. It is full of original research, POV and peacock terms, is not properly referenced. I am not attacking the author for this, as a new editor will not know all these things. It takes editorial experience to write such an article to the required standard. However, the edit box for a new article states:

Do not write articles about yourself, your company, or your best friend. ... Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products, or articles created as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, will be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam. Articles that do not cite reliable published sources are likely to be deleted. ... Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source.

The new editor who chooses to ignore this, does so at their own risk. New editors are invited to contribute to wikipedia, but not to write (self-)promotional articles. For an article like this to be retained, it requires a substantial amount of work to be done on it by an experienced editor — which is not a demand that the original article editor is entitled to make. We are seeing far too many new articles that fall into this category. I think this subject may meet the notability criteria, so that if any editor choose to do the work necessary to create an acceptable text, I will look again. Otherwise, I suggest to Michael144 that he gets proper experience on wikipedia as an editor by helping with a range of articles and working with established users. He may then be in a position to contribute an acceptable article on Justin Michael Jenkins. The only reason I have not speedy deleted this is out of respect for the editors who have already contributed to this AfD, which I think should be allowed to make the decision. Tyrenius 04:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Tyrenius, after reviewing dozens of artists biographies on wikipedia, i have begun to mold the article in a similiar fashion as theirs. I am not trying to blatantly promote him, just give him credit in a nice article. By the way, we are not friends, but we have worked together and i feel he should be given a chance to be on wikipedia. I would also like to point out that any article or biography on wikipedia is a form of promotion to some degree. You are "promoting" the person by given them a proper article discussing what they have accomplished. I have also began to change the internal links to the wikipedia areas rather than link outside the artivle (my mistake at first - i thought they wanted external links within the article). In terms of reliable sources, linking to direct newspaper articles and other resources that further confirm my points is the wrong way? I am a bit surprised you think this is a self promotional article? I thought writinga biography about an artist was done along these lines after reviewing other artists pages. Also, does wikipedia have editors you can hire to write up biographies and articles? - I would hire someone to help me make this acceptable Thanks, Mike Retla --Michael144 07:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paid edits are forbidden. Wiki is created by volunteers. Please study the policies and guidelines as in the welcome message on your talk page, also the use of references, for which a guide has been provided. You might like to look at Wikipedia:Featured articles for the best articles, as well as WP:ATT, WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK. I don't wish to be discouraging, but there are specialist skills that need to be mastered to write within wiki guidelines, so I recommend gaining a much wider experience first of all. Tyrenius 02:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tyrenius, is this person notable enough or not? In terms of writing the article, i do not want to spend countless hours workng on this if you and the other administrators already have your minds made up as to who gets published or if Justin is acceptable. In terms of the WIKIPEDIA standards, i am learning and do not find this write up that bad as compared to others i have read and researched on here for artists. So perhaps your bias? Thanks, Mike --Michael144 10:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Daedra. Rlevse 12:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daedric alphabet

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

Completely non-notable "alphabet"/font not used anywhere outside of a video game. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to The Elder Scrolls, but without actually merging any of this inanely trivial information there. —Angr 16:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Elder Scrolls Daedra. non-notable alphabet. --RebSkii 17:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Daedra - seems a sensible option. I don't think it is a significant enough part of the series to warrant its own article. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable videogame cruft, unattributed. Sandstein 08:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge full content into Daedra. No need for a separate article, but worth of being mentioned under the main topic. -- Black Falcon 20:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted as copyright violation. —Angr 06:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Hwee Long

Ho Hwee Long (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Nonnotable music teacher. No indication of meeting the criteria of WP:MUSIC. —Angr 16:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Appears to not meet our requirements. - Denny 15:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete His prominence in Singapore's band circles can be likened to Lan Shui's prominence in the orchestral scene. He is one of the adjudicators for the 2nd Singapore Muse Festival 2007 and National Chinese Music Competition 2006. As according to strand 11. "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network.", Associate Professor Ho Hwee Long has been featured in a 45-min interview on Channel News Asia in Year 2005, sharing his views about the band movement in Singapore. WASBE International Conference 2005: For this occasion, Associate Professor Ho specially arranged a piece titled "Yellow River", which was premiered by The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) Band, a local professional wind orchestra. In 1981, Ho Hwee Long was invited to guest-conduct in the Philippines with the NIE Symphonic Band. He once again arranged a piece titled "A Selection of Malay Folk Songs". Then on, his works have been extensively performed, particularly in Asian Countries. The bands, under Professor Ho's direction, have traveled beyond the shores of Singapore and brought glory to the nation.
1. National Junior College Symphonic Band, one of the top three JC Bands in Singapore, which was awarded Gold with Honours.
2. National Institute of Education Symphonic Band, one of the top five bands in the Yamaha European Open Hamar (YEOH) Competition at the 15th International Band Music Festival. (1999)
First Prize with Distinction in the 3rd Division (Adult), at the 14th International Festival for Wind Music (Janitsjarfestivalen) in Hamar, Norway. In 2005, A/P Ho wrote in to renowned Belgian composer, Jan van der Roost, to include a Harp part, which was arranged by A/P Ho himself, in his work, "Amazonia". Jan van der Roost later acceded to A/P Ho's request.
The above comments are from Lmao123, who has contributed only to the article in question and this discussion, and User:121.6.154.98, who is almost certainly the same person logged-out, who has contributed only to this discussion. —Angr 16:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to clarify that of the above points, only the first point (A/P Ho's prominence in band circles) and the second point (A/P Ho's position as an adjudicator for the 2nd Singapore Muse Festival 2007) can be credited to me. I had originally written these in separate points, but my points have subsequently been combined with those of another user (User:121.6.154.98) and summed up as above. I do support the rest of the points provided by User:121.6.154.98. Lmao123 13:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:57Z

Chuck Norris Facts

Chuck Norris Facts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A one-line trivia mention in Chuck Norris padded out into a long promotion for a website which is now 404 anyway. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, so, week keep. It was a notable at one point, though now far less relevant - although a newish Mountain Dew commercial with Norris references the phenomena. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Many things lose notability over time. An Enclyclopedia should be a historical record as well. Autocracy 18:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has other references including a Washinton Post Article. Notable history. See last AfD discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Autocracy (talk • contribs) 18:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Compare with All_your_base. An offshoot of Zero Wing, but an article in its own right. Chuck Norris facts were an offshoot of Chuck Norris himself, which is arguably a somewhat different case, but the phenomenon of them on the internet was an event in its own right. Really, the article should be exanded. Autocracy 18:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CORRECT AFD LINK -- for whatever reason the AfD link won't fix, so please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Norris Facts (2) if trying to comment from the AfD master list. Autocracy 21:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It was a real phenomenon, like it or not. Needs cleanup, not deletion. No valid reason for deletion sited, as I don't see how this reads like an advertisement. Despite claims of nominator the article doesn't so much as mention the no-longer-active Web site. It's actually reasonably well done for an article on an internet meme. --JayHenry 22:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You know, when I went to the article, I was expecting a huge, unmaintainable list of examples of dumb "facts," but what I found instead was a concise, fairly well-written article with only one or two examples here and there (a seemingly magical feat for an article of this kind). Plenty of coverage in multiple, non-trivial publications. This is a huge pop-culture phenomenon, not just a summary of one now-defunct website (which can be easily removed from the external links, if that's the problem). I'm actually not really sure why this has been nominated. Some of the statements could be sourced and the article could use a quick cleanup, but otherwise, I don't really see a problem. Wavy G 02:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As idiotic as this meme is, not only has it been a notable internet phenomenon, but—like All your base and O RLY?—it has also branched out into traditional media (ie Rolling Stone and TIME). --TBCΦtalk? 03:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - an excellent article about a very real and popular thing. - (Ninsaneja 03:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep per Wavy G. This is a surprisingly well-written article given the subject. Could use more references, I suppose, but that's not at issue here. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a cultural movement about Chuck, but i would focus on the history of it and in what it have become today. I would not allow that it just turns into a dump place for chuck norris jokes, thats the work of unyclopedia (and there is a link there, great!. also, its fun :) --ometzit<col> 16:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is quite notable.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 20:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved discussion from "Chuck Norris Facts (2)" as this is the third nomination of this article. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Notability cannot be lost with time. These still circulate, and have inspired the parody Jack Bauer Facts. Just because someone forgot to renew their domain name does not make it non-notable. Daniel Case 02:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sourcing concerns not addressed. Shimeru 05:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global Policy Advisors

Global Policy Advisors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

disputed speedy, disputed PROD for non-notable consulting firm that makes no assertion of notability, has no references, and has shown no signs of improvement since creation in Feb-06. any cleanup tags placed on the article are repeatedly removed by anon. IP addresses. delete Cornell Rockey 17:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell Rockey: Wiki policy states: "Advertising: Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style." Where in the current article do you find objectivity or bias? M nye 17:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been improved, and the concerns have hopefully been addressed. While, as in all wiki articles, this page, too, is still a work in progress, it should not be deleted altogether just because it is yet to be "perfect." M nye 18:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been improved, and the concerns have been addressed. Dragomiloff's "Delete" should not be considered because, based on his/her signature timing, he/she likely had not yet seen the improvements made to the article. M nye 18:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - I posted the above at 18:29. The last edit to the article was made at 18:18. Dragomiloff 18:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to Comment Fair enough. Thank you. M nye 18:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment the concerns addressed my deletion nomination have not been addressed. Quoting a random website to establish notabiltiy does not pass WP:ORG, & it is not an established reference. Cornell Rockey 19:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The strongest claim is that a notable trade association once gave them an entry in its directory of web sites. Unimprovable and unsourcable. DGG 05:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Covert Comic

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

Completely non-notable author, and obvious vanity. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miami Dolphins starting quarterbacks

List of Miami Dolphins starting quarterbacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

While I do not think this page should be deleted, Jaranda does. Arx Fortis 17:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see value in having a clickable title for any succession box and, in particular, succession boxes for NFL QBs. Why should we require a user to click through an entire succession box to know the list of succession?...or to find the first or most recent person/item in the succession? Here is an example of a succession box (which is on the Dan Marino article with clickable title:

Preceded by Miami Dolphins Starting Quarterbacks
1983-1999 		Succeeded by

++Arx Fortis 17:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per nom. - PoliticalJunkie 19:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Arx Fortis. NFL starting quarterbacks don't change from week to week (usually). It's a long-term position and having a clickable title for succession boxes is a legitimate concern. --Charlene 21:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or if it does get deleted, replace with a category. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, as long as the "lists of quarterbacks" are based on the de facto starting quarterback at the beginning of the season for each team, and not the starting quarterback from week-to-week. For example, in a list of "Philadelphia Eagles starting quarterbacks", would the 2006 QB be Jeff Garcia (who started most of the season) or Donovan McNabb (the best QB on the team at the beginning of the season)? Thunderbunny 01:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makosi Musambasi

Nominated as Delete as for not notable enough apart from her campaign to scrape the barrel of celebritydom just to stay in the UK purely to get publicity from the press. Dr Tobias Funke 17:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete article and subject, both are without any discernible merit, questionable nom. notwithstanding. Guy (Help!) 17:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guy, sexy but nn. 82.29.225.238 18:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC) — 82.29.225.238 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. Please note the multiple, non-trivial references at the bottom of the article. She may have done all this just for publicity, but apparently she received it and thus qualifies per WP:BIO. Also, I'm not sure I understand Guy's comment: "delete article and subject"? It comes off a bit too Big Brother-ish for my taste. -- Black Falcon 20:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

York@54

York@54 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

local TV station, no external sources, no evidence of significance. Oh, and terrestrial analogue is due to be switched off anyway... Guy (Help!) 17:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. Television stations that own a broadcast license are generally considered notable by precedent. This can be revisited when they discontinue transmissions. However, perhaps this should be sent to cleanup, since there is more than one York worldwide, and at first I assumed it was a Toronto station (York being an old name for Toronto). --Charlene 21:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete It is time to establish the more detailed precedent that articles for stations in a local market with a restricted license and that do not have significant programming of their own, are nonencyclopedic. The article claims to, but provides no information. DGG 05:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't find any nontrivial reliable sources on Google, Google news, or Lexis-Nexis. The 3 sources listed in the article right now form the triumvirate: the first is not independent, the second is trivial, and the third is unreliable. Pan Dan 18:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:A, WP:COI. Sandstein 08:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrick Pritchard

Fredrick Pritchard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Little Movements No. 2.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

This page is an autobiography. (See WP:AUTO, WP:COI) If Mr. Pritchard is notable, the article needs reference to published sources, and it needs an editor who isn't its subject. Rainwarrior 18:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've reviewed the revised article. My delete still stands. Even if all of the information was adequately sourced (which I don't feel it is), sufficient notability has not been established. — ERcheck (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Fredrick Pritchard:

First, I DID remove the previous tag placed on the page, in the belief that the article had been accepted. Apparently User:Kon-Tiki001, had placed the tag, but I replied on his/her talk page (Section: Autobiographies). I presented my arguments and appeal there. He replied, "Your article is probably an exception to the rule, and should in my opinion be allowed to stay." However, I will make efforts to provide sources, and carry out all above requests. Obviously, only someone who knows much about me in each area (composer, performer, theory, and education) would have a reasonably complete basis to act as an editor. Prof.rick 19:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: If an editor would have to know you personally in order to properly write this article, then you aren't notable. If you can't provide sources that an independent editor could use to verify the content of the article, that content doesn't have a place here. - Rainwarrior 07:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: I see your point. But I understand that having trained and greatly influenced the work of notable musicians can be regarded as a qualifier. I have trained many notable musicians, some referred to in the article. Does this help? Prof.rick 01:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That might be good enough, as long as you can list a source with which it could be verified that you've taught those people. - Rainwarrior 05:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The articles Greg Wells, Erin Leahy, and Jonah Cristall-Clarke all make references to me as their teacher. (Is Wikipedia considered a reliable source?) You might also find references to Fredrick Pritchard on their other websites. I have not included other successful musicians I have taught, who do not (yet) have Wikipedia articles. But the above-named will probably have information to contribute to the Fredrick Pritchard article, as will others. (Are quotes from the above artists considered acceptable?) Some may appear very soon...others such as Erin, may take a few weeks due to busy touring and recording schedules. Prof.rick 01:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source (that would be self-defeating). I checked the websites linked from those articles, but could not find any mention of you. Unless the quote is from the artist in the form of a publically published document, it can't be verified. I personally have no doubt that you taught these people, but if it is not a matter of public record, how is it notable? - Rainwarrior 03:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia is not a reliable source, why does it exist? Doesn't talk (such as this) lead to it's credibility? Prof.rick 01:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Prof.rick contributions: All the references in the above articles cited by Prof.rick — Wells, Leahy, and Cristall-Clarke — were added by Prof.rick. "Proving" oneself notable by salting other articles does not make your case. — ERcheck (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Addendum: Prof.rick has also referenced himself in Musical notation - here. — ERcheck (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response to ERcheck This is NOT salting! The above-named artists were first consulted, and were most enthusiastic regarding my contributions, and endorse my article 100%. Why not "wait and see" if these artists remove these edits...or else contact them yourself! (Greg's comments on the Fredrick Pritchard page would help verify this, had you not removed it.) [See Fredrick Pritchard History page.] Furthermore, I have only referenced myself in "Musical Notation" as a PUBLISHED composer. (Perhaps it would help to take an overview of said article, and recognize that this reference helps to "round out" concepts of musical notation.) Prof.rick 03:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those who may know we well as a performer may not know of me as a composer or educator. (And so on, in circa.) This is why I stated (or inferred) that an editor who knows me as a performer, composer, and educator is best qualified to write or edit the article. Prof.rick 05:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And as I said, unless someone can learn these things without knowing you personally, you're not notable, and it's unverifiable original research, which doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Instead, your user page or a personal website is the appropriate place for this information (I suggest copying this over there now because this article is likely to be deleted when the time runs out and this is reviewed by an administrator.). - Rainwarrior 06:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let an Administrator review and delete. I have no doubt Wells, Cristall-Clarke, Leahy, Cook, or others will present a new article, to which I hope you will be open-minded. (But who knows?) Prof.rick 08:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REVISIONS

I have re-written and condensed the article, Fredrick Pritchard. Please check the article's Discussion Page for comments regarding changes, and a rationale for keeping the article. Prof.rick 23:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete I'm sorry but we can't have pages put up by their subjects - it would open the floodgates. You might be v notable but someone else has to do it. NBeale 17:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No offense, but this is just another version of an ad hominem argument. Why should it matter who writes an article if the article is written well, conforms to WP policies, and the subject is notable (please note, my point is intended to be general and not necessarily apply to this particular article). -- Black Falcon 20:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As A Wikipedian, I disagree that it would "open the floodgates". Although autobiographies are discouraged, this is not a "rule", carved in stone. There are exceptions. It this were not so, Wikipedia would not mention it! There is NO RULE which states that someone else HAS to do it (but I am sure, if necessary, someone else would.) Prof.rick 01:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well WP:AUTO may only be a guideline, but it's pretty sound. There's a certain noblesse oblige and also it is invidious having to argue that another Editor is not notable. So I've amended my vote to Delete. But I'm afraid that even if it weren't an autobiography I would still vote delete because there are no reliable published sources cited for the information in the article, and almost ghits. I suggest you put this information in your user space NBeale 11:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Please see the Talk page on this article, Fredrick Pritchard. Prof.rick 01:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Rainwarrior Check again! All these pages make references to me, Rick Pritchard (Fredrick Pritchard. True, I edited their pages. However, I have consulted all parties concerned, and they have first approved and supported my moves, and will make it clear. If they support my edits, can this be considered "salting"? (Surely, if a number of these successful artists still return to me for lessons, this must say something!)

Greg Wells tried to add to the Fredrick Pritchard page today, but his move was reverted. Will this happen to every submission by my successful pupils? Prof.rick 01:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia articles did, but did not cite any sources. I was commenting on the personal websites of the artists, none of which contained any reference to you that I could fine. And yes, direct comments by the artists are not admissable, since there is no way to verify that they are who they claim to be. - Rainwarrior 03:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Rainwarrior Would you like a signed letter from them? Or would you question their signatures? (See my notes to ERcheck). IF NECESSARY, the named artists will write to you. 07:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To User:NBeale: Thank you for changing "Strong Delete" to "Delete". Is another editor not notable if Wikipedia contains an article about him/her? Please refer to the article's talk page for "published sources", and also please check the References I have provided. (I could add more, but should the page be smothered with references?) Again, I regard this issue as not primarily about me, but about Wikipedia policies, and their interpretation. Whether or not the article is kept is less important to me than the interpretation of Wiki policies. Prof.rick 01:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To User:ERcheck: And why shouldn't I reference myself regarding the Musical Notation article? I spent many hours researching the subject, and contributing to the page. The quote (to which I refer) is published and verifiable. Even if my contributions were not founded (contradictory to the page history's evidence), what on earth does it have to do with THIS article? Shall we then question I am a devoted and honest editor, and hope to remain so. I have contributed untold hours to the advancement of Wikipedia.

Furthermore, I can hardly be accused of "salting" when all such edits were done with the approval and support of the subjects of the articles in question. I don't want to argue this case, but please, let's play fair! Prof.rick 01:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support of Wikipedia policy whether or not regarding the Fredrick Pritchard article, User:Kon-Tiki001, User:Black Falcon, Greg Wells, Jonah Cristall-Clarke and Erin Leahy. Prof.rick 01:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Attribution is the applicable policy. Adding what your pupils told you is acceptable cannot be confirmed to the level of reliable sourcing required by Wikipedia. Using these articles as examples of verification of who you have taught is a case of "because I told you". Wikipedia's guidelines on autobiographies describe why autobiographies are problematic (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest). Your contributions are appreciated; but, Wikipedia policies apply to all of your contributions, including an autobiographical article. — ERcheck (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if ALL my notable pupils were to post entries on my page, OR on their own independent web pages, would this make a difference? (I am questioning the issue of "published" vs. "unpublished".)

Or have you simply made a decision which cannot be changed? 07:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether or Not

Whether the Fredrick Pritchard article is KEPT or DELETED, (a matter which doesn't matter a great deal to me); I am just bursting with such remarkable attention! I think its time for a little humour here! Whatever your stand, let's all take a moment to laugh at the entire issue, which, really, is of less importance to the world than we may believe! Not one of us (editor, adminstrator, or the like) can hardly become so absorbed in this issue that it effects our daily lives! Please, everyone, PRO or CON, take some time to put it in perpsective, and LAUGH!!! Wikipidia policies are more legitimately destined to scrutiny, than I am! Prof.rick 06:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fumio Nakahira

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

This one is interesting... It is an article about a Japanese holdout who supposedly surrendered in the Philippines in 1980. The problems with this article are the lack of any verifiable material. A Google search pulls up only one line mentions here and there, plus a bunch of Wikipedia mirrors. Other Japanese Holdouts who (verifiably) were found earlier than Fumio have fairly large ammounts of material on them online. "The most famous" one, Hiroo Onoda who was found in 1974, had international media attention and a presidential pardon. If Fumio had been found a full six years later, how come nobody cared? How come there is practically zero information anywhere on this guy? The one external link goes to a website on holdouts, at http://www.wanpela.com/holdouts/. It is a good resource with plenty of info and archival photos on several notable holdouts, but Fumio gets just one line midway down this page. That there is a lot of mentions out there on Fumio suggests that he may have existed. That all the mentions don't have any kind of source of their own, and that there is so little information suggests that he never existed. Keep if we can conjur some verifiable sources, delete if we can't. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, article is unreferenced since creation 2(!) years ago and there are no indications that this will change. Blatant failure of WP:A AlfPhotoman 18:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can find sources. I couldn't find any after about 15 minutes of searching in Japanese, although it was made somewhat harder by the fact that we don't know the kanji for his first name. Appears to be no article on the JA Wiki. Dekimasuよ! 02:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The most convincing source I've found so far is the Philippines government home page for tourism [19], where he is mentioned. That is barely enough to think that it is not a hoax (other ghits seem to have been around since 2001 or earlier, too), but, perhaps not enough to meet WP:A. By the time 1980 rolled around, the novelty of Japanese holdouts was wearing off, so it is not such a surprise that the 1972 and 1974 events have garnered more attention. (And, the fact that Onoda was actively shooting people until shortly before his surrender also added to his infamy).Neier 05:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on lack of quality sources. If we are hard pressed to establish his existence, then surely he is not sufficiently notable for an article.--Kubigula (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Taiwanese films

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

Almost completely empty list. Ideogram 18:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete even if it was a full list, a category is more appropriate for this sort of thing anyway. Koweja 00:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep now that the list is filled in and per Grutness's point. Koweja 14:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. A list is far more appropriate than a category for this sort of thing, Koweja, since additional information (such as year of release and director) can be added to a list which cannot be added to a category. This is the method used for many other countries. See List of New Zealand films for the way that such a list could be expanded way beyond the capabilities of a category. Grutness...wha? 02:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [Delete]. With two entries, it isn't much of a list. Add at least three other films, comment out all empty structure, otherwise delete. -- User:Docu
    • Given that there are some 30 films in the category, that shouldn't be a hard task. Grutness...wha? 05:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • 15 minutes work, and it's up to 11 films. Surely a little work's better than deletion? Grutness...wha? 05:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have a look at it now. Grutness...wha? 09:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Much better now. I changed my summary to keep. Good work. -- User:Docu
  • Keep and expand. Is the list way too tiny for the time being? Yes. Is the topic itself encyclopedic, notable and verifiable and in conformity with WP:LIST? Heck yes! I could even imagine Wikipedia getting made fun of in the media for deleting an article about an entire country's films. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong keep Please give time for these lists to develop-already Grutness has done a great job - they provide very good details of the respective cinemas. Thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "I've been expecting you" 14:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No one besides the original nominator argues for deleting the content outright. Merging the data is an editorial decision that anyone can perform if they feel like it. - Bobet 18:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yttrium(III) oxide (data page)

Yttrium(III) oxide (data page) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article only provides one physical property Inwind 18:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't see a reason why we can't have an article for this element, but it should contain more info. Perhaps notify the creator or consider contribuing more. I found several references to the properties of this element ++Arx Fortis 00:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These sorts of pages are a consequence of the way Template:Chembox has been written. Spacepotato 01:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To expand on this, when the template Template:Chembox was being written, it was decided that putting all chemical properties in the infobox would lead to an excessively bloated box. Therefore, the chembox has a link (Supplementary data page) which leads to supplememtary data pages like this one. They can be thought of as part of the infobox. Spacepotato 00:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not disputing the main article on Yttrium(III) oxide. However, for properties to be noteworthy for 'exotic' compounds I feel that there should be some reference in the article to relate to that particular property. May be someone can help and add a reference to the thermal conductivity. Inwind 05:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Yttrium(III) oxide. Peterkingiron 00:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content with Yttrium(III) oxide and delete this one as this is an unlikely search term anyway. --Polaron | Talk 01:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Majorly (o rly?) 16:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atiur Rahman

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

Non-notable professor and economist. No justification of inclusion shown except for trivial mention in newspapers (which even I have!). Fails WP:PROF. Being a Bangladeshi, I can definitely say that he is not regarded as a significant economist in Bangladeshi media. Trivial mentions (as shown in the newspaper reports) do not count as notability proof. Ragib 18:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC) •[reply]

  • Additional comments:
    • Chairman of the Janata Bank - tens of others have been in that bureaucratic post.
    • Board of Sonali Bank - hundreds of others served there.
    • BIDS ( Bangladesh Institute for Development Studies) -hundreds of others did so
    • chairman of the nonprofit research institute Unnayan Shamunnay - non notable NGO, which gets very little attention even in Bangladeshi media except for trivial mention.
    • professor in the department of Development Studies in Dhaka University - hundreds of professors are employed in Dhaka University, nothing special. --Ragib 18:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Janata Bank is NOT the second largest Bank in Bangladesh (that would be Rupali Bank). Also, a bureaucratic post occupied by a lot of other bureaucrats. --Ragib 05:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep Bank chairmen do not change in and out quite so fast, though we need a more exact reference Is he the present chairman, and if not, when?DGG 05:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a govt owned bank, and the chairmanship is a bureaucratic post which changes quite often. Had he been the chairman / Governor of Bangladesh Bank (the central bank), it would have been a totally different thing. --Ragib 05:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  09:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment according to their home page, is is now Managing Director of the Bank, and I have adjusted the article to reflect this. If we knew how long he has held the position, we perhaps could judge its importance better, as mentioned above.DGG 01:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please show the reference? You added without any reference. All of the brief newspaper mentions refer to him as the former Chairman. --Ragib 01:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I'm sure your information is incorrect, per this interview [20]. Thanks. --Ragib 01:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.RaveenS 22:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep any one or maybe two of his accomplishments would be non-notable, but since he has many and those affect many people, he is notable. we need to be wary of systemic bias against non-western accomplishments too. --Buridan 16:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aquaphilia

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

This page has gone unreferenced since I called for valid references in January of 2006. Wikipedia requires that all articles be reference-able by published sources, not self published ones. So documentation by self published online "aquaphile journals" are okay external links but do not factor into the deletion for this article. My question is this: is there a published, valid source that can verify the use of the term "aquaphilia" as it is used on this page. I understand that this is a somewhat popular fetish, but attributability by published sources is policy on wikipedia, not guideline. In my own search using lexisnexis, Jstor and Google Scholar, I have found that there are scholarly articles related to aquatic erotica, but they never call it aquaphilia and have not termed it a sexual fetish, the information on the page is related to attributable things, but is itself unattributable to published source. Lotusduck 18:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Have you read the articles and confirmed they don't use the term, or is it only that you did not find it in the title or perhaps abstract? I ask not as criticism, but so as to know where next to look.DGG 05:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did full text searches for aquaphilia in journals, newspapers, books, and after quite a lot of time wasted I didn't find any articles that used aquaphilia to refer to anything sexual. The articles in the external links to the wikipedia article use the term, but are self published web journals, and not acceptable as references for wikipedia under policy. Lotusduck 07:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This material is significant, there are web sites, there are discussions. The sources may not be the conventional ones used in WP, but the fact that we cannot write an article about something we know to be significant without adjusting the rule here a little should cause us to adjust the rule. The established web journals in the field are bviously published by those involved in the fetish, but this does not necessarily make them unreliable. "Self-published" is probably not applicable in this case-- I do not see how material about a subject can be literally "self-published" as distinct from the usual meaning for material about and by a person. Biologists publish web journals on biology, etc...DGG 10:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should read the wikipedia policy on attribution. Your statements are against policy. Self published also typically means "published not by recognized respectable sources" not your definition. Self published almost never means "autobiographical."Lotusduck 22:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Term is used in newspaper article: Jury: Law firm must pay in sex suit--Charles haynes 10:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welcome to wikipedia. You have only two edits to your name including this one, perhaps you should spend more time editing articles before you go on AFD, or try re-writing the aquaphilia article to fit the sentence regarding aquaphilia in that article.Lotusduck 01:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how this brief mention of bathtub swimsuit photos as aquaphilia would change your vote from delete, but now how it would change it to keep. If only one published source mentions it and only incidentally, a full article cannot be built of it. A merge is acceptable, but to where?
That article is a primary source, and wikipedia articles require some secondary sources. Even if it were an analytical writing, the coverage of the topic is too incidental to prove notability. From wikipedia's notability guideline: "Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Therefore a book or a journal actually discussing aquaphilia that is published by outside sources would make this notable. Lotusduck 22:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is a guideline, not a policy, and is subject to common sense. So, what does your common sense say, can we fully attribute a complete article to a single sentence about someone's prosecution?Lotusduck 22:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • names In general,Primary literary or other media sources are sufficient to document a name for a type of behavior,and to document that this behavior is something which people either do or fantasize about. They by themsselves justify an article if the behavior is worth the description. For behavior with no established name but where a name has been reported in a single source, we can use it; if the ultimate name should change, the articles can be edited accordingly. Commonly used names can change no matter how many sources there might be.
    • The web journals report the fantasies of the authors, and are for this purposes as reliable as if in a more conventional medium. They would not be reliable to establish that some particular person had engaged in a particular form of behavior, but they are, to establish that it is something humans think about.
Recall that truth is not a wikipedia policy, attribution is, and attribution is defined as to published sources. Proving that something is thought about by humans is also not a factor in the notability guideline.Lotusduck 00:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The newspaper article reports on a lawsuit, and is therefore a secondary source, and a prima fascia reliable one. WP accepts newspaper accounts, and such documentation has been used throughout WP. It is sufficient to establish the name. To call a newspaper report of a lawsuit a primary source is a novel suggestion indeed and should first be discussed on the suitable policy page.
"A secondary source is an study written by a scholar about a topic." This article does not analyze or synthesize anything, and if we are to treat it as a secondary source "Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability."
It seems like you are endorsing using forums and self published websites for sources. If so it is you that needs to take your arguments to the attribution policy talk page. There is serious question to notability. As for using self published sources, the definition of a neologism is always contentious, and an article must not be based primarily on unreliable sources. Nobody has shown any other sources from which anyone could really base this article on. Lotusduck 00:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally and in every way fails the fundemental policy of attribution. Of course this might change with the introduction of reliable sources aso can then try to establish notability. The "sources" being provided now do not meet the requirements of reliable sources on wikipwdia. NeoFreak 19:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of reliable sources and per WP:NEO. I found a source that uses the term "aquaphilia" in relation to a person's liklihood to enjoy whitewater rafting.[21] Neologisms can mean different things to different people and that's one of the reasons why articles about neologisms should be avoided.--Kubigula (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Glitches found in the Pokémon video games. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 12:01Z

Pokemon bad eggs

Pokemon bad eggs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Poorly written stub about what seems to me to be a non-notable topic; written entirely as an instructional guide and cites no references. Brandon Dilbeck 18:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind - now I see there's no references, so Delete. --Libertyernie2 17:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Women's wrestling type of matches

Women's wrestling type of matches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The rules of these matches are all well covered on List of professional wrestling match types. This page will never be more than an unnecessary list of results. «»bd(talk stalk) 18:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this article doesn't strike me as at all encyclopedic. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. Govvy 11:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is nothing particularly different about a women's match from a men's match. Men can compete in egg nog or in B&P matches, and women have competed in more extreme matches (eg. the Diva Steel Cage match). Furthermore, listing the results of the match does nothing to describe the match, and which is a magnet for cruft (any indy women's promotion can add their results in...), not to mention that it will never be comprehensive. kelvSYC 21:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). Wodup 05:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luddite fallacy

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:NEO and WP:NPOV. "Luddite fallacy" gets 57 hits on Yahoo and 118 hits on Google, many of which are mirrors of the same article on Jeremy Rifkin. Apparently there is a source for the term but if there is, there is nothing here that isn't already covered better in the critical section of the article on Luddism. Dragomiloff 19:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn Dragomiloff 20:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redirect to Luddite per nom. --Nlu (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge. The term "fallacy" is not mentioned even once in the Luddite article and "Luddite fallacy" is a term used in economic circles. I fully support a merge, but oppose the article's deletion (it's a valid search term). I will perform a merge of the articles shortly (AFD is unneeded for minor editorial issues). -- Black Falcon 22:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am changing my recommendation to keep per the expansion of the article. I no longer think it is appropriate to merge this into Luddite. -- Black Falcon 05:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done! I have performed a selective merge to the criticism section and also added some more information. All that's left is to redirect to Luddite and add {{R from merge}}. -- Black Falcon 22:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I added a couple more things, if this becomes a redirect... Smmurphy(Talk) 03:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Much appreciated! I have also incorporated some more information from Easterly and will now try to include other available sources. -- Black Falcon 05:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thanks to both of you for working on sourcing and rewriting this. The article now looks a lot more NPOV too. I'm still concerned that while this term can be sourced it is not widely used, as my web search found, and where it is used it is only by a few economists of a particular political POV (one of them is with the Independent Institute and the other the author of White Man's Burden). I still lean toward a weak merge with Luddite which would place the concept in broader context. But could go either way at this point. The concept appears real enough, just specific to a few economists and not widely used. Dragomiloff 12:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The concept is indeed used only by economists of a particular point of view (namely neoclassicists), but it has not infrequent use (it is probably mentioned in most economics textbooks and university economics courses). If you'll note, a number of the mentions to the Luddite fallacy are from by university-level economics courses: see UC-Davis, Iowa State University, Citadel Military College, University of Kansas, Harvard University. -- Black Falcon 18:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I'm convinced, at least convinced enough that this is a real concept that it's worth keeping a separate article on it. I'm withdrawing my nomination. Dragomiloff 20:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you. I will keep this page on my watchlist and add additional relevant sources and information as I come across it. To be fair, I do recognise that the previous versions of the article (this and this) were of substandard quality and did not establish the notability of the subject (or justify why this should be separate from Luddite), so your proposed deletion and AFD nomination were fully valid. Cheers, Black Falcon 21:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that it is rewritten, it is obviously both notable as a subject and completely different from Luddite the article. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in light of WP:ATT, which shows multiple economists using the term. Article still needs work. Irene Ringworm 22:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Jersey Devil 21:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Greater Phoenix Boffing Group

The Greater Phoenix Boffing Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

not at all notable Wjousts 19:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not encyclopedic, group was just formed a couple of weeks ago. Dragomiloff 19:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable - PoliticalJunkie 19:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No-Delete Comment by the creater this entry - Yes, the group was formed only a couple of weeks ago. However we now have over 26 members, with an expected minimum of 10 playing at one time (only 3-week repeat members are displayed on official website numbers). The group is composed of newcomers, experienced SCA, SCP, and trained fencing players (mostly rapier and epee). We may be new but we are well organized and will be around for quite a while. At the current growth rate we are expecting over 100 members in less than six months. I use the following Wikipedia articles for dispute as "Non-Encyclopedic":
    • Comment WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid retort. If your new group has not received significant notice from reliable third parties (ie. not blogs or personal websites), it's not notable for WP. One group I belong to has 3,000 members - but it's still not notable because it hasn't received third-party notice from reliable parties. --Charlene 21:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete based on the information above. After it becomes notable, write the article.DGG 05:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not necessarily relevant to the delete/no delete discussion, but to the creator of the article: If you're looking to promote a boffing group that doesn't focus on role-playing or historical reenactment, I've rounded up several college and high school boffer clubs which are now in the process of setting up a directory and possibly a wiki. If you're interested get in touch with me by e-mail at LangleyLGLF@gmail.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.198.121.89 (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Non encyclopedic. Larps which have been around for a number of years or even decades, or have hundreds or even thousands of players may be encyclopedic (like some of the ones mentioned above, NERO International has been around for 18 years and has several thousand players across 50 locally run licensed games in the US and Canada, a totally different scale to this "The Greater Phoenix Boffing Group"), but a newly formed local group with about two dozen members isn't exactly notable yet. If it gets bigger later, then it might warrant being remade at that time, but it's no different than countless other flash-in-the-pan groups which might last a few months or a year or two locally then fall apart, and that's not encyclopedic. --Wingsandsword 20:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, WP:CSD#G11, with text like "Our staff actively contributes to international scientific conferences". Sandstein 20:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pasiphae

Pasiphae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Pasiphae.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Fails WP:CORP PoliticalJunkie 19:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Respect - The Unity Coalition. Mergers can be done from history, but should involve only content attributed to reliable sources. These are currently lacking. Sandstein 08:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Student Respect

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

Insufficiently notable student organization. Delete and redirect to Respect Party. --Nlu (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redirect per nom. Driller thriller 20:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The group is notable in that it is the student-wing of a notable U.K party. However, there doesn't seem to be enough info' to justify seperate article so I vote Merge and redirect with main Respect article.--JK the unwise 08:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per JK the unwise. However, there is no reason to keep/merge all of the names of the people involved - Wikipedia is NOT a directory.--Kubigula (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Class 378

British Rail Class 378 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The only evidence this class exists is a number the aritcle's author found within an artist's impression on a flyer distributed to local residents. Given the intended audience of the flyer, there is no reasonable expectation that the publishers would have verified such a piece of technical ephemera was accurate. The topic area is already well-covered at London_Overground#Rolling_stock Dtcdthingy 19:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the fact that TfL have gone to all the trouble of releasing an official artist's impression on an official piece of publicity with a clearly visible class number (378 000) is indicative that this will prove to be the final class number of the new rolling stock. To say "given the intended audience of the flyer, there is no reasonable expectation that the publishers would have verified such a piece of technical ephemera was accurate" is one individual expressing an opinion; can this be reasonable grounds for deletion? Hammersfan 10/03/07, 22.20 GMT
Yes, because they're dead right. The notion that the artist's impression showing the number is a definitive indication that it will carry that number is utter poppycock. Chris cheese whine 23:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an issue with the title of an article, propose a move - don't proposed deleting it. Thryduulf 10:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - an aspect of the information may be correct, but connecting it specifically to this non-existent numbered class renders the whole thing useless. Chris cheese whine 23:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - very well, then see TfL Board Meeting, 25/10/06 Agenda Item 4, Page 5 "Following the announcement for 44 trains for London Overground services, Bombardier have started mobilisation at their Derby plant. The first trains will be delivered in late 2008 and have been categorised by Network Rail as Class 378s." I believe that counts as verifible evidence. Hammersfan 11/03/07, 12.35 GMT
I don't. Do you know what a "placeholder" is? Chris cheese whine 00:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you're questioning a freely available, published document from Transport for London, that states categorically that Network Rail has categorised the new rolling stock as "Class 378"? Fair enough then, I guess you must be right and the body that runs public transport in London must be wrong. By the way, there's also Sept 29 2006 if you want to disbelieve that as well. Hammersfan 11/03/07, 01.00 GMT
  • cough* WP:RS *cough* That's one primary source, and one non-source (we don't believe random websites that say "X have said that Y confirmed Z" without stating their sources). Chris cheese whine 01:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm done playing with you now. I have provided a source for the item that is being contested on here. You have made it plain you disagree. It's now for other people to decide whether it's a worthy enough source. I suggest we leave it at that. And as it happens, I do know what a placeholder is. I also don't appreciate the whole "cough" thing, which IMHO shows a distinctly purile attitude. Hammersfan 11/03/07, 01.30 GMT
There's no need to be rude[22]. Chris cheese whine 01:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After going through various resources, it seems yes there is going to be a new type of train but it does not seem to be specific totally. Bombardier and other sources basically say it is going to be based on the Class 376. Therefore i propose, for now, merge with British Rail Class 376. Simply south 17:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you at least agree that, according to the TfL board meeting minutes, the Class number 378 has been agreed and assigned? Hammersfan 11/03/07, 18.46 GMT
Yes, possibly. I am still going to say merge it with 376 due to similarities and modelling, amongst other things. Simply south 19:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So your view is merge with Class 376, not delete? Hammersfan, 11/03/07, 19.40 GMT
The point you seem to be missing is that you shouldn't have to dig around for evidence for something as important as the name of your article. Admittedly, the minutes do make your case a bit stronger, but there's really no hurry to create this article until a number is officially announced. I'm OK with the number being mentioned in Wikipedia, but only with the appropriate framing (ie seen in some documents, but not officially announced). That would preclude the article with this name existing, since that implies it is a hard fact. --Dtcdthingy 20:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In which case just change the article to say that the name is the presumed name but has not been officially announced. Thryduulf 10:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I will maintain that the article should be seperate (and I'll cite the Class 395 article as a precedent) because I'm the advocate, I would find Simply south's suggestion of merging it with the Class 376 article acceptable until such time as TfL announce that this class will be Class 378 in a more public way, if you would also find that acceptable. I am grateful that you do accept the validity of the source I have provided, unlike others. However, I would appreciate knowing the opinions of a few others who may have an interest. Hammersfan, 11/03/07, 21.05 GMT
I agree that this should be separate from the Class 376 article, as the 376s have nothing to do with TfL and thus all the TfL stuff, beyond a single sentence that the trains are similar, would be irrelevant to that article. A good precedent is that the Airbus A380 article was at Airbus A3XX before the name was officially announced. Thryduulf 10:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe that the note in agenda item 4 is a strong source supporting Class 378. I would however, consider the artist impression to be less so and in that respect agree with the nominator. I don't think that the picture on its own would support this article but certainty consider the TfL minutes to be a good source, especially as it specifically says that is the classification by Network Rail. It isn't a reference made in passing to the number which would be more likely to be incorrect. Adambro 21:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm afraid I wouldn't agree with that analysis. "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation". Whilst I've previously said that I believe the meeting minutes to be a strong source for the classification, the existence of these trains is under no doubt. This article should certainly not just simply be deleted, it should either be kept as per my reasoning or merged into Class 376 if the TfL source isn't considered strong enough. Another option could be the renaming but I'd be unsure of what a suitable name might be. Adambro 08:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL would apply if the content of the article was speculation, but it isn't. Even the title, which appears to be all you have issue with, has a reliable source. When the name is not certain but the subject is, then we either use a placeholder name or we make it clear in the intro that the name has not been finalised. Thryduulf
  • Strong keep - there are multiple reliable sources that back up the existence of the subject of the article, with multiple reliable sources presented that confirm the name. The article is deliberately separate from the Class 376 article because the TfL specific information is not relevant there. If there is doubt that the name has been finalised (I don't believe there is, but others apparently do), then the correct course of action is not to delete the article, but to either move the article to a place-holder name (possibly London Overground rolling stock) or note at the start of the article "British Rail Class 378 is the presumed name...". Thryduulf 10:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But as mentioned in the opening comment, most of the material in this article is covered by London Overground#rolling stock, so the logic next step after your proposed rename is to merge it there. In other words, once you lose the name, there's no reason for this article to exist. --Dtcdthingy 13:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming this article is kept though, it wouldn't be a particular stretch to alter the text in the main London Overground article to have that as a brief summary, and then this as the main bit about the rolling stock. Hammersfan 12/03/07, 13.30 GMT
That would make the most sense as it seems likely that 378 is correct so this article is likely to be expanded to cover a wider scope than what can be included in London Overground#rolling stock. Adambro 15:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Thryduulf and Hammersfan. Mackensen (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Thryduulf and Hammersfan. - Axver 22:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, because it doesn't exist yet; leave a re-direct behind, so that afficionados (I'm not syaing crufters) can get to the information. -- Simon Cursitor 07:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure that it not existing yet really justifies merging it, we have plenty of articles about future events. It seems that the only thing really under question is the name. It seems most likely that it will be the 378 and as such I suggest it makes sense to keep it there unless anything emerged to bring the numbering into doubt. As per Thryduulf's comment, it could be a good idea to mention in the article that name and details might be subject to change. Maybe a template like Future London Transport Infrastructure might be appropriate. Adambro 08:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A primary source calling it "Class 378" is reliable enough for confirming simple facts, being primary does not invalidate the source, it just means we should treat it with some caution. Although this is about a future trainset, the article is well-sourced and covers the subject pretty decently. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article, but move it to a less speculative page title, leaving a redirect. I suggest London Overground rolling stock as a possibility. It's not up to TfL what the class number is. The article can still mention the TfL article referring to it as Class 378 though. The article itelf is, on the whole, of a reasonable standard and should not have been sent to AfD. --RFBailey 22:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the thing is the meeting minutes clearly state that it is Network Rail who have classified it as Class 378 Hammersfan, 13/03/07, 22.45 GMT
Hammersfan makes a very valid point in making that distinction. I must agree with the comments by RFBailey with reference to the AfD itself. It would seem strange to delete a perfectly good article when the doubt is just the title. I'd suggest a better approach would have been to discuss this on the talk page as a possible page move or merge. Adambro 22:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not valid at all. Meeting minutes are a record of what individuals have said during the meeting. Minutes are never a reliable source. They are not a definitive statement of anything other than what was said and who said it - even then they not even be right in this. It does not reliably state "This is C378". What it does say reasonably reliably is "Someone in TfL says that someone in NetR says it's C378". Put the useful stuff into London Overground and leave a suitable redirect. Chris cheese whine 23:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to disagree with you there Chris. Whilst I appreciate the nature of meeting minutes, I don't think they simply are a record of what was said, that would be a transcript. They provide a summary of the topics discussed and matters raised. These minutes are likely to have been distributed to the attendees prior to publication and as such any misinterpretations could be corrected. The statement within the document is clear; "The first trains will be delivered late 2008 and have been categorised by Network Rail as Class 378's". This kind of statement leaves little doubt. So, I would suggest, it makes sense that we use this as the name until something can be presented that might imply an alternative numbering. I would however, welcome suggestions as to how the article might be reworded slightly so as to inform the reader that there is some doubt about the name. Adambro 23:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A sentence in that case could be added saying something like "The Class 378 number was first announced by TfL Commissioner Peter Hendy at an open session meeting of the TfL board on 25 October 2006, but has yet to be officially released" Hammersfan 13/03/07, 23.30 GMT
  • Keep - It's real and verified by reliable sources. There's no reason to change the name as that has been specifically reported. If they decide to change the name of them in the futre (I doubt it), we can always to a simple move then. --Oakshade 00:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: while the minutes of a TfL meeting are clearly a more reliable source than, say, the Spring 2007 Newsletter of the Poppleton University Railway Enthusiasts Club (or whatever--I'm exaggerating a bit), it doesn't mean that Class 378 is in any way an official designation for these trains. As I said before, this is not up to TfL, even if they are quoting Network Rail. What do Network Rail say on the subject? The remark about the Airbus A3XX is a red herring: that's what Airbus were calling it themselves before they decided on A380. --RFBailey 01:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked both TfL and Network Rail that very question (well, more specifically "Is the new rolling stock to be classified as Class 378?"), and am waiting for their replies. While, as far as I can see, Network Rail are not bound by the Freedom of Information Act, TfL are and so the question I asked them was phrased as an FOI request. Once I hear from either or both, I will post their replies on the article's talk page. Hammersfan 14/03/07, 11.25 GMT
  • Keep at least pending a response to Hammersfan from TfL, and in my opinion, keep for good - this seems an entirely reasonable article. AlexTiefling 12:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As above, a train/train set/rake is to be ordered, it will be significantly different from the 376s, thus an article with sources (what we've got) should reasonable be aloud to exist. now the title is IMHO what your all arguing over. Thus keep, a) pending Hammersfan FOIA response, b) something is going to happen - ie at worst case merge back into 376 (where info used to be). Pickle 14:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - going to the trouble of adding the unit number to a mock up isn't something that would be done if the class number was just pie in the sky edd 14:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I work for Network Rail and I have a copy of the Technical Description for the Traction Characteristics from Bombardier Transportation. I am happy to scan a copy of the front cover and put it on the site. Anyhow, the fact remains, that even if the number changes, then we can simply change it!! The content will not alter, and thats more important than a classification number.ALECTRIC451 15:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 12:02Z

Meaninglessness

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

This seems like a vanity article. It consists entirely of writing of this Colin Leslie Dean person, and does not seem significant in any way. See also the talk page for Absurdism darkskyz 20:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Appears to be original research and the parts of the article that are "sourced" are to the author's own work in violation of WP:COI (the website source is a press which bears the same name as the article's creator). Furthermore, the publisher isn't even a publish on demand vanity press, but the author's own press which publishes only his material ( Gamuhucher press catalogue). Thus, no independent attribution.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article exhibits meaninglessness of itself. Speaking with less pathetic jokingness, User:Fuhghettaboutit makes all the points. Autocracy 21:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS, ... and wouldn't Nihilism already cover this? Autocracy 21:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and Nihilism appropriately attributed as well. --Charlene 21:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • you show your lack of intellectual acumum obviously the concepts are just too hard for you I will explian simply meaninglessness says even nihilism entials meaninglesness - even meaninglessness entials meaninglessness- can you get your mind around THAT— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamahucher (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as original research which is not appropriately attributed. --Charlene 21:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This author has written a number of nonsensical articles like this for the sole purpose of promoting someone called Colin Leslie Dean (notice how the first three sections are all but bare, but the last one goes into great detail). Wavy G 23:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am outstounded this article meaninglessness is being considered for deletion and other articles listed in the brief. It seems wikipedia is no more than a poor mans encyclopedia brittanica. It seem to be aligible for entry in wik you must first be in encyclopedia brittanica -so why not just go to encyclopedia brittanica . So much for open sourcing and internet democarcy Once again mainstream takes control of the net Wik may as well just get payed monkeys typing AUTHORATIVE articles so it can sell them to the highest bidder ie encyclopedia brittanica It seems all wik is is a watered down version of brittanica with articles which just reproduce briitanica written by amateurs who in effect just paraphrase more authorative sources —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gamahucher (talk • contribs) 16:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC).People are running around wik deleting entries that mention mr dean ie case in point an entry about his ideas in Absurdism was just completly removed based only on it basicvally has no britanica entry-ie not s a so called notable. Also entries on dreamtime and Indigenous Australians have also been flaged for removal . It seems wikipedians may as well jus go to brittanica paraphrase that then past in wiki In regard to mainsteam articles like philosophy, absurdism, poetry,dreamtime, anti-poetry wiki will only put entryies in only if they are already in britanica Wik may as well just get payed monkeys typing AUTHORATIVE articles so it can sell them to the highest bidder ie encyclopedia brittanica It seems all wik is is a watered down version of brittanica with articles which just reproduce briitanica written by amateurs who in effect just paraphrase more authorative sources. Wik in fact just pillages other authorative sources it is a parisite feeding of others works -like brittanica. You say you want wik to be an accepted authorative encyclo but all it is realy is a poor man brittanica hobbled tgether from other authorative sources on the CHEAP so wik want have to pay money for anything. So wat has the future instore : wik going private bought up by google and all the entries then making some corporation heaps of money through adverstising or some other ingeneous way to use the wikpedians hard work etc. Just go read brittanica— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamahucher (talk • contribs)
  • Whatever. You can be "outstounded" all you want, but you have been informed numerous times what Wikipedia is, and what it is not, but you keep making the same straw man argument. So, maybe Wikipedia is just a bunch of payed monkeys making "authorative" articles, but maybe your work will be more "aligible" at Encyclopedia Brittanica. Wavy G 05:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for the same reasons as the other entires on Wikipedia by this author - attmepting to use Wiki to promote a non-notable, self-published author. StuartDouglas 16:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This editor has gone through WP adding this original research to a number of articles; however, all of it has been reverted by other editors as OR, except for the Meaninglessness article itself. LastChanceToBe 00:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut pirate radio stations

Connecticut pirate radio stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced list, no references, appears to fail WP:NOT and WP:ATT. Dragomiloff 20:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete pirate stations with callsigns? Pirate staions are illegal stations run from some attic, or at least that was the definition in my times AlfPhotoman 20:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not asserted for any of these pirate stations. Pirate stations can be notable (Radio Caroline, for instance) but I see no evidence that any of these are. --Charlene 21:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 12:03Z

Richard Lee Orey

Richard Lee Orey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable individual TigerShark 20:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete Maybe even speedy... lacks notability, reliable sources, is self-promotion / spammy, WP:CRYSTAL content, and WP:AUTO Autocracy 21:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sounds like a vanity article/advertisement for the subject. Isn't notable. ++Arx Fortis 00:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, reads like a resume and doesn't meet notability per WP:BIO. RJASE1 Talk 03:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Xenomorph (Alien). —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 12:04Z

Giger's Alien

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

A pointless list of names for the Alien featured in the Alien films. Fan fluff and OR. Driller thriller 20:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Xenomorph (Alien). The Alien-related stuff belongs there anyway, the rest of it is background information and can be mentioned in footnotes. The more interesting information, like the Latin translations of the binominal names, has already been merged. Xihr 20:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no merger. Xenomorph (Alien) is full of inconsistencies in the canonical description of the creature. Giger's Alien directly addresses the inconsistencies of the canon of the aliens creature, but only to the point of how the creatures are named as to avoid redundancy. The information in the xenomorph article could necessarily change due to future additions to the fictional universe. On the other hand, the accurate information on the GA page can only be added to. So while the canon of xenomorph is temporally based on new input, the GA page is a history of different incarnations of the creature (which uses the names the creature is called as landmarks). Combining the two articles would complicate things by either removing information or requiring both a canon and a historical analysis of the changes in the steps of the canon. There are other articles on wikipedia that have similar dual (or more) pages on different ideas behind a subject. These two articles may be about the "same" subject (the creature), but they are not addressing the same ideas. Maybe GA needs work, but xenomorph is not a perfect article either. That is the point, so the GA article is not pointless. I disagree that it is fan fluff. Batman Dead End, for example, is fan fluff. It is not canon (other than how it appears on imdb.com), nor does it matter to any aspect of the canon. In addition, there are many places on wikipedia where information is not absolutely exclusive to one (and only one) article. The information on these two pages, and the separation of the two subjects, better allows for the understanding of the creature, and the ways the creature has been interpreted by so many writers, artists, producers, etc. --Trakon 14:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm not going to deal with everything you've written, because you've written a great deal, but, briefly, if Xenomorph (Alien) is full of inconsistencies, then you should address them by correcting errors and drawing attention to them on that page, not by creating a rival article with the express intention of creating a content fork. I'm not sure I understand the arguments you have made, but I would simply point out that by combining the two pages the content that you acknowledge would be removed would, if worthy of inclusion, surely be redundant? And with reference to Batman Dead End: it is precisely not fluff, it is a fan-made film, however it is one that meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, the very fact I know what it is demonstrates this; what is fluff and OR is attempting to create an article where realistically none need exist. This page doesn't aid understanding, it hinders it. Driller thriller 00:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"This page doesn't aid understanding, it hinders it." If that statement were true, then things in the GA article that have been written that were in fact true have aided the degeneration of the understanding of a subject. The xenomorph and GA articles are not dealing with the same issues and they do not function in the same way. The xenomorph article will change in content, while the GA article will expand its content; the xenomorph article can expand its content, but the verified content of the GA article cannot be changed. Maybe you think GA should be called "A list of names of the creature from the Aliens movies" (or hopefully something shorter in length). Other articles on wikipedia use supplemental articles to define different levels of abstraction. Maybe you think there is not enough information for the GA article to carry its own weight? In this case redundancy solves the need for the GA article. But if you are trying to tell me that redundancy of information is purely the reason to merge different levels of abstraction on a subject, I would have to disagree. Or at least I would have to know where to arbitrarily draw the line at a level of abstraction or an amount of information in order to separate one article into two or more articles.
Concerning, once again, the Batman Dead End short, it is my opinion that almost everything in general is fluff. It is my opinion that especially fan-fiction is fluff. I realize that my views on this may be in a minority, but I am not throwing out information. I will not purposefully spread misinformation or lead someone away from accuracy, but I do not really care about Wikipedia's notability requirements (or any other requirements, except for when we share opinions), the Xenomorph (aliens) article, or the Giger's Alien article. But I do care for accuracy of information and my own self-interests. In this case, I am either right and knowledgeable by default, or I am subject to being lead to the truth by people like yourself. To me, that is why wikipedia is interesting, because it is a communal hub of information, thoughts, and ideas (the community somehow arguably being self-interested, but nonetheless well intentioned for the whole). The content of an article X is only a place to start.
If still none of this has further made clear myself and my arguments, and if you still do not agree with the ones you do understand, then I think we are not communicating, unfortunately, and I am finished (exhausted, time to move on, I type too much, etc). If you do understand and agree, then I think we are finished. If you disagree with something I have said that you now understand, I might continue this discussion. --Trakon 02:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 West Chester Area School District. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 12:05Z

East Bradford Elementary

East Bradford Elementary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable elementary school. Tarret 20:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A mural does not make you notable, and there is nothing else here. Dennitalk 23:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Rudloff

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

The article is simply the curriculum vitae of a web-developer (appart from the section that reads "On December 16, 2006 Alex got engaged to his girlfriend Kathryn Staczek."). He may have worked at notable companies like Netscape, but this doesn't make one notable, no matter how good one could have been on his tasks. Google returns a great number of hits for his name, but most of them are posts by himself on open forums or his profiles accounts on a diversity of websites. The article seems to be maintained by the person in question himself, User:Alexrudloff, that also wrote the bulk of the article about his "long time business partner Gavin Hall" Abu badali (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, an acceptable claim of notability would be something like interviews (or some other kind of coverage) in reputable news source. I would retract this nomination if it can be shown that the subject of the article is something more than a internet entrepreneur, blogger, and web developer that worked for notable companies. --Abu badali (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A web search turned up nearly nothing and the one interesting claim, about netscape.com, doesn't have any cite, nor can I find anything which shows him to have been anything other than a developer (rather than lead developer) of netscape.com (other than wikipedia itself). I'm not sure that netscape.com is interesting enough to make him notable even if he were the lead developer.--Hobit 00:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. Although as a programmer he has had some interesting gigs, he has not been written about in even the usual places like The Register. Seems like his time has not come. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You all Suck, Why is it up to you who is important enough to have a page -- Anyone that wants a page should have one.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nittany Mall

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

This mall is generally unremarkable when compared to similar malls. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 21:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete On mall articles, there is a certain burden of proof that need be shown to prove that this isn't just another mall. This article does not illustrate anything special about this one. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 03:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you don't have anything interesting to say about something, why have an article? Brianyoumans 18:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into State College, Pennsylvania. This mall clearly is a major feature of the community. --orlady 17:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 12:06Z

Larry Ospinelli

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

Hoax. I can find absolutely nothing about this person nor can I find anything on any of the books this person supposedly authored. This is the third incarnation of this article, the other two were nonsense articles as well. IrishGuy talk 21:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete His name sounds like the author, Jerry Spinelli, although the biographies are completely different. Anyway, not a single Google hit. - PoliticalJunkie 21:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Nobody was born on the Titanic. (Although one person was conceived...) --Charlene 21:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Born on the Royal Mail Ship Titanic? Now come on ... if you want to pull us a leg you better try something better. AlfPhotoman 22:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona Virtual Academy

Arizona Virtual Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable school Chevinki 21:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sam's Town. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 12:07Z

Bling (Confession of a King)

Bling (Confession of a King) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Very short article, contains no info on the song itself, despite being created about five months ago. ErleGrey 22:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Sam's Town. Pretty standard practice for this sort of thing. Speedy? -R. fiend 22:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Dihydrogen monoxide hoax wannabe. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 12:08Z

OxygenProject

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

A "health awareness campaign" working to spread the word about a "highly infectious disease" which "is as of yet medically unidentified." Can't find any references about this and can't glean anything out of Google about it. It fails WP:V and could be WP:HOAX. De-prodded without comment. - IceCreamAntisocial 22:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems like a hoax. - PoliticalJunkie 22:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "This article was created in response to my repeated failure in raising awareness about this serious disease. The recommendations and information cannot be taken as a medical advice." Uh huh. Self-admitted soap-boxing of unverified material. --Wafulz 23:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and agree on the soapboaxing. -- Whpq 16:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 02:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madisen Su'a

Madisen Su'a (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article has not been edited since its creation, suggesting a lack of interest in the article and the subject of the article seems to lack notability. Also, there are no links to this article from other pages. GDon4t0 22:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 02:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Sections on usage and popular culture are Original research besides. De-prodded with comment "it is encyclopedic." I disagree, it's Wiktionaric. Already transwikied. Pan Dan 22:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a dictionary entry. I think it is appropriate to an encyclopedia that covers popular western culture. Although it gets vandalized a lot, I have been watching it for a long time. It's just as legitimate as articles like Hello and many other articles that explore the encyclopedic side of words, that dictionaries generally don't. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yo, Keep! More content than there is at wiktionary:Yo. Abeg92contribs 22:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the transwiki no content would be lost even if this article were deleted from Wikipedia. I don't know how Wiktionary works, but I assume you are free to merge Wiktionary:Transwiki:Yo into Wiktionary:Yo. Pan Dan 00:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is a sad mess in need of pruning, but I think the word's long history (it goes back to the 30s) and wide, varied usage means this deserves more than a simple dictionary entry. I've added another source to the article, and hopefully people will turn up more. William Pietri 00:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ref, but I wish you had added it to the Wiktionary entry instead. Dictionary entries don't have to be "simple." Information about the extensive usage and history of "yo" should go in its entry on Wiktionary. Pan Dan 00:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... What's your test for which words deserve an entry in Wikipedia as well as Wiktionary? Thanks, William Pietri 00:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:WINAD, Wiktionary articles "are about the actual words or idioms in their title" and "A full dictionary article (as opposed to a stub dictionary article, which is simply where Wiktionary articles start from) will contain illustrative quotations for each listed meaning; etymologies; ...". Information about a given word is Wiktionary content. In the case of "yo," I can certainly imagine that a Wikipedia article may be possible, for example perhaps on controversy generated by its usage. (This of course would depend on whether there are any reliable sources on that.) But the current version of Yo is 100% Wiktionary content. Pan Dan 12:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, blanked by author.

Laranjeira

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

Article about "an active and known orginized crime family" with no sources. Google and Google News don't turn up any meaningful results for searches including Laranjeira crime, Laranjeira "Cosa Nostra", Laranjeira Linwood (the town claimed as their base). May be an attempt to smear someone named Laranjeira. FreplySpang 22:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 12:11Z

England and Wales

- - :England and Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

All of the material on this page is already present in the entry on Wales. It is also better handled there. England and Wales has no particular meaning when there are entries for England, Wales, Britain and the United Kingdom --Snowded 22:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Exists as a legal entity. A widely used term. Lots of links, most of which would not be approriate for redirection to Wales. G-Man * 22:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the English law article. I agree with the nominator that all the information contained in the article is duplicated, and better presented, elsewhere. Most of the incoming links should actually be linking to both the England and the Wales articles, not this. Where it genuinely does refer to the legal enity (see State (law)) then it ought to just be redirected to that article. -- Mais oui! 22:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it needs work. There are occasions when England and Wales are treated as a single entity, as there are occasions when England and Wales are regarded as separate nations. This is a good place to explain why. MortimerCat 22:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
England and Wales are never treated as a State, that role is the United Kingdom or Great Britain (both of which have entries). They have a common legal system which also has an entry. All cross references to England and Wales are simply names of societies that would be better served by England and Wales. --Snowded 05:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
State was bad choice of words, I have changed it to entity. When the United Kingdom was formed, England and Wales were regarded as a single item. That is why the Union Jack has no Welsh element. The fact that England and Wales are more inter-related than England and Scotland is an important historical fact. This article is the place to highlight this, and how it still effects the modern country. The article has been greatly improved by the recent addition of the sections. MortimerCat 09:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page on Wales makes the linkage clear (it is not so present on the England article). It is an historical fact that should be reflected in articles on the United Kingdom and in the articles for Wales and England. There is no need for a separate article on this subject alone.--Snowded 19:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An distinct legal entity in United Kingdom law, a seperate article such as this is entirely appropriate. --Canley 02:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve, per MortimerCat. England and Wales is a single entity for the purposes of UK law and cricket, and probably other things too. A good article here would help resolve some confusion better than a section buried in England or Wales could. — mholland 02:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Had the article been " a critical article in the law and constitution of the United Kingdom" it would have been OR, but it isn't a critical article but a short lightweight article on matters covered better elsewhere. Merge if you can find anything to merge. DGG 05:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "England-and-Wales" exists; it deserves an article. G-Man's point about incoming links is important. It goes without saying that it seriously needs improvement, of course. (The sport section, e.g., is currently content-free and could be deleted without a tear being shed.) But bear in mind that not EVERY article in the Wikipedia needs to be a long disquisition; just because an article will never be an FA doesn't mean we should delete it. Doops | talk 07:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge per Orthologist All of the relevent info can be covered in the articles on England and Wales. TJ Spyke 09:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but seriously rework - for civil registration England and Wales is a single entity and this needs pointing out in addition to all the other stuff above. -- Roleplayer 10:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - exists as a legal and statistical entity "Statistics for England and Wales" gets 27000 Google hits for such things as law and order,[23] health,[24] fisheries [25], you name it. Yes this needs to be in the article, but incomplete information is not grounds for deletion. Totnesmartin 13:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete is not, but unnecessary is. The entires for the United Kingdom could easily include this. All the references to this article are for organisations that have welsh and english membership and the article addes no value to those. The statistical material is self evident on the relevant articles and if someone wants the full history then it is laid out in the Wales article in some detail.
My point wasn't about the material, but about the entity. There are loads of articles for statistical areas, census regions etc. This is one of them. Totnesmartin 13:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think if the article was called "Statistical Area: England and Wales" and was a simple statement of links then I can see an argument. However "England and Wales" attracts the sort of meaningless, better handled elsewhere material which is currently there. Overall I remain convinced that this is one of those many examples or articles for articles sake and if something adds no value it should be removed.--Snowded 14:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep England and Wales is a legal entity with a sinlge system of law, destinct from that of Scotland and Northern Ireland. This has been the case since the Act of Union in 1536, though sicne the creation of a separate Welsh office and more recently the Assembly, some divergecne is probable. Peterkingiron 00:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article is about the legal system in England an Wales. Lofty 15:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Whilst this is not a particularly great article, the subject matter should certainly be included in an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. I know no policy that would require this article to be deleted, I am sure in time it will develop into a worthy entry. Rje 10:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - admitted WP:POINT nomination. Newyorkbrad 23:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)}}[reply]

Yellow Submarine (song)

Yellow Submarine (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is actually an object lesson in demonstrating that separate notability guidelines for songs are, in fact, needed. Technically, this, as written, does not demonstrate itself as meeting the general notability guidelines, but I find it hard to argue that the song is not actually notable. So, I'm throwing out that it should be deleted as the rules stand--which is true--and seeing what comes of it. Devilot 22:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • So basically this is a WP:Point nomination? Garion96 (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep So the #1s and #2s in the article don't show its notability? This is insane to nom. this. Reywas92Talk 22:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Blatantly notable, although that's never stopped the deletebots before. --JayHenry 22:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize. I've mostly done minor edits and added a few significant stubs/redirects. I've never done anything this major before, and wasn't aware of the policy-formation-related rules of Wikipedia. I'm fairly certain it's considered bad form to just erase an AfD nomation, so I'd like to petition for it to be closed. I will look for the proper place to state my case, rather than try to demonstrate the veracity of it directly. Quite honestly, I agree that it's blatantly noteable, but I've seen the argument 'there aren't multiple independent articles written with it as the primary subject' used to label songs not-notable so many times before that I wanted to somehow bring up the obvious point that articles aren't often written about songs, no matter how blatantly noteable they are. Uncertain of the 'proper' forum, I went for the first one I could think of. It was an ill-advised decision, but I wanted to get the topic out there somehow. Devilot 22:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 02:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Pablo Town Center

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

There is nothing notable about a local shopping center with grocery and drug stores. Shopping center entries should be limited to those that at least have two department store anchors or are notable in some other way. Otherwise we would be violating Wikipedia is not a directory. Proofreader J-Man 22:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This seems to be just a local strip mall without a web site of its own. We've even deleted a shopping center with five anchor department stores in the past, so certainly this unsourced article should not be kept. --Metropolitan90 08:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've seen it: it IS just a local strip mall, on a street which sees a lot of them. --Calton | Talk 07:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Major malls and gallerias should probably be documented, but not the average strip mall. Burntsauce 23:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into SAT. KrakatoaKatie 03:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Loflin

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

Impressive, but I don't think it's notable enough to warrant an article Garion96 (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep per WP:BIO as he has been the subject of multiple sources that are reliable and independent of the subject of the article. Quite honestly, I won't be upset if it's deleted, but given that he meets WP:BIO (even if only barely) and is unique for his achievement, I think he should remain. -- Black Falcon 23:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into SAT. Fifteen minutes of fame doesn't merit its own article, but it is verifiable material that could be used on a larger page. I think there should be a guideline about WP:BEINGONTHENEWSONCEDOESN'TMAKEYOUFAMOUS. --Wafulz 23:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is WP:NOTABILITYISNOTTHESAMEASFAME.  ;) However, I believe your suggestion to be an appropriate one regarding the organisation of content if an appropriate section within the SAT article is suggested. -- Black Falcon 23:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into SAT, falling back on Delete if it won't fit. He barely meets WP:BIO, the CNN transcript is of a video from the other news source used as a reference, so I don't see them as 2 separate sources. The "bio" reference is from his employer, so it is not "independent of the subject." The last one, I'm not entirely what it is, but Loflin isn't mentioned until the second to last paragraph, so he is hardly the subject of it. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 01:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A-M

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

Does not appear to meet notability. Link to affiliated group takes you to a disambiguation page that does not list that group, so even the group, which could conceivably meet notability, does not have a page. Proofreader J-Man 22:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]



I have reviewed this page and disagree becuase,1) A-M is famous over the internet (mostly myspace) and i personally know him, and 2) there is a group called ALB and there is a link on that page that takes you to the website. so In my opinion, I think that the wikipedia page of A-M should not be deleted for it appears noble.

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

The result was delete. Bucketsofg 19:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paradigm High School

Paradigm High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non-notable, small, private school that is written like an advertisement. It has no actual links and google has very little actually about it. Reywas92Talk 22:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to fix that.. Actually, I will. I do not want it deleted. Sir Intellegent 23:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That good enough? Sir Intellegent 23:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete currently, there's no improvement to the article, no sign of notability, etc. To the individual who wants to keep this article, I strongly suggest writing it up in preview, and re-posting the page once you've got it far enough along, and citing reliable sources that tell us why this article is noteworthy. Autocracy 23:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Half this pathetic little article is taken up by the dress code. Notable only for its utter lack of notability. Dennitalk 23:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and comment: Lack of assertion of notability. Also, if the statement "Currently, there is a contest being held at this school to see who can write the best article to put here" refers to this article, there may be a conflict of interest due to the demonstrated possibility of advertising overtones. +A.0u 00:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Nick—Contact/Contribs 00:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally will go though all of the entries and eliminate any of the entries that violate wikipedia rules. I don't know who put the things other than the 1st paragraph in there, but it was not me. And to Denni, I wiped out a paragraph to remove the "advertising" theory. If I must, I will also wipe-out the other paragraph that is more than 2 sentences long to fix this problem. No unneutral articles from the students of this school will be winners of this said competition. Sir Intellegent 18:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Once again that wasn't me but, in my opinion, I think that might look good enough. It grew quite a bit... I will quickly patch that up, and let me know if that is good. Sir Intellegent 19:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concern: I'm just curious about the existence of a competition - why a competition in the first place? My concern is that some people may not be entirely familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so are you in a position where you can mediate what occurs between Paradigm High School and Wikipedia? +A.0u 21:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I was going to do was that the entries were to e-mail me, I would pick the top 5 that follow Wikipedia standards, send them to the admin of the school, get the cleared one, and post it creating any needed formatting and etc. But, what's on there right now looks good enough for now or indefinately. Sir Intellegent 01:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:N. Also, I wouldn't recommend attempting to have a WP article "cleared" by its subject, as that risks a serious WP:NPOV problem. Besides, there's no way to keep it in the form that was "cleared". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Butseriouslyfolks (talk • contribs) 23:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You have a point, so feel free to add the so called "neutrality" tag to it because I can't find it. I will also work on the citations asap. Sir Intellegent 13:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Hogan

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

Prod removed, so listing at AfD. Appears to be a copy of the Brooke Hogan article, including biography details (homeschool, arrangement with record producer, FHM) and even the cite needed tag on album sales. Without third-party coverage of this person (outside myspace), fails WP:MUSIC guideline. Gimmetrow 22:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 02:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Austria Singles Top 75 Number 1s (2006)

Austria Singles Top 75 Number 1s (2006) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

listcruft, non-notable Chevinki 23:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Too specific of a list, and largely mirroring content from somewhere else. Issues with WP:NOT. --Wafulz 23:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete for no indication of being real. Friday (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Fleminkov

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

Appears to be a hoax entry based off of a band bio located at Route 66 killers. Was listed as A1 although it obviously wasn't - if true, it's not an A7 and shouldn't be deleted anyway, but if it's an actual hoax entry, obviously it should go. badlydrawnjeff talk 23:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as real bio it fails WP:V, as fictional one WP:N and we can't even redirect to the no-existing band's article. --Tikiwont 12:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 02:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Gill

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

WP:N, no outside sources, biggest meat of article is a quote from an individual of questionable notability himself Autocracy 23:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Johnny Appleseed. Friday (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Appleseed

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

Absolute lack of notability. Contains 1 and a half line of information, none can actually be added, as there is anything else to say. Apparently, it could just be mentioned if there was a paragraph about this advertisement on the iPhone Article.

  • Speedy delete I question why this reached AfD instead of being speedy deleted to begin with since it's a brand new article. Autocracy 23:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Johnny Appleseed as it could be a search term for that more notable subject. EnsRedShirt 08:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominate and, yes, Redirect to Johnny Appleseed makes perfect sense. --Alexignatiou 16:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Irving Independent School District. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 12:12Z

DeZavala Middle School (Irving, Texas)

DeZavala Middle School (Irving, Texas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability put forward. Just another middle school. Dennitalk 23:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 02:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Lamm

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

Posted as a contested PROD. While Mrs. Lamm was married to two notable figures, her notability besides that is not established. Does not pass WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 23:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Although she received some press coverage for her marriages, for co-writing some songs with Wilson (e.g. Baby Blue (song)), and for consulting on a 1990 TV movie about the Beach Boys, this doesn't really add up to notability. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (default to keep). - Bobet 18:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TV Guide's 50 Greatest TV Shows of All Time

TV Guide's 50 Greatest TV Shows of All Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't believe that an individual magazine article meets notability standards, nor does the list that this one comprises, which is neither a prize nor an award. Mr. A. 23:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The similar 50 Greatest Game Shows of All Time (GSN) was kept after being listed for deletion for basically the same reason. There are a lot of articles like this. Just in TV, there is 50 Greatest Game Shows of All Time (TV Guide) and TV Guide's List of the 50 Worst TV Shows of All Time, 100 Greatest Kids' TV shows, and 100 Greatest British Television Programmes. Angela. 03:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: An article just for the TV guide article does seem silly, but there is not yet a List of television programs considered the greatest ever as there is for the movies. Could this not be merged with some other TV popularity article to create such a thing? Lotusduck 08:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Lotusduck's suggestion makes sense. --Mr. A. 12:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with TV Guide: it's a helpful list to have archived here, and it is a notable list. Merging it within the parent magazine site seems reasonable though. --Jajasoon 12:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while technically it was a news report (sort of) it was also, well, news. Just a quick google search shows that the article was covered and reported on by CBS News. Sometimes the news covers the news, that's not the fault of this article's editors. Now that being said, I think the mandate of this article should be extremely limited. The "criticisms" section has always been awash in POV and OR (completely uncited). It's a small section, but seems to be a popular one for editors to complain that their favorite TV show didn't make the list (in my opinion). -Markeer 14:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with TV Guide does seem a reasonable solution, though I lean more towards delete. I don't think a magazine's "best-of list" is worthy of an article; if they do another feature like this 5 years from now, the list will change drastically. Similarly, nobody will post a list of TV Guide's 1978 feature "The 50 All-Time Best TV Shows", because nobody cares. Also, as a suggestion, would the article fail WP:NPOV, especially the part about Wikipedia's "Anglo-American Bias"? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kingboyk 15:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsey Mulrooney

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

Non-notable actress with a single minor role in a film and some minor TV appearances. Fails WP:BLP and WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 23:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of any apparent or asserted notability suggests that {{db-bio}} might have been appropriate. Certainly fails WP:NN--Anthony.bradbury 00:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete IMDB is just enough to save me from saying speedy, but still not enough to keep the article. Not notable enough. Autocracy 01:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I failed to mention this is a contested PROD. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 04:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_March_10&oldid=1081100475"