Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 11

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Fortunate Sons

Unsigned band, no recordings, only link to myspace article. Camillus (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Very few unsigned bands meet WP:MUSIC notability standards, including this one. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• delete Not a notable band. Tony P 00:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable -AMK152 01:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, tagged with db-band. —dustmite 02:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC. Michael 02:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete More like an advertisement, doesn't meet notability.

• Comment: Speedy is a bit unfair if someone can come up with a good reason for it not being deleted, there's no point going to DRV about this after the fact, but I won't contest it as nobody's objected (then again, its only been a few hours). --Draicone ^(talk) 06:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. If someone could come up with a good reason for it not being deleted, then speedy deletion would be unfair. Unfortunately for The Fortunate Sons, that's not likely to be the case. WP:NN, WP:MUSIC, WP:VAIN, WP:SPAM, etc. --S0uj1r0 07:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, not a speedy though since notability is asserted per Radio Scotland etc. quotes. I removed the speedy tag, no need to run two deletion processes in parallel. ~ trialsanderrors 08:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. AdamBiswanger1_{R.I.P. Steve Irwin} 13:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unsigned bands are only notable if they've generated media buzz for some reason. I might be more inclined to vote keep if the quotes about the band were sourced, but as it is I really don't see anything to convince me of notability. -Elmer Clark 21:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment this band may meet WP:MUSIC's "[h]as been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network". I'm unable to determine how long their live set on BBC Radio Scotland was, but in a programme that runs 1 hour 55 minutes, it may well have been >=30 mins. That would two vague claims to notability then. No gig reviews found though in the papers though, which isn't a good sign. Don't see how it can be verifiable beyond the trivial fact of their existence unless there's a transcript of the radio appearance out there. Definitely not a candidate for speedy deletion. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Original research. El_C 10:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cannibal Cultures and Crime

I am, to put it midly, concerned with this article. First, the title is POV suggesting a clearly established link between the two things. Second it is pretty much OR and states as a fact that

There is an interesting association between high violent crime in nations whose ancestors were cannibals.There are numerous examples of these corrolations and claims of genetic predisposition to violence in certain cultures.

whereas I am pretty certain that this is at best a very very highly contested[1] [2] extrapolation from a single researcher's work. Dr Lea's work seems to have caused quite a roar but it also seems that he never made a link between cannibal cultures and crime. It also does not appear that he has had much support from the rest of the scientific community. This has no place on Wikipedia and I hope people will avoid the "keep and make neutral" pitfall here. This is a fringe topic and a fringe opinion with no real backup. Pascal.Tesson 00:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete As original research. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:OR,WP:NPOV - makes its own connections between topics which even if reliably verified individually wouldn't form a logical argument. Maoris have high crime. Maoris were cannibals. Aztecs were cannibals. Mexico has high crime. Therefore cannibal cultures have high crime. Hmmm, no thanks. Yomangani^talk 01:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -AMK152 01:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 02:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOR. Michael 02:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ReverendG 03:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. And repeat: "correlation does not equal causation. Correlation does not equal causation..." ColourBurst 03:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Holy crap please delete. Pathetic article.UberCryxic 03:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Bananas cause cancer!!! Delete. Vizjim 04:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Shame on me for thinking for one second that there would be some bozo defending this article! Always nice to see common sense prevail. Pascal.Tesson 05:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per A6. I have tagged the article {{db-attack}} Robert A.West (Talk) 06:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment I want this to be deleted as much as anyone but frankly I don't think it quite qualifies as an attack page. Also (correct me if I'm wrong) but I think speedy tags should not be used when there's an ongoing AfD. Or are attack pages an exception? Pascal.Tesson 06:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per OR and inability to pass WP:V. If it can be speedied as an attack page as well, I'm for that. 205.157.110.11 07:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• I've removed the speedy tag - articles can be speedied while in an AfD if they fall under a CSD. However, this is not a blatant attack page per se, and the AfD hasn't really been open long enough for any opposition to have a chance to argue, so for now, I'm leaving it open with the knowledge it's pretty likely to be deleted eventually. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

ok thanks for the clarification. Pascal.Tesson 07:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Original research, totally POV. "The high crime rate in Mexico could be due to genetic diffrences in monoamine oxidase genes that were present in the Aztecs and were passed on to the present day Mexicans." You must be joking. Poverty tends to be correlated with high crime rates, and Mexico is a fairly poverty-stricken country. Wild and unfounded speculation about other supposed 'causes' does not belong on Wikipedia. --S0uj1r0 08:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all discussion above. There is nothing worth saving in this article that hasn't been covered better elsewhere.--Saintlink 10:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. None of the sources cited state that there is a correlation between a cultural history of cannibalism and modern day crime - there's just two or three sets of "this culture is allegedly disproportionately violent today <cite1> and allegedly practiced cannabalism in the past." <cite2>. Pretty much a textbook example of OR. TheronJ 15:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pretty much a textbook example of what we mean by "original research". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Original research, not NPOV...AfD candidates don't come much more clear-cut than this. -Elmer Clark 21:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Yomangani and just about everybody else. --Richard 07:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Non-notable. El_C 10:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Café Catholica

delete per Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This is a very minor event. Google finds 48 non-wikipedia links, mostly catholic blogs advertising the event. I guess we could say "cathocruft"... No coverage I could find from reliable, independent sources. Pascal.Tesson 00:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - non-notable, only 97 Google hits (most are from Wikipedia) --Ineffable3000 00:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -AMK152 01:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per apparent nonexistance of any coverage outside of blogs and webforums. --W.marsh 02:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Michael 02:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Religio-cruft ReverendG 03:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable.UberCryxic 03:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Crosscruft. Sacred spam. Pious puffery. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Puns seem to be the way to go with this AfD vote, but it's nearly 2 AM and I'm not sure I could top what's already here. --S0uj1r0 07:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per all AdamBiswanger1_{R.I.P. Steve Irwin} 13:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and possibly merge the introduction to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston. Not notable enough for its own article. TheronJ 13:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails to assert notability. -Elmer Clark 21:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. --Ixfd64 01:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tagbanger

Non-notable neologism/urban dictdef; less than 300 Google hits (many unrelated to this def) and only cited source is urbandictionary.com. Prod tag was removed without comment. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fast, article is essentially dicdef (and not very good one) and this is more than adequately covered at Graffiti terminology. My Alt Account 00:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• delete source is urbandictionary Tony P 00:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not a dictonary, neologism, etc. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 00:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, rapper with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 17:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jet phynx

Looks like a vanity page by user JetPhynx. (see also, Cashmire Records) Walkiped 00:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - Vanity page: only reference is myspace page, only 182 google hits, main page has no Alexa rank, and the page was created by someone with a screenname of JetPhynx. --Ineffable3000 00:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. The user came to Wikipedia for the sole business of promoting themselves/their business. --Wafulz 00:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Eliminate Immediately per above. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 00:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Just want to point out that the material on this article is identical to the user's userpage. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 02:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -AMK152 01:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per Ineffable3000. Danny Lilithborne 02:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per WP:VAIN. --Supermath 02:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Supermath. Michael 03:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per above reasons.UberCryxic 03:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per A7. Vanity, thy name is Jet phynx. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. WP:AUTO, WP:VAIN, WP:SPAM. Also... phynx? Disregarding the fact that either sphynx or phynx reminds me too much of sphincter to be worth using, what's up with the spelling? --S0uj1r0 07:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Self-promotion has no place on WP. Let's trash this.--Saintlink 11:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete I would tag it myself but I'm half-asleep here. AdamBiswanger1_{R.I.P. Steve Irwin} 13:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mind-N-Magick

De-prod'd and re-prod'd article. Since that's against WP:PROD, I'm sending it here. Original nominator's rationale was "Does not assert notability per WP:WEB". JLaTondre 00:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete Alexa rank of about 60k, 51 unique Google links, <1000 Google hits for "Mind-n-Magick" + "search engine". However, I couldn't find any independent sources writing about it, nor any major awards, so for now I'm saying a delete. --Wafulz 01:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:WEB; if this warrants some minor mention as part of another pagan/wicca/whatever article, I trust they'll take care of it. My Alt Account 01:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB, doesn't assert notability (that was my prod). Melchoir 01:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB and possibly WP:ADS. --Supermath 02:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB. Michael 03:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V. "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Robert A.West (Talk) 06:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Blatant WP:SPAM. --S0uj1r0 07:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above reasons.UberCryxic 19:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Airwork Flight 23

This aviation incident is not noteworthy. – Zntrip 00:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• keep noteworthy Tony P 00:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Noteworthy, and notable improvements were made as a result of this incident. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 00:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment How could this incident be noteworth? Two people died. Minor aviation incidents happen every day. There can't be a page for everyone. – Zntrip 00:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This isn't a vote, people. We need arguments better than "noteworthy" and "not noteworthy." If Targetter will specify the notability of the improvements made, then maybe we'll be able to actually assess notability (I say this because I'm not actually involved in flight, so I have no idea how important the changes implemented were). --Wafulz 00:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I do suppose it's difficult to indicate notability when changes to flight procedures are made all the time. Previous comment withdrawn. Sorry, Shortfuse. =( --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 01:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Targetter Shortfuse 01:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -AMK152 01:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I fail to see what makes this aviation accident notable since people dying from plane accidents occur a lot. TJ Spyke 01:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Under "Aftermath", the article describes the lessons learned from the crash and how they changed aircraft operating procedures. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The last person to mention that withdrew their opinion based on the fact that the changes made were relatively minor. --Wafulz 02:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This is ludicrous. Airline crashes are encyclopedic. FCYTravis 02:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Should every airplane crash that ever happened have an encyclopea article? Hundreds of planes crash every year. Two people died on this airplane. If two people die in a car crash should there be a Wikipedia article about it? – Zntrip 03:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This event is inherently verifiable based on reliable sources, including news coverage and official reports from government investigatory bodies. If we can have articles on every elementary school, articles on every single Pokemon, articles on every coin, every TV show character... why not plane crashes? I think Airwork Flight 23 is a far more interesting and poignant story than, say, this page about some irrelevant and insignificant nonexistent persona invented by a Star Trek screenwriter. FCYTravis 03:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Take a look at this site: NTSB database. There are thousands of plane crashes. Should there be an article on ever single one? – Zntrip 03:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • So, what? We're rapidly approaching 2 million articles. Tens of thousands of articles about schools. Thousands of articles about some stupid sci-fi franchise. Thousands more articles about some other stupid sci-fi franchise. Hundreds of articles on Pokemon. You're telling me that some more articles about a few plane crashes is going to cause Wikipedia to run out of not paper? Ludicrous. FCYTravis 03:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
      • The basic fallacy of the argumentum ad Pokémon, which is what you are propounding, is that Wikipedia's task is not to be an encyclopaedia of what you consider, subjectively, to be more "worthy" and more "important" than Pokémon. It is the world at large, not Wikipedia editors, that determines notability. Notability is not subjective. If the world at large writes more source material about Pokémon than it does about aeroplane crashes or about characters in Latin textbooks, because the world at large considers them more notable, then Wikipedia has to simply reflect that. If you think that the world at large has an unbalanced perspective, then it is the world at large that you need to change, by persuading it to write more source material on what you personally consider to be worthy and important. Wikipedia is not an instrument for changing human knowledge, only for reflecting it. Uncle G 13:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
        • This article is reliably and verifiably sourced - far more verifiably sourced than any article on Pokemon ever will, given that no government agency will ever compile an accident report about the death of a Pokemon in battle, looking to determine causes and find ways to prevent such Pokemon deaths in the future, as is the case with this crash of an air-carrier-operated airliner. FCYTravis 07:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Wrong. I suggest that you compare this article's mere 2 sources to Bulbasaur#Notes_and_references. You are also deliberately placing a false restriction the scope of the sources in order to bias the argument in favour of your erroneous assertion. Uncle G 15:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
            • Yes, you are right. I am deliberately comparing an official government report from the National Transportation Safety Board to a freaking strategy guide for some stupid card game. Bravo, Uncle G, for exposing my trickery. Bravo indeed. I eagerly await the formation of the National Pokemon Safety Board which will investigate and fact-find all deaths of Pokemon in battle. FCYTravis 17:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
              • Your argumentum ad Pokémon has now fallen apart completely, since it is clearly not based upon reliability of sources, but is based upon thinly veiled personal biases. We don't include or exclude subjects here based upon what editors personally like or dislike. Uncle G 13:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, the majority of ships that sink do get articles. Akradecki 03:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I would suggest that the question be clarified to: Should there be an article on every single crash of a 4-ton or larger aircraft that leads to the complete loss of the aircraft and all aboard due to a non-trivial cause with a non-trivial aftermath? —BozoTheScary 03:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - non-notable frequently occuring event --Ineffable3000 03:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, article on a crash of a 4-ton or larger aircraft that leads to the complete loss of the aircraft. Kappa 04:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Nom has failed to assert why incident is not suitable for wikipedia.
• Keep and rename to Airwork Flight 23 Crash. If the number of air crash pages ever exceeds the number of Pokemon pages, wake me up. Vizjim 04:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Saying that if there are a lot of Pokemon and Star Trek articles tons of plane crash articles wouldn’t be a bad thing sound like fuzzy logic. An article about every plane crash isn’t possible or practical. Should there be an article about every car crash or ship that sunk? I guess it better than Pokemon, so why not. Is that how you justify your statements? – Zntrip 05:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Kappa, FCYTravis, et al. And to respond to Zntrip, yes, it is possible to have an article about every plane crash involving an air carrier (passenger or cargo) with fatalities, and an official investigation, report, and news stories. (I wouldn't necessarily extend notability to every general aviation crash, on the other hand, without some particular reason for an article.) --MCB 05:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Verifiable, NOR and reasonably NPOV article about a real-world event of some arguable importance. I'd prefer a clearer title, though. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for failing notability. A Google for "airwork"+"flight 23" gets ONE hit, unrelated. Doing a search for "airwork flight 23" gets ZERO hits. Yes, two official reports were generated per article references, but even they don't reference it as "flight 23". I might guess there were local NZ newspaper articles written, but the fact nothing else appears to be circulated is symptomatic of lack of notability. I fail to see any substantive changes to flight ops from this one accident, the NZ report describes changing checklists, and making sure fuel balancing is done correctly. The fact it is possible to have an article about every plane crash doesn't mean there has to be one. Tychocat 10:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Since there is a common theme to this set of airplane crash AfD, there will be an equally common theme to my replies I think it's bad precedence to start putting a "death threashold" for the notability of a plane crash. I would say a crash with any fatality is notable. Ideally entries are written because they will be of encyclopedic interest and value to others to read. A plane crash with fatalities (even a small number) affects alot of a people--the community where the crash took place, people actually involved in the crash as well as friends/families, anyone who is interested in the aviation crash history of a particular airline, and those people who like reading about crashes anyways. Someone was originally interested in the topic enough to write the article in the first place. I can easily see many others who will have continual interest in reading it. 205.157.110.11 10:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Those are all fallacious arguments. Saying that something affects a lot of people and therefore merits inclusion is a fallacious argument because there are quite a lot of traffic accidents every single day that affect a lot of people, that cannot even be verified after the fact. Saying that something includes a fatality and therefore merits inclusion is a fallacious argument because there are many fatalities every day, the reporting of which would turn Wikipedia into the very memorial that by policy it is not. Saying that because someone was interested enough to write the article and it merits inclusion is a fallacious argument, because people write all sorts of original research about things that they are interested in (mainly themselves, of course, but not universally) every day.

    An argument that isn't fallacious is an argument that addresses the sources, as Tychocat does. The provenance and depth of the available sources is what should determine whether something merits inclusion. Uncle G 13:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

    • Comment Do car crashes get the kind of media coverage that airline crashes do? I would say the relative rarity of airline crashes in approximation to car crashes plays a major role in that. Plus the public has a perpetual fascination with airlines which makes the notability of commercial airline crashes with fatalities all the more enduring. 205.157.110.11 07:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Some car crashes get lots of media coverage. Some air traffic accidents get no media coverage. Trying to cover all such accidents with a single blanket provision is another fallacious argument. Once again: Please address the sources, as Tychocat does. Uncle G 15:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
        • • Uncle G. How many car crashes get national media coverage? or even regional coverage outside of it's individual market? How many car crashes trigger mandatory government investigations? Now contrast that with commercial airline crashes which always get's coverage if there is a fatality. (If it bleeds, it leads) and more often then not the coverage is regional if not national and they always trigger a mandatory government investigation even if it's pilot error. It's a fallacious comparison. 205.157.110.11 07:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Not to speak for Uncle G, but the argument that newspaper standards should also be our standards is also fallacious. This is an encyclopedia, with stated guidelines and policies for inclusion of articles. Can you address this issue in terms of WP policies? Tychocat 11:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
          • It's a fallacious comparison. — Then why did you make it? (Hint: "traffic" != "car".) For the third time: Please address the sources. Uncle G 13:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
            • An easy survey above shows that you were the one who introduced the car crash comparision to try and nullify my contention that fatalities in a commericial airline crash is a major thing and adds markedly to the signifigance of the event-and by extension it's encyclopedic merit. Your retort was that my contention was akin to making Wikipedia a memorial and your introduced your fallacious comparision of a car crash. Ironically, your fallacious comparison only strengthens my contention because in that absurdity of your comparision the overwhelming signifigance of commericial jet airline crashes is shown clear. The media coverage and the mandatory government investigations they trigger set them apart from other events in a signifigant manner.
              

As for Wikipedia policy, there is no policy or guideline that inclusion violates. The closest anyone has come is to try and stretch WP:NOT as either a memorial or an indiscriminate collection. The memorial is a straw man since no one is advocating a memorial to the particular individuals but rather that the fact that there is fatalities enhances the overall signifigance of the event (i.e. the newscoverage and the mandatory government investigations). With the second, far from being indiscriminate articles like this chronicle specific and signifigant events for all the reasons that have been expounded on before.205.157.110.11 05:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as circumstances are "interesting" from an air crash perspective. I disagree that all air crashes resulting in deaths are inherently notable -- there were ~400 fatality crashes in the last year alone![3] Note, reported. Database does not contain all crashes. Scheduled flights with fatalities is more manageable at 9. Thus, my general rule of thumb would be scheduled flights with fatalities. That would still exclude this one, though. In any case I definitely discourage articles about non-fatal incidents (like the one a few weeks back about that guy who was arrested for freaking out). I'm just suggesting a metric for judging stuff that should be a "speedy keep".--Dhartung | Talk 11:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Dhartung that not all flights with fatalities are noteworthy, those by scheduled service (cargo included) are presumably so, and nothing has rebutted this presumption. Carlossuarez46 20:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Personally, I would consider any fatal airplane crash notable. Even if you don't accept this, as others pointed out, this crash led to new safety measures being implemented, so it had a lasting effect on the industry. Oh, and to those of you invoking WP:POKEMON: let's not go there if possible :) -Elmer Clark 21:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Any fatal plane crash? Is that your resoning? What about any fatal car crash? – Zntrip 01:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - WP has plenty of other articles on airliner crashes. Saying this one isn't notable assumes some kind of arbitrary threshold has been set. How many people have to die, Admiral?! --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • while I appreciate the heartfelt italics, I think the issue is not body count, but notability per stated WP standards. Can you address the article in terms of those, or can you only invent your own standards? Tychocat 04:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete someone may prove me wrong, but although a plane disintegrated, there was little news generated, and the consequences would appear to be really quite minor adjustments to flight procedures. Ohconfucius 01:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Investigation had an impact on the checklists and rules for the Swearington Metro aircraft, so the event has significance which goes beyond just a normal and sadly all-too-common small plane crash. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, inadequate rationale for deletion. — CharlotteWebb 16:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. There's more to this story than the article talks about. The SA-227 has had some chronic autopilot issues that this touches on. And, fuel management is an important issue in aviation, and this incident is an important "lessons learned" example. Although only 2 died (fortunately!) the parameters of the incident, the crew inputs and reactions and the ultimate outcome make it, from an aviation perspective, quite notable. Akradecki 03:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments and general discussion have been moved to the discussion page to keep things orderly here. Akradecki 03:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Discussion restored. Please do not refactor AFD discussion in this way. Uncle G 13:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Mako 06:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. References have been provided from multiple reliable and reputable sources. If those sources have deemed this incident worth writing about then surely the incident is notable. Mako 06:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Nom must specify why the crash is not WP-worthy. --Anthony5429 07:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all above. I am mystified by this nom. --Guinnog 09:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all above. If number of fatalities was the sole criterion, there'd be no article on Aloha Airlines Flight 243, and notable incidents like Windsor and Jakarta wouldn't get a look in. Cheers, Ian Rose 12:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I am also mystified by this nomination. Orsini 16:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Dhartung. Scheduled flights that have fatalities are notable. They're taken seriously by the government and investigated in a way that demonstrates their notablity. I also agree with the anonymous poster that even an unintentional "death threashold" is something that should be avoided. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 17:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This is exactly the sort of thing Wikipedia is good to look up for. Commercial jet liners with passenger deaths are very notabable. --Eileen R 23:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge and redirect, although in reality this will simply be redirect since there's no information worth merging not in the target article --- Deville (Talk) 06:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Natalie Cantor Metzger

May have been related to two notable people, but I don't believe she is notable by herself. 75 Ghits, mostly from wikipedia or biographies about her father and husband. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 00:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -AMK152 01:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Relation to notable people does not automatically make a person notable. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 02:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Relation usually doesn't mean much when it comes to notability. --Supermath 02:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Eddie Cantor. Non-notable relatives should be included in brief detail in the celebrity's page. --Ineffable3000 03:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• merge per above. Kappa 04:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Odd that Eddie Cantor fails to mention children at all. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Her name appears to have been "Metzger". Sigh! Robert A.West (Talk) 07:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Ineffable3000 -Elmer Clark 21:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Ineffable3000's suggestion above. Victoriagirl 01:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge and redirect. --- Deville (Talk) 06:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You Thrill Me

A supposed demo by Madonna. If anything this should be redirected to Unreleased Madonna songs. The source provided makes no indication that this will be a future single. eo 00:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Unreleased madonna songs. Then delete. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 00:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 02:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom ReverendG 03:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Targetter --Ineffable3000 03:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• merge per above --mathewguiver 19:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Cleanup and expand, or redirect The article looks pretty crappy in its current state, it's just a confusing stub. However, I don't feel comfortable endorsing its deletion if there is something that can be added. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoy (Lake Constance)

Tiny island that, from the looks of it in the image provided as well as the text of the article, is completely non-noteable. Descendall 01:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom -AMK152 01:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Please specify why it should be kept. --Wafulz 01:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Nvm...i didnt know what i was thinking. -AMK152 01:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This is about as important as a hill or a small street. Unless the island has had some profound historical signficance, the article should be deleted. --Wafulz 01:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and possibly (but unlikely) merge to Lindau. What's next, documenting every sandbar and shoal? My Alt Account 01:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Lake Constance Zazaban 02:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's less than 100 square meters! I'm quite surprised that it actually has a name. --Supermath 02:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unless there's something particularly unique or important about this truly tiny island, there's no way it's notable enough. Dylan 03:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. Someone went to the trouble to build a wall around it, must be worth mentioning somewhere. Kappa 04:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Change vote to behalten (keep) per the German AFD. Kappa 04:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Change again, if the map mentioned below is the only verifiable reference, mention it in Lindau or somewhere and redirect there. Kappa 23:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Need more information here. I can't find anything on Google [4] even confirming this at all. But there is an ariticle on this in the german Wikipedia, so I doubt it's a hoax... more likely just something not very well documented in English. --W.marsh 04:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• W.marsh points out the basic problem with this article. It doesn't cite sources. Neither does the article in the German Wikipedia. For all that readers know, this could be complete fiction. (It wouldn't be the first time that a fictional article originated at the German Wikipedia.) Even if this were a real island, how are readers expected to verify the article's contents? How can readers verify that the dimensions of the island are as the article gives them? Requiring that readers go to the island and physically repeat the measurements is contravening our Wikipedia:No original research policy.

  We keep articles on real places not because they are "real places", but because they are independently and substantially documented real places. (The plot of grassland to the side of my house is a real place.) Small towns with small populations are documented in censuses, for example. Mill Ends Park was written about in a newspaper for several years and was listed in the Guinness Book of Records, for another example. Where is the documentation for this island? The article doesn't say, and a search for documentation doesn't turn up anything more than this or this from which we can get no more than "Hoy is an island in Lake Constance.".

  Redirect to Lake Constance or (since the disambiguation at hoy (disambiguation) is where readers will come to and that can be redirected directly) delete. Uncle G 14:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: at least keep note in Lindau article an in disambiguation. Lake Constance has served as a important waterway for thousands of years and even a tiny island could accumulate more history that a city recently founded somewhere in a desert. That Google has nothing doesn't wipe out the history. Pavel Vozenilek 14:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It seems to be real (search for Hoy and Bodensee (the German name), but apart from that completely uninteresting. Unless more info can be found to give it some importance (an interesting history or so), it should be deleted. Fram 19:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Sure, it could have accumulated more history than a city in a desert, but unless there are verifiable sources that say it has done so, that's not a persuasive argument. Geoffrey Spear 19:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep real place, and if lack of sources were reason enough to delete articles then we'd be half the Wiki we are. Carlossuarez46 20:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Follow-up I have added a couple of references that were easily obtainable from Google had anyone wanted to. Apparently, this island is of a vacation spot for Germans. Also, other small islands have articles: Wake Island, Sealand, Alcatraz, Rikers Island, Liberty Island, Lindisfarne and while Hoy may not be as notable as these, it is apparently notable. Carlossuarez46 21:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Hoy isn't even close, the former are much bigger and most have considerable historical significance. Irongargoyle 22:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment You forgot to include Manhattan and Singapore in the Worst Analogy Ever there. Geoffrey Spear 23:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Are Germans agoraphobics? They like to vacation on a 53 square-meter island? Wavy G 02:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Those references seem to just be about the entire Lake Constance region, talking about museums and castles and town centres - which I doubt exist on this island... anyway the one mention of the island literally just says that the island belongs to Lindau. No information about the island at all beyond that it's in Lindau. And yeah, Worst Analogy Ever seems warrented here, sorry. The Lake Constance region is no doubt a vacation spot - this island, not so much so. --W.marsh 04:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Before you claim too much high ground on the matter of editors doing research, you might care to notice that I already linked to two such pages, including one of the very ones that you cited, in my rationale preceding yours, and noted that they provide no information about this island beyond "Hoy is an island in Lake Constance.". (There are several such pages. They all have no more information on this island.) Also note that lack of sources is one of the primary reasons that we delete things here. Uncle G 15:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Before you deleters claim any high ground at all and criticize the analogy: be bold and set a stake in the ground: how small is too small for an island to be notable for WP? Does that same size apply to the plethora of schools or fictional pokemon monsters the plague this so-called encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 23:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. LOL, is this the place where Johnny Castaway lived? My bedroom is nine meters long and six meters wide--Can I write an article about it? Wavy G 21:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete sorry, I'm still not convinced. The new reference does not say that this island is a major vacation spot, it's only alluded to once as an afterthought. I think I'll go ahead and AfD the German version as well; perhaps someone there will come up with a good reason to keep this. -Elmer Clark 21:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Nominated the German version here. -Elmer Clark 22:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Strong Delete. The weirdness of this article intrigues me. Why in the world did someone build a stone wall on this island? Very strange indeed. Anyways, the ducks in the foreground are probably more notable than the island itself, so a reluctant delete for now, but if somebody can provide some more references I might be inclined to change my vote. Might be a WP:BJAODN candidate if it were actually funny. It is just odd. Irongargoyle 22:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I am changing my vote to strong delete based on the arguments for keeping. These make me realize what a bad precident would be set by including this island. The argument that all real places with names should be keep it is an awful one. It has no references, it has no notability, the only real verifiability is that someone has placed it on the German Wikipedia as well and happened to take a photo. Irongargoyle 20:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Heh, the german AfD is... taking a bit of an unexpected turn. They all want to keep A) because it's the smallest island in a large lake (apparently this is seen as a very compelling reason to keep) and B) Because they rarely keep an article that wp-en would delete, and find doing so to be an amusing concept. They don't even seem to understand why the article is nominated. Wp-de is weird! --W.marsh 04:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah...they seem to consider any geographic location intrinsically notable. -Elmer Clark 10:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Like the English one thinks of schools. Carlossuarez46 23:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Please ask the German Wikipedians to cite sources, that can be used by readers to verify the content of the article. Uncle G 15:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--Peta 05:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Why should we delete this article? Only because the island is small? Then we must delete all arcticles about small islands, towns, ... Chaddy2 07:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Towns are or have been inhabited. This island is empty, and as far as we know has always been empty. But if you can show me a bunch of other articles for similar islands (let's say, less than 100m²) which have no historical facts, disputes, lighthouses, or other clearly important distinguishing features, then I may rethink my position. As it is, I don't think that we would have to delete even one other article based on this precedent... Fram 07:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought it was kind of clear that the problem is that there's little to no information in English about this island. The only information in german so far is just that "It's an island". Obviously if there is more information than that on an island, we would probably keep the article... but right now now one but Wikipedians seems to care enough about this island to write anything about it. --W.marsh 13:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Please don't use straw men. The reasons were given above, and have everything to do with a lack of sources and of anything verifiable to write about the island beyond 1 sentence, and nothing to do with the size of the island. Uncle G 15:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, see Diskussion AFD in the German WP. And yes, every geographical location, whether river, town, island or named hill is relevant in the German WP, which has otherwise much much harder restrictions for relvancy. --213.155.224.232 17:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • ... but which has not, apparently, even considered the problem of having no sources to cite. Uncle G 17:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• I just read that there are 3.5 million lakes over 20 acres in Alaska alone. I personally find the idea that every geographic location is "relevent" to a bit troubling, Uncle G's arguments make a good deal more sense. I'm not sure wp-de's philosophy on this has been sufficiently challenged... although I was just looking at it through a machine translation, it didn't seem like there was anything approaching the refinement of Ungle G's arguments on the german AfD for this article. It was just a pretty simplistic "Keep, all places are notable" argument, regardless of whether there's actually any good information on that place. --W.marsh 17:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • We don't delete African villages just because we don't have a lot of data about them, and including every named location seems reasonable, wikipedia not being paper. 213.155.224.232 could you please ask the German wikipedians to provide an enternal reference to prove that the island actually exists? 213.155.224.232. Kappa 17:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I too reiterate my request for the German Wikipedians to cite sources. But we need more than "mostly harmless". Existence isn't enough. The plot of grassland to the side of my house exists, and there are citable public records to prove that. We need something that contains enough to actually hang an encyclopaedia article off — something that, for starters, can be used to verify the current content of this article. Uncle G 17:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I know that we could technically have 3.5 million articles on 3.5 million lakes, but 99.99% of them never say anything more than "There's a lake this big at these coordinates". There's just literally no more information in print or on the web. I don't think that's at all useful in an encyclopedia. So by extension, if an article about a place could literally never say more than "There's a place here that's this big"... I don't think we should include it, it's really no more important than Uncle G's plot of grassland. But I think there might be some confusion here, the german's might be assuming "Well of course there's more information" and just not mentioning their sources. --W.marsh 17:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • @Kappa: We have problems with that. ;-) It seems that a row of sites around Lake Constance and the town Lindau does mention it, but [www.google.com The World's Biggest Trash Can] does not provide any further information. What I can do is to try to send an email to the town administration to confirm the information included into the article. --213.155.224.232 19:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: At a town-map /first link at the right column/ A popüp window appears with an overview map on teh left. If you're clicking into the area just above the "D" in the towns mapyou'll get a part of the map (certainly) in which "Insel Hoy" is marked, as a proof for its existence. --213.155.224.232 19:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete: I think you're missing the point. Just because it exists does not mean that it should be included in this encyclopedia. The article makes no assertion of noteability, and that is grounds to delete it. --Descendall 19:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's size (smaller than the Oval Office makes it unique and therefore notable.--213.155.224.232 19:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Unique? Are you honestly suggesting that this is the only tiny insignificant island in the world? Small little islands are often found right off of the coast of lakes. --Descendall 20:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

But the only Bavarian small island in Lake Constance. OTOH I think some here are too much US-biased. Remember you're not writing a WP for the US but an English-language WP for everyone! --88.101.47.64 13:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you 213. Kappa 23:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I am German and in WK-de for a month wondering about small islands and streets getting own articles. I argued in de against Hoy, but nobody listened. Maybe its because our country has less square miles than Montana (though more inhabitans), so there are not that many islands. But anyway, there are many bigger than this. --Adbo2009 21:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Akradecki 03:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: general discussion and comments have been moved to discussion page to keep things orderly. Akradecki 03:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Er no offense, but this was one afd where it actually was a civilized discussion, not a vote. Now it's back to being a vote... bah, humbug. --W.marsh 06:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree. Is there any basis whatsoever for this and other moves of comments to a Talk page by this user? Doesn't this violate the entire spirit of AfD to do so? Geoffrey Spear 14:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree as well, especially considering that it was the discussion that caused me to change the degree (if not the direction) of my vote. Irongargoyle 17:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree. Bring it back. --Descendall 18:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I believe I've successfully merged the comments back in where they belong; I hope I didn't mistakenly lose anything that was added after they were removed. Geoffrey Spear 18:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Has a history of 35 versions within a year in the German WP. Update rhythm can be considered as a measure of interest. Some over-detailled information (e.g. exact distances in m) may be simplified: "about 400 m" etc.--84.73.211.212 13:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Please note that this vote to keep is User:84.73.211.212's only contribution to wikipedia. --Descendall 19:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry for adding a vote without signature. I usually contribute to the German WP - extensively. And please value a vote by its arguments, not by its contributor's statistics ;-)--Panda17 19:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
      • AfD is not a vote. --Descendall 13:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Your actual argument is fallacious. Counting edits to an article doesn't indicate whether something is encyclopaedic. Sources do. Please cite some. Several editors have asked German Wikipedians, who are in the best position to do so, to do this, several times. Yet you have yet to cite any. Uncle G 13:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Counting edits to an article doesn't indicate whether something is encyclopaedic, that's right, but whether it is of interest. The article seems to be of interest (but its style could be more encyclopaedic, yes). And as to citing sources, see above: If lack of sources were reason enough to delete articles then we'd be half the Wiki we are. Carlossuarez46 20:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC) So stop emphasizing this "argument" for deletion.--84.227.140.88 04:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Additionally: When compared to areas of the same size (e.g. Uncle G's grassland, see above), islands always get more attention. Another example of the grassland size type is Rockall with a diameter of 25 m. Size alone is not a sufficient argument.- However, I'd agree that, on average, relevance decreases with distance between the location of the place and the location of the readers, i.e. Hoy is definitely more interesting for the German WP than for the English WP. --Panda17 20:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, this island apparently has less attention than the patch of grassland at the side of my house. We do not measure notability by how far away things are, moreover. Wikipedia, in both languages, is an international encyclopaedia. Furthermore: I draw your attention to Rockall#References. Please cite some sources. Uncle G 13:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Sure, every Wikipedia puts more weight to things within countries of the specific language, even if they all try to be international. And there is no problem with that! That's why it's okay to delete the island in the English WP and to keep it in the German WP.

There are medieval sources. I have been editing the german version. There is some possible ambiguity in the sources due to high sedimentation in the area but the article represents the consensus on the topic. I think the problem is rather that the article on Lindau does not list it as a tourist attraction, so english-speaking tourists (there are quite a few) will not easily find the article. When i go traveling i like to know as much as possible about the place i am visiting even i do not care about the places i am not visiting. --Masegand 17:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you show us some links (in German is allright) that show us that it is a tourist attarction? Similarly, can you give any indication in what medieval texts it is referenced, and what is said there about it? The German version says nothing about either claim, and none of the websources given here do so. It is listed, usually at the end of the lsit, as a minor island in the Bodensee, and that's it. See e.g. Uncle G's post above, who says as well that while many claims have been made by 'keep' proponents, none of them has been able to give any source for it, making it (the claims of importance, not the island itself) unverifiable and thus a perfect candidate for deletion. Fram 18:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed i guess it is a minor tourist attraction, there are no visitors entering the island but it is well visible from the bridge to the island of Lindau and approachable by boat, and listed in the hungarian version of Lindau. The medieval sources i heard of are images not texts, and the english article does not make much claims other than that the island exists and showing an image. As well as on several tourism websites where it is listed among other small islands in the lake of constance (without image). The origin of the name is also not explained. In the german article on Hoyren the (church) latin horea/storehouse is mentioned. I could find a reference on horreum/barn, granary, storehouse on [5] and horia/small fishing boat which would also make sense. There is also the greek horaios/beautiful which would hint to an early 19th century fabrication for the purpose of tourism or simply greekophilia which was rampant in bavaria at the time, however Hoyren is mentioned in medieval text in 1275/1278. So apparently several sources would have to have been faked then which is not impossible though especially if you are a conspiracy guy e.g. the bavarian illuminati etc.... In alemannian language Hoy sounds like german Heu/english hay possibly related to the barn, granary, storehouse meaning, but unlikely/strange for such an small island. Please note i am not doing primary research just speculating, but possibly those people doing it needed to be contacted or referenced indeed.... In the german version there is also a reference to the medieval gallows island, which Hoy is not but sometimes assumed to be as it is the only small island left near Lindau in these days. About its relevance, nothing other than simple facts are mentioned in the current english article, but the length of this discussion is surprising and i think also related to US/European cultural differences about the relevance of something like that. --Masegand 20:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heralda Luxin

Nominated by anon, unable to create article, no vote from me. Fan-1967 00:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Fake WW II article about the holocaust. If you google her name the only results are this page—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.232.219.24 (talk • contribs) .

• Delete unless verification from reliable sources turns up. Source of text is from an account with exactly one edit, and much of the rest is from another possible WP:SPA. Normally in AfD I like to err on the side of generosity, but the possibility of a hoax makes me think we should be conservative. William Pietri 01:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If, in fact, this is a personal account of a family member's actions, it's OR and unverifiable. -- Fan-1967 01:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if this is a real person, she would be non-notable. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 02:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep I got 397 hits on google. If expanded might be worth keeping. Zazaban 02:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The google results seem to be very heavily Wikipedia and mirrors. Fan-1967 03:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment there is a user named JohnLuxin who appears to have joined for the sole reason of expanding this article and adding links to other pages. Zazaban 02:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. All the Google hits appear to be mirrors of this article and other links from Wikipedia, added as above by the creator. At the very least, unverified and/or original research. Dylan 03:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Hoax-a-licious. RFerreira 05:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep and cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict: Current Controversies

Delete – the "article" is simply a table of contents to a highly non-notable book. Peter G Werner 01:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Wikipedia not being a table of contents for a book. --Wafulz 01:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, the large number of bluelinked authors suggests some notability. Melchoir 01:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wafulz. Being associated with notable authors doesn't make the book notable, particularly since it seems to be anthology. —dustmite 02:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per dustmite. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 02:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete badly named ReverendG 03:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• The title of this article sounds even more like the poor construction of a late-night college freshman essay binge than a book. Regardless, Wikipedia != ToC. Delete. --S0uj1r0 07:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the introduction but delete the table of contents. Worldcat states that 1011 libraries have copies of the book, that's surely enough to satisfy the notability guideline for books, which asks if "several" libraries have the book. Keep the stub for now, and if the book is relevant, someone can expand the article in time. TheronJ 14:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with TheronJ's caveats. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
• Keep, cleanup and move to Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict (Current Controversies) which seems to be the correct title per Amazon and many other sources. Not only does it pass the ridiculously low requirements in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (books), it also meets the proposed guideline WP:BK (and if you'll excuse the spam I invite anyone to join the discussion of this proposal) since it appears to be used as a reference in scholarly works. Pascal.Tesson 21:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catherine Woods

Murder victim lacking notability. I find nothing to indicate that the crime was particularly unusual or otherwise noteworthy. [6] Prod removed by author. —dustmite 01:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - NN. after reading the articles provided as sources, I see nothing to distinguish this from the thousands of other people who are murdered every year. My Alt Account 01:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; the only sources are local-interest news stories, blogs, and an America's Most Wanted "Web Exclusive", meaning they didn't air it. Non-notable. Melchoir 01:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. All murder victims are notable. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: While I think that all victims of murder deserve a certain amount of attention and respect, to say that they all have encyclopedic notability is simply over the top. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Can you imagine the precedent that would set? —dustmite 02:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • TbT, I think your intentions are good, but, with respect, adding every single murder victim to this encyclopedia would be the very definition of cruft. And it is not practical. My Alt Account 02:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Being murdered does not confer notability in itself. This one doesn't seem particularly distinctive. Fan-1967 02:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 02:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not really a distinctive murder, and frankly, listing every murder victim would flood Wikipedia. --Supermath 02:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Perhaps we should have a wikipedia page on every war casualty as well? Sorry. VegaDark 03:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Saying every murder victim is notable is no different from saying that every town is notable. Many towns have only stubs; even more, particularly in less developed countries, have no article at all. Recognizing that all murder victims are notable doesn't mean that Wikipedia will be flooded because the articles will only be created if someone takes the time to research and write the articles. All that accepting the notability of murder victims will mean is that if someone creates a verifiable, non-copyvio article about a murder victim, it will normally be kept. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Something like 11 people a week are killed in New York City alone [7]. They don't even all make the news. Being a murder victim is nowhere near unique nough to per se make someone notable.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 12:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Saying every murder victim is notable is no different from saying that every town is notable. — Wrong. Towns usually have census reports published for them. Towns often have history books written about them. The same is not true of murder victims. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and our WP:BIO criteria are part of ensuring that. Uncle G 14:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. What makes all murder victims any more notable than all AIDS sufferers or all robbery victims? Are all murderers notable? All police officers who arrest murderers? The only thing remarkable about this case is the salacious value furnished by her form of employment. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial, nor is it a repository for miscellaneous stories that happen to make it to news networks. Murder may make for good television, but it doesn't often make for noteworthy articles. User:Robert A West makes a sound point about the sensationalist draw of the girl's occupation swinging attention to her murder. --S0uj1r0 07:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 09:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: "Cortez bloody fingerprint was found on the blood"... I'm not sure whether to laugh or shake my head in despair. All the problems of finding fingerprints "on the blood" notwithstanding, what kind of fingerprint would one imagine to find "on the blood" other than a bloody one? --S0uj1r0 10:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Completely non-notable.UberCryxic 19:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not all murder victims are notable. -AED 07:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eighth Wonder of the World

I just found this page listed as AFD without a discussion page, so I created one. Supermath 01:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete (as nominator): I forgot all about getting back to the AFD I was about to start, so here's my reasoning, there is no commonly recognised "Eighth Wonder of the World". Anyone can call themselves an "Eighth Wonder", heck even Jerry Springer is introduced as so at the start of his show. In comparison, articles on the Seven Wonders of the World refer to lists compiled by notable people or organisations. "Eighth Wonder" is simply a vanity label often self-applied and an encyclopedia shouldn't be acknowledging everyone or every place that's been described as so. --  Netsnipe  ►  08:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unverified and bordering on unverifiable. Most of the items aren't supported as 8th Wonders even in their articles, and I see way too much "sometimes considered"s. By whom? This list has almost no factual content. Melchoir 01:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Whoa, can't argue with that. It would still be nice if more entries can explain their declarers. Melchoir 04:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Thanks for reconsidering. About the declarers thing, a lot of the citations I found were rather vague -- a lot of "considered to be the eighth...", "called the eighth...", "known as the eighth," which allows inclusion on Wikipedia, but not as having been declared by a specific person. I'm not sure that many of them even have a notable historical figure that used this particular appellation (the list's entry for the Thames Barrier originally claimed that Elizabeth II called it the eighth wonder, but I couldn't find a citation for it, so I took it out). I'll keep checking around, but I wouldn't get my hopes up. Dylan 04:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, it just seems like it's too easy for some schmuck to invent one of those vague phrases. Oh well, few lists are going to be perfect! Melchoir 05:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Netsnipe has been notified that his AfD process has been fixed. I have no vote on this one. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 01:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as listcruft. —dustmite 02:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Dumbo? Mickey mouse?????? Zazaban 02:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep improved drasticly ReverendG 03:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If kept, pare severely. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but immediately add references for as many as possible and remove the others. It seems like a reasonable article, given that the phrase is a common way to refer to various things (287,000 by Google). I absolutely agree that it needs references and needs them soon, but this article needs a {{references}}, not deletion. It's not beyond redemption. Dylan 03:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have gone through and found citations for most of the entries, and tagged the others with {{fact}}. Dylan 03:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep People please let's not become a mindless bandwagon here. This is a very famous term with strongly verifiable entities. It definitely deserves to be in Wikipedia. It would be a horrific mistake to delete this article.UberCryxic 03:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it has citations now - but rename to List of structures considered the eighth wonder of the world or something similar - it's essentially a list, it should be named as such. Crystallina 04:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer List of Eighth Wonders of the World for simplicity, or failing that, List of things considered the Eighth Wonder of the World (they're not all structures). Melchoir 05:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I was pondering that for awhile - the first redlink had 'locations'. I just wish there was a better word than "things". Rename to something, in any case. Crystallina 06:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for references, and rename as a list per Crystallina. Nice job Dylan. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 05:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It has citations and is a legitimate subject. -- Voldemort 06:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. VegaDark 06:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The term is an old-fashioned advertising slogan that has appeared in travel brochures for nearly everything conceivable. The list will never be exhaustive and the rule of inclusion will always be subjective. There is no information here. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "the rule of inclusion will always be subjective" -- it isn't subjective at all. The rule for inclusion, like everything else on Wikipedia, is whether a reliable source has identified the subject as an Eighth Wonder. This isn't Wikipedia editors deciding what ought to be on the list. I agree that the reliable source calling it an eighth wonder is somewhat subjective, but that doesn't at all make it inadmissable at Wikipedia; if it did, we wouldn't be able to quote album reviews or editorial remarks because they are POV. Dylan 12:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-cited article (thanks to Dylan) and frequently-used phrase. List of Eighth Wonders of the World or List of things considered the Eighth Wonder of the World are unnecessary circumlocution. --S0uj1r0 07:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC) [Reversed, see below. --S0uj1r0 10:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)]
• Delete per Robert West. This isn't an encyclopedic list, it's a list of X with unassociated value Y where the unassociated value is a purely subjective phrase, a cliched advertising slogan. Use of the phrase Eighth Wonder is possibly notable by itself as a well-known 19th century slogan but this article isn't about the Eighth Wonder concept, it's just a list of uses of the publicity. MLA 09:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Changed to Delete per User:Robert A West and User:MLA. You're both right, the list would indeed be inexhaustible, and the phrase is even now simply used to flaunt tourist traps in the article. The phrase is notable, but the alleged Eighth Wonders themselves aren't, and any mention of the phrase itself could probably be better made on the Seven Wonders of the World article. --S0uj1r0 10:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Robert West. Hopelessly POV and/or vanity. The fact it has citations fails to give it meaning or encyclopedic value. I'm adding my dog to the list, and citing my best friend for sourcing, since that seems to be all it takes... sorry, just kidding. Tychocat 10:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I see your point, but your friend isn't a reliable source. Citing the New York Times, ESPN, and the Catholic Encyclopedia is a lot different. I also fail to see how citing reliable sources in support of the article makes it POV or vanity; indeed, it prevents those things by creating a strict guideline of inclusion. Dylan 12:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Au contraire, my friend is an excellent source with great credentials. You see the problem with this list, yes you do. It's never-ending, always somebody's POV no matter how ponderous his/her resume may be, and you probably even see the irony in having 50,000 (or even a dozen) "Eighth Wonders of the World"! Tychocat 04:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment It seems to me that you're confusing the POV issue. Yes, it's an inherently POV statement to call something the Eighth Wonder of the World, but our sources are not held to WP:NPOV; only our editors are. As editors, we can't state categorically that X, Y, or Z is the Eighth Wonder, but we can say that A called X the eighth wonder, assuming that A is a reliable source. Consider, for example: Films considered the worst ever, Films that have been considered the greatest ever, List of people who have been considered deities, List of incidents famously considered great blunders, List of people who have been considered avatars, Place names considered unusual, and I could list dozens of others. I'm not implying that this article should be kept merely because there is a precedent, but that all those articles display other people's opinions. As long as they are reliable sources -- and I hope that comment about your friend was in jest, otherwise you severely misunderstand WP:RS -- their characterization of a particular subject is admissible. Dylan 14:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment - no, I understand WP:RS quite well, thank you, but it is clear that irony does not communicate well. The fact we can admit to the inherent POV and RS problems here, yet people look away at the end result, bespeaks to underlying problems. Tychocat 11:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment Again, I disagree that there are any POV or RS problems; citing someone's opinion is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and falls right in line with WP:NPOV. Saying "The New York Times has called this film 'a masterpiece'" is perfectly fine to state in an article if it is sourced, just as is "The New York Times called the Thames Barrier the Eighth Wonder of the World." Yes, that's the point of the view of the Times writer, but I defy you to show me a policy page that says we don't include other people's published opinions on Wikipedia. What are these "inherent POV and RS problems" you claim to exist? Dylan 13:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. Yes, there may not be a lot of info there, but the pharse is real, and in wide use. Thε Halo ^Θ 11:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is essentially a worn out cliche used as a metaphore or simile for many, many things, some of which may in fact be wonderous; others, not so much. Agent 86 17:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Verified and common phrase; the article has dozens of cites! Batmanand | Talk 19:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per UberCryxic --Ageo020 23:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Ummm.... I said "delete". I'm not quite sure how a subjective cliche is encyclopedic. Maybe you meant to refer to someone else? Agent 86 00:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - well referenced article built upon a common expression. makes sense to me. --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: In reference to the earlier comment about reliable sources such as the New York Times, Googling for ("eighth wonder of the world" site:nytimes.com) returns 107 hits ranging from King Kong, the Royal Palace in Amsterdam, to the annual Mosquito swarm in New Orleans. This list can never be exhaustive because it's a cliche that's liberally applied to anything when a writer has run out of adjectives to use. --  Netsnipe  ►  02:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for noting that. National Geographic has used the "8th Wonder" tag for King Tut's tomb, the pyramids at Teotihuacan and the Great Wall of China, as well as the Escorial. Either the sources are self-contradictory, or the term conveys no real information. For this reason, Peacock terms should be avoided, even when they can be cited to a normally-reliable source. Verifiability is a necessary, not a sufficient condition for inclusion. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. In theory, a good article about the metaphor might be appropriate, but that is crap. Plus it has become such a buzzword, that famous instances of the metaphor being used are just background noise nowadays. Legis 15:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting article regarding a commonly used phrase. It's a list of places that refer to themselves as the 8th Wonder, and as that I don't see any problem whatsoever with it. They don't have to "be" 8th Wonders (who decides that?), the claim itself is interesting in explaining the common usage of the phrase. I was actually reading about Wonders of the World here a while ago and spent a lot of time following links from that page. --Rankler 12:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: By your argument, we could also have a "list of models who refer to themselves as beautiful". See the problem? --  Netsnipe  ►  05:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. There is nothing interesting about that variant though, beautiful is a very commonly understood notion applied to an almost infinite number of things. In the case of the Eighth Wonder, there actually is no Eighth Wonder, despite it being a proper noun and a title. Obviously comparatively far fewer things exist that people would assert are the Eighth Wonder compared to things asserted beautiful, meaning the list is not only much more manageable but much more useful because of the rarity of the phrase. If you wanted to sort the page into things called the Eighth Wonder by third-party print media (ooh, let's) and those that merely claim themselves to be, fine. But I think both are useful for illustrative purposes. --Rankler 01:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I agree. Netsnipe, though "list of models who refer to themselves as beautiful" is obviously a pretty dumb article to create, it can still be verifiable and NPOV and all the rest. The only difference between that article and this is that "models who refer to themselves as beautiful" is a pretty useless and unencyclopedic topic -- who would ever need it? -- whereas "Eighth Wonder" is such an obviously commonplace expression (300,000 Google hits) that its inclusion on Wikipedia would clearly facilitate encyclopedic understanding of the common phrase. Dylan 03:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Rankler is incorrect in stating that the citations are only from the subjects themselves. The only times when the subjects' official sites are used is when they are quoting someone else (e.g. Akshardham), or when they make a broader statement like "X is widely known as the eighth wonder of the world," and in those latter cases, there is an independent citation backing the official one up (e.g. André the Giant). Dylan 12:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment In the interest of full disclosure, I should add that I had to supplement a few citations to make the above statement. Dylan 12:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Note-worthy, not original research, has citations. — Wackymacs 18:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep But fortify with cites. Rhinoracer 08:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Each entry has at least one citation, more than a few two; why do you suppose it needs more? Dylan 03:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Markovich292 04:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge with Leonid Kuchma. Mangojuice^talk 16:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Ukrainian politicians and statesmen closely associated with President L. Kuchma

There are POV concerns inherent with this article. There is a difficulty as to defining a "cut-off" as to what level of dealins with Mr Kuchma is required to constitute "closely associated" and eg, what counts as "professional" dealings, and what would be "conflict-of-interest".Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Perhaps the article could be retitled "List of Ukrainian politicians" and include Kuchma's opponents as well. This would solve the POV concerns quite nicely. Alternatively, call it "List of Ukrainian politicians after 1990". --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete POV ReverendG 03:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into new article List of Ukrainian politicians. —dima/s-ko/ 03:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - hard to maintain, partly violates WP:POV. --Ineffable3000 03:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Either delete or merge into Leonid Kuchma. After all, if someone is closely associated with Kuchma, they ought to be mentioned in Kuchma's article if they are important enough to discuss in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 03:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Could those who vote delete POV, please point out any POV? I don't seem to find any. —dima/s-ko/ 03:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per Metropolitan. Atlantic Gateways 03:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is impossible to validate thouse claims or make list complete. Usualy people try to hide their connections and Melnychenko Cassette Scandal clearly reveal that actualy a lot of people were using Kuchma system for their own benefits. --TAG 11:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. --KPbIC 19:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. What defines a "close association" is POV. -AED 07:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• If merge, than only to Leonid Kuchma (per Metropolitan). Can you imagine a List of Ukrainian politicians given that Ukraine has 48 millions of polulation, over 150 political parties and 450-seats parliament? That list would be a maintaining nightmare worst than List of Ukrainians. By the way, cited info shouldn't be called "POV". (Author of the article) Ukrained 20:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A nominal scan by anyone who follows Ukrainian politics would show that these individuals are/were closely affiliated to former president Kuchma. --Riurik ^(discuss) 06:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Riurik Odessaukrain 15:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Definetely keep the info but merge it to Kuchma and after that delete that strangely named redirect. But only after someone gets time to merge. Not just delete. --Irpen 18:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV, unsouced and poorly defined.--Peta 04:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1963 Rochester air crash

This incident this article describes is not noteworthy as many plane crashes have resulted in low fatalities and not every single one can have an encyclopedia entry. – Zntrip 01:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Crash appeared accidental and no assertion of flight procedure improvements was made. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 02:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Reversed to Keep per WP:POKEMON. We're already documenting pretty much every crash... --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 01:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Plane crash caused by pilot error with few fatalities. No outstanding circumstances confer notability. —dustmite 02:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Encyclopedic article about verifiable crash of a passenger airliner. FCYTravis 02:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - keep deaths occured, thus notable. No deaths would make it not notable. Keep per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia. Megapixie 03:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per FCYT and Megapixie. Kappa 04:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; factual, verifiable, notable, and the subject of media attention. --MCB 05:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment "deaths occured, thus notable"? Are you serious? Dozens of people die every month from airplane crashes, most are single fatalities. Should there be an article about a car crash beacuse someone was killed? – Zntrip 05:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: There is a difference between fatal crashes on air carriers (passenger and cargo), which are the subject of official investigations, reports, and in-depth news reports, and general aviation (private plane) crashes, which are not necessarily notable in the absence of other factors (famous passengers, unusual circumstances). --MCB 05:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Crashes that resulted in no changes of procedure, no noteworthy deaths, no political consequences and didn't ruin a company just don't rate articles by themselves. (Contrast Airwork Flight 23 above, which barely rates.) Robert A.West (Talk) 07:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Alternative: Merge into article on Mohawk Airlines. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC) It's in there.Robert A.West (Talk) 07:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete minor air crash due to pilot error. If there were an entry for every car crash due to driver error..... Ohconfucius 10:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Since there is a common theme to this set of airplane crash AfD, there will be an equally common theme to my replies I think it's bad precedence to start putting a "death threashold" for the notability of a plane crash. I would say a crash with any fatality is notable. Ideally entries are written because they will be of encyclopedic interest and value to others to read. A plane crash with fatalities (even a small number) affects alot of a people--the community where the crash took place, people actually involved in the crash as well as friends/families, anyone who is interested in the aviation crash history of a particular airline, and those people who like reading about crashes anyways. Someone was originally interested in the topic enough to write the article in the first place. I can easily see many others who will have continual interest in reading it. 205.157.110.11 10:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for failing WP:NOT. Lacks multiple non-trivial third-party articles, fails to show any lasting changes in air safety or operations. i get only 15 general Google hits for "1963 mohawk airlines crash", of which only TWO are distinct. The official report only says weather was a factor, with no recommendations. In other words, it happened. I appreciate the feeling that "any fatality" is notable, but WP is not a place to hold a memorial. The fact someone was interested enough to write this article does not give it automatic notability, else nothing would be omitted, and WP is not an indiscriminate collection. Tychocat 11:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per my speedy keep guideline -- scheduled flights with fatalities. Rename to Mohawk Air Flight 121 or similar.--Dhartung | Talk 11:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep-per above. Storm05 19:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename per Dhartung. Sceduled airline crashes with fatalities are notable. Carlossuarez46 21:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup — Appears to be a sub could do with improvement but I see no reason to delete Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 21:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I say again, How many people have to die, Admiral?! --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Italicized pleas notwithstanding, the issues can be addressed within WP standards and policies. Can the keep noms do so? Tychocat 04:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep scheduled flight with fatalities. Also rename after it's kept to conform to standard airline incident article names (airline name + flight number). Akradecki 03:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've been (very slowly) working on this task, and this article is already in my crosshairs. The only reason I haven't renamed it yet is I am concerned it could disrupt the AfD discussion. If the result is "keep" or "no concensus," I will rename it. (FYI, I am not voting because I am frankly on the fence about it) --Jaysweet 21:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep For the same reasons as Airwork Flight 23. --- The Bethling^(Talk)
• Keep scheduled flight with fatalities is not unnotable Moheroy 12:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for all the reasons above. bbx 07:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable even if only by WP:POKEMON. Cool3 02:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. --- Deville (Talk) 06:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mohawk Airlines Flight 405

This incident this article describes is not noteworthy as many plane crashes have resulted in low fatalities and not every single one can have an encyclopedia entry. – Zntrip 01:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Crash appeared accidental and no assertion of flight procedure improvements was made. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 02:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Reversed to Keep per WP:POKEMON --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 01:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Another encyclopedic, verifiable, sourced article on an airline crash. FCYTravis 02:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Deaths (and a number of them in this case) makes it notable. If there were no deaths it would not be notable. Factual, verifiable, notable, keep per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia. Megapixie 03:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Why can't every one have an entry (presuming the entries are good and sources exist)? Are we running out of disk space or something? I seriously doubt that. --W.marsh 04:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, nothing wrong with the article. Kappa 04:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per FCYTravis. --MCB 05:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per my comments above. At most, tabular information could be merged into Mohawk AirlinesRobert A.West (Talk) 07:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge somehow. I think fatal air accidents are only notable to the extent of the fatalities they cause or unusual circumstances that surround their occurence. The list/table restructuring proposal made at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mohawk_Airlines_Flight_411 is interesting. That would make somewhat orphaned information like this much more useful. --S0uj1r0 07:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete minor air crash due possibly to mechanical failure, with some fatalities and some contributory negligence. Ohconfucius 10:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Since there is a common theme to this set of airplane crash AfD, there will be an equally common theme to my replies I think it's bad precedence to start putting a "death threashold" for the notability of a plane crash. I would say a crash with any fatality is notable. Ideally entries are written because they will be of encyclopedic interest and value to others to read. A plane crash with fatalities (even a small number) affects alot of a people--the community where the crash took place, people actually involved in the crash as well as friends/families, anyone who is interested in the aviation crash history of a particular airline, and those people who like reading about crashes anyways. Someone was originally interested in the topic enough to write the article in the first place. I can easily see many others who will have continual interest in reading it. 205.157.110.11 10:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• hm, looks like someone's a little careless with the cut-and-paste. Tychocat 11:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. My apologies. 205.157.110.11 07:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep using my speedy keep rule: scheduled flight with fatalities. --Dhartung | Talk 11:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I'm extrapolating a bit from WP:NOT and other guidelines and policies, but the article fails to show notability per lacking multiple third-party non-trivial articles, and fails to show any lasting contribution to air safety or flight operations (no recommendations at all, in the report cited). I get 38 general Google hits from "mohawk airlines flight 405", of which only SIX are distinct, of which only ONE is relevant (a list of plane crashes, I see User:Blood_red_sandman jumping for joy). I refuse to get into a body-count as the sole arbiter for notability; rather, I see a case-by-case discussion for each article, as it has been. Tychocat 11:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, an article on a scheduled flight with fatalities, thus not indiscriminate information. Kappa 16:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep-Per above. Storm05 19:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Scheduled airline crashes with fatalities are notable. Carlossuarez46 21:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - How many people have to die, Admiral?! --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• None, by stated WP notability standards which make no mention of fatalities. I refuse to reduce this to a body count. Tychocat 04:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC):

Comment It should be noted that there is currently no notability standards for airline crashes (not even an essay). What we have is a substantial event involving a commercial airline crash that resulted in loss of life and triggered mandatory investigations and resulting media coverage. In the absence of a current guideline, I do think the above plays a large consideration in the notability and merit of inclusion. I do encourage the development of such an essay but I think the one precedence that no one wants to see come out of this is some sort of "body count threshold" (i.e. so many people have to die to be considered notable) being connected. 205.157.110.11 09:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• True, there is no specific standard for air crashes, but that's like saying there's no specific standard for a specific company, book, or person, when the general WP policies and guidelines still apply. To act like we need to reinvent the wheel for every pet issue misses the points that we're still bound by WP:NOT, or simple extension of other policies and guidelines. One point that looks very applicable is from WP:BIO, which asks whether there has been any lasting contribution to the field. It's clear in this case there has not. Also, if you don't want to reduce this to a body count, then don't. I haven't, and I don't see why you keep waving the dead about when you say you don't want to. Tychocat 14:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• There is a difference between inferring that there is notability because a fatality is involved in a signifigant event and a "death threshold". One is acknowledging a facet of an event that adds to the signifigance and the other is setting up a measuring bar like a carnvival ride that says "You must have X number of people die before you can be included in this encyclopedia.". Far from "waving the dead about", I'm contending for the former and strongly advocating against the later. 205.157.110.11 07:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Excellent. Then we agree that fatalities have nothing to do with notability. Let us move on. Tychocat 12:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep For the same reasons as Airwork Flight 23. --- The Bethling^(Talk)
• Keep, high-quality article; absolutely no valid reason for deletion provided.--SB | T 00:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. These crashes are all major events and should be covered here. --JJay 19:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep; the article is poor (it doesn't even mention where the crash occured, other than a quick note in the infobox), but a plane flown by a moderately sucessful airline crashing into a large US city with loss of life sounds fairly notable to me. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 21:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - A scheduled flight with fatalities is significant. Brianski 22:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with Mohawk Airlines Flight 411 to form "Mohawk Airlines Crashes" or similar Markovich292 04:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - important crash on several fronts. First, notability: it had NTSB investigation with a full hearing and an extensive report. Most minor aviation accidents, even with fatalities involved, don't get federal NTSB investigation (local FAA district office alone investigates many/most) and then many of those with NTSB investigation don't get a public hearing. So this one ranks near the top in that department, which relates to notability, since NTSB is a political body that invests its limited investigative resources (to some extent) according to the perceived public importance of the case (e.g. number of casualties, public figures or celebrities involved, etc.). Also, there were several important considerations in the accident itself that make it notable technically. First, the real causes of the 2 separate technical malfunctions that led to the crash are both unknown, which is fairly rare. Also, the crash worthiness aspects led to recommended improvements in that area. In addition, the actual proximate cause of the accident, i.e. lack of crew coordination and division of labor, led to a general recommendation in that area (which unfortunately didn't help much until some other accidents re-inforced the modern concept of CRM). In all, this is an important crash with unusual (undetermined) causes as well as important safety recommendations. The article does require work, however. Crum375 00:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mohawk Airlines Flight 411

This incident this article describes is not noteworthy as many plane crashes have resulted in low fatalities and not every single one can have an encyclopedia entry. – Zntrip 02:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Airline accidents with injuries or fatalities (as opposed to mere incidents like tire failures or engine explosions) are generally encyclopedic and can be well-sourced from verifiable official reports and period news reporting. Furthermore, your argument is entirely circular. "The incident is not noteworthy because... not every one can have an encyclopedia entry." Well, why not? FCYTravis 02:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Crash appeared accidental and no assertion of flight procedure improvements was made. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 02:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Plane crash caused by pilot error with few fatalities. No outstanding circumstances confer notability. —dustmite 02:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Deaths (and a number of them in this case) makes it notable. If there were no deaths it would not be notable. Factual, verifiable, notable, keep per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia. Megapixie 03:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I just have one problem with the WP:NOT (a paper encyclopedia) reasoning behind most of your replies. If that's the case, why not keep every single article that appears on wikipedia? Why bother with these deletions? After all, it's just disk space... --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 04:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • That's not what I said. I said that it's factual, notable and verifiable - which one of these points do you dispute ? Megapixie 05:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, decent article, nominator's reasoning is flawed. Kappa 04:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per FCYTravis. --MCB 05:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment A plane crash which kills 14 people is not notible, it happens every month. If Wikipedia is just disk space we might as well write an article on every person in the world. – Zntrip 05:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is a difference between fatal crashes on air carriers (passenger and cargo), which are the subject of official investigations, reports, and in-depth news reports, and general aviation (private plane) crashes, which are not necessarily notable in the absence of other factors (famous passengers, unusual circumstances). --MCB 05:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Actually there appear to be about two crashes a month according to [8]. Given 60 years of aviation - that would add up to about 700 odd articles. A few more than the always controversal Category:Pokémon species by generation, but not by much - perhaps it would be better to lump the information together in List of fatal air accidents in 1997 style articles ? I would be happy either way - but I think fatal air accidents are generally notable. Megapixie 05:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
      • A list/table of that sort would allow comparison, which would be encyclopedic. Or put the tabular information under Mohawk Airlines. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Delete or Merge somehow. I think fatal air accidents are only notable to the extent of the fatalities they cause or unusual circumstances that surround their occurence. However, I agree with the list/table restructuring proposal. That would make somewhat orphaned information like this much more useful. --S0uj1r0 07:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think it's bad precedence to start putting a "death threashold" for the notability of a plane crash. I would say a crash with any fatality is notable. Ideally entries are written because they will be of encyclopedic interest and value to others to read. A plane crash with fatalities (even a small number) affects alot of a people--the community where the crash took place, people actually involved in the crash as well as friends/families, anyone who is interested in the aviation crash history of a particular airline, and those people who like reading about crashes anyways. Someone was originally interested in the topic enough to write the article in the first place. I can easily see many others who will have continual interest in reading it. 205.157.110.11 09:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't think thresholds or precedent are the issues at stake here. Crashes are not notable just because those involved die. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and thousands more die in car crashes, affecting friends, families, and others interested. I don't see how a plane crash killing 14 is any more notable than a ten-car pile-up killing 14, but to have an article on the latter would be seen as absurd. Plane crashes happen very frequently, and more often than not, people die in them; none of this makes them notable in and of themselves. Furthermore, the "someone was interested enough to write it and others will want to read it" claim is entirely specious. Many articles are written and deleted every day for failing to meet Wikipedia standards of notability, from murders to bands. The fact that someone has interest in recording certain information doesn't in any way affirm that the information is useful to anyone else, or that it should be retained. --S0uj1r0 11:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment I don't think anyone is advocating that Wikipedia becomes a memorial here. There is no listings of who died or what not. What's being put forward is the concept that commercial airline crashes are major things-particularly those that have a fatality. Besides launching mandantory investigations, crashes with fatalities receive far more media converage and have direct impact on numerous people--even those not even involved with the crash. I think the comments that have unsettled some of us is the concept that because "only -blank amount- died" in the crash that lessens the notability of it. If you want to craft other arbitray guidelines on airline crash notability (Media coverage, procedure changes after the fact) then a Wikipedia Essay space awaits with your name on it. However, such notability essay (much less guideline) does not exist yet and the foolhardy "death threshold" is not one to currently stand in for it. 205.157.110.11 09:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per my speedy keep guideline: scheduled flights with fatalities.--Dhartung | Talk 11:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Dhartung's speedy keep guideline. Kappa 16:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep-per above and 14 deaths is not considered a "low fatality". Storm05 19:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: What is or isn't considered a low fatality count is entirely POV. Compared to the number of people killed in car accidents in a given day, 14 is very low. At what point do you make the cut? 14 may be high enough, but is 7 too low? --S0uj1r0 20:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep scheduled airliner crashes with fatalities are notable -- 1 fatality is enough see Southwest Airlines Flight 1248. Carlossuarez46 21:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I say again, How many people have to die, Admiral?! --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• sod Pokemon minor air crash due exclusively to pilot error, not newsworthy, and no consequences per S0uj1r0. Ohconfucius 01:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep For the same reasons as Airwork Flight 23. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 17:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Original decision reversed. Keep. Never saw the Pokemon test before, but that changed my mind. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 01:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep scheduled flight with fatalities. It would seem that even if there are 1000+ crashes are all of them going to be scheduled flights by coommercial carriers, as oppoed to military transport accidents or cargo aircraft? This criteria even excludes charters. I think this is a pretty strict threshold. Moheroy 12:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - A scheduled flight with fatalities is significant. Brianski 22:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with Mohawk Airlines Flight 405 to form "Mohawk Airlines Crashes" or similar Markovich292 04:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ironpoet

Contested prod. Non-notable Livejournal page fails WP:WEB. alphaChimp^(talk) 02:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - A7 candidate, falls short of WP:WEB by about a mile. My Alt Account 02:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  This is not A7 material, as it is not a personal vanity page. If it was, I would have deleted it quite a long time ago. alphaChimp^(talk) 05:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per MAA. Danny Lilithborne 02:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, just a normal livejournal page. No speedy as web content does not fall under A7. ColourBurst 03:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - non-notable, potential vanity. --Ineffable3000 03:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:WEB. Thε Halo ^Θ 11:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Based on the fact an "official website" is cited in the article, I argue that this article is written about a group not a website and thus should be delted per CSD A7. Irongargoyle 23:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St.Albert RiverProspects

Article both misspelled, and a duplicate of St. Albert Big River Prospects, which is the teams proper name. Unlikely search term, and nothing to merge, so just delete. It strikes me that there could be a speedy criteria for something such as this, but I couldnt immediately find it - possibly A1 - and figured better safe than sorry, so here it is. Resolute 02:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I don't see anything that could be merged into the already-existing article. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 02:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to St. Albert Big River Prospects (couldn't hurt). --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 02:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Note to nominator, the right "speedy", I think, would have been a redirect, but at this point it's probably just better to delete it since it is not a credible search term. --MCB 05:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect - per nom -- Chabuk 15:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. DS 02:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chapter Zero

Contested prod. This non-notable company directly fails WP:CORP. It seems like pure self-promotion to me. alphaChimp^(talk) 02:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, complete and uncontestable failure of WP:CORP. Suggest the page's author peruse WP:SPAM. My Alt Account 02:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, could probably fall under a7 if companies were included. That and an editor keeps disrupting by untagging the AFD. Ryūlóng 02:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brad Cuthbertson

Non-notable player for a practice squad. Other than practice, minor league experience only. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 02:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't know if there's any precedent, but in my opinion, professional athletes are notable. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 02:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. While I agree that professional athletes are generally notable, I don't think playing for a farm team quite makes the cut. Recreate this page if he ever moves onto an MLB team roster. —dustmite 02:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 49th round draft pick this June. Does not appear to have yet played in the minor leagues ([9]) -- Fan-1967 02:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: I find a record of him playing for the Western Major Baseball League, a "summer collegiate baseball league". This doesn't appear to be a fully professional league (their website compares them to the Cape Cod League). Fan-1967 02:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete until/unless he makes the majors. He did play in the WMBL, and is mentioned on the article for the St. Albert RiverProspects listed for deletion above. The WMBL is basically semi-pro, but moving towards the all college ranks ala the Cape Cod League. Also, he was actually a 6th round pick, and had an article written about him by a major local paper as a result: [10]. Resolute 03:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like he got greedy and couldn't work out a deal with the Giants. That was the 2005 draft. The Blue Jays picked him in the 49th round in 2006. [11] -- Fan-1967 03:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - player fails WP:BIO --Ineffable3000 03:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; some players below the major league level are notable, but nothing seems to distinguish this one. --MCB 05:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom/lack of notability/distinction. --S0uj1r0 07:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, can recreate if he ever makes it to the Major Leagues. VegaDark 09:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, meets WP:BIO as a professional athlete. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zelbereth

Prod removed without comment. Appears to be some sort of amateur fiction. Character, "fictional universe" and author all fail google search. Unpublished fiction is not notable. Fan-1967 02:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per nom. Looks like A7 candidate to me. My Alt Account 02:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC) (see below)

• Don't believe A7 can be applied to fictional characters. Fan-1967 02:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Google results show nothing. It looks like WP:HOAX to me. --Supermath 02:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nomination. No reasonable claim to notability. --S0uj1r0 07:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This article was AfD'd 10 minutes after creation. Perhaps we should give the author a chance to improve it before speedying. That being said, Delete it if substantial edits aren't made to it by the end of this AfD. VegaDark 09:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As non notable, and failing WP:FICT. As said above, A7 does not apply here, as A7 is for real people, not fictional characters. Thε Halo ^Θ 11:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

*Keep Article was prod'd 4 minutes after creation. 4 minutes. What, is Wikipedia so short of server space that it needs the 500 bytes or so this article takes up? Give the guy a chance to do his work. Has anyone actually attempted to improve the article? --Pussy Galore 12:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC) indef banned for trolling

• • Thanks for asking! Actually, yes, and nobody can even tell what the article is about, really, so we can't improve it. I look forward to hearing a report of what you find, since your Keep vote indicates your research found that the article's topic warrants an encyclopedic article. My Alt Account 12:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Four minutes was long enough to determine there is no published fantasy author by that name, and that both the character and fictional universe are unknown. The author had, and still has, the opportunity to provide sources. None have shown up. If you can find some, let us know. Fan-1967 13:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Look, let's just change our votes to Keep right now. Because I don't think Pussy Galore would have voted Keep for absolutely no reason at all. I think he has some excellent reason to keep the article, but he just didn't have a chance to tell us. My Alt Account 18:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I've already explained explained my reasons. Are you familiar with wikipedia policy? Do you know that I can simply post 'keep and not be required to make any comment? --Pussy Galore 01:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
        • AfD is a debate not a vote. Making a "vote" without reasoning is tantamount to saying nothing as closing admin will ignore it. You might want to familiarize yourself with current wikipedia policy, as votes went out of style awhile ago.--Crossmr 03:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above; also, article created by User:Zelbereth who has not contributed to any other WP topics. NawlinWiki 17:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Lincolnite 23:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Who? Where? By whom? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\= | 01:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)}
• Delete as severly nn. --Mmx1 01:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, wikipedia isn't a place to further your exposure.--Crossmr 03:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; unverifiable; probably hoax or nonsense. --MCB 03:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - changing my vote. Pussy Galore's arguments above are very sensible, plus I think it's unfair the way he always ends up voting on his own. My Alt Account 09:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Hackel

Delete minor politician. The guy is the sheriff of one of the most populous counties in the state of Michigan - that's not enough for a WP article. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Looks like some local trying to get publicity for upcoming election - that's just my take on it.--SweetNeo85 03:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The solution to that is editing, not deletion.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 13:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I think the sheriff of a county with a population of 800,000 is notable. Seems to meet WP:BIO, a decent ammount of news coverage came up in a quick scan ([12] for example) --W.marsh 03:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Already mentioned at Macomb County, Michigan. That's enough for a county sherriff. Can't find any evidence that he is notable among sherriffs. Most sherriffs are going to be quoted in the paper from time to time, that doesn't establish notability. My Alt Account 03:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Is your quarrel with the article or with WP:BIO?–♥ «Charles A. L.» 13:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Are you implying that WP:BIO notability guidelines unquestionably would include this guy, and therefore I must be disagreeing with WP:BIO by voting for deletion? Sorry if this sounds dense, but that's all I can make out of your question. My Alt Account 13:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per W.marsh. By the way, there are articles on Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard and there are also articles on the county clerks of Oakland and Macomb counties. MJCdetroit 03:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Bouchard is a Senate candidate. As to the clerks, let's drop a deletion tag on them as well. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Both clerks are candidates for statewide elective office, and the Oakland County woman previously served in the state legislature. All three people you cited are a lot more notable than Hackel. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
      • We should try expanding Wikipedia and not deleteing articles because they may not be as large as you would like. MJCdetroit 04:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Incorrect. Never said that. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, passes WP:BIO per W.marsh. Kappa 04:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per W.marsh.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 13:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, not a great article, but the subject plainly meets WP:BIO. Kestenbaum 14:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Local sheriff. I picked up 4 recent news articles searching for "Mark Hackel" + sheriff. He is one of a number of law enforcement officers called upon from time to time to testify on particular crime-related issues: ironic that he seems to make the local news as he is called upon often by Detroit Free Press, Cetroit News and Macomb Daily, and would not make it if not for crime, but he does not seem ever to have been the primary subject in any of the articles, and does not pass WP:BIO. I just hope he remains non-notable. Ohconfucius 02:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; major elected county official meets WP:BIO. --MCB 03:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete minor local public official without significant news coverage about himself. (Someone should get round to a WP:MANDARINBIO... maybe I'll take a shot at it some time) Bwithh 01:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. County sheriffs in many states have broad powers and are not "minor" officials. And like it or not, a large part of the U.S. population lives in suburban areas like Macomb County, which has a larger population than San Francisco or Baltimore or Boston. Kestenbaum 13:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

And county sheriffs in urban counties are commonly less important than city chiefs of police. My Alt Account 19:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

True. But Macomb County is so balkanized into small cities that no city chief of police there is remotely as important as the county sheriff. The sheriff is also responsible for the county jail, which in a large county is a pretty significant institution. The Macomb County Jail has a capacity of 1,450, per the official site. Kestenbaum 04:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kristina Johansson

This skater is not considered notable. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Figure_Skating#Notability.2C_revisited Dr.frog 03:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom --Ineffable3000 03:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per consensus not to include "competitive Theatre on Ice teams (...) and not individual skaters on these teams". Punkmorten 06:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Thε Halo ^Θ 11:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Vanity, and WP:SNOW; this is not going to pass, but just invite more meatpuppetry. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leonard H. Tower Jr.

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Wikipedia:Autobiography violation. --Aplhac 03:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• That policy specifically says "Deletion is not certain" just because it's an autobiography. Does this guy meet WP:BIO, the relelvent policy here? I'm not sure yet. --W.marsh 03:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment You have to love a guy who creates his own bio, that says he doesn't want fame and publicity. Fan-1967 03:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  •  ;-} It comes from trying to do what others reasonably request. See my longer comment below. -Lentower 04:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. We should probably have had a biography of Len Tower a long time ago. He is notable for his work in the free software community. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • "Has worked in the free software community" is not one of our WP:BIO criteria, nor should it be. Uncle G 14:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Possible Bias - Abstain If you wish to research some of the public record about my role in the GNU Project and the FSF, one place to go are the GNU's Bulletins (which I helped start). They are probably on http://www.gnu.org, though they may have been moved to http://www.fsf.org.
  • I think an exception should be made to the Wikipedia:Autobiography policy for this page, even though I started it, and it is about me. The reasons include:
    • My contributions are short. One fact. One preference. Two links to my web sites for those curious about me.
    • I don't plan to add to it. I'm not sure at this point what to do, if something false is added -- your feedback welcome on this.
    • I stood by and with Richard Stallman and did much work on the GNU Project and helped him, gjs, hal, and rjc start the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for over a dozen years. I was a founding member of the Board of Directors of FSF, and served on the Board for a dozen years.
    • I'm listed on the FSF page for that role. Yes, I added that entry as well.
    • I added that entry and filled out the rest of the Board's history and added the Leonard H. Tower Jr. article, because a number of people sent me e-mail asking why that history wasn't in the Wikipedia FSF article. I added the two links to my websites, because the articles for the other FSF Board Members had them, and it would help sastisfy people's curiousity about who I am. I didn't add the link to my bio.html, because I only wrote it to sastisfy requests from high school and college friends about what's life been like.
    • I be willing to see my preference changed into a quote, if that fits Wikipedia culture better.
      • Wikipedia culture is interesting. Be interesting to see what happens here. Leonard H. Tower Jr. blasted to an empty stub, left as is, edited down or up/enhanced.
      • Awaiting further comments and feedback.
        • -Lentower 04:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
          • See User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing_about_subjects_close_to_you. If one cannot follow that guideline, then one should not write, no matter how people pressure one to do so. Uncle G 14:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and improve; notable subject; WP:AUTO not really a problem here. Also, I have moved the TOC discussion to the article's talk page, where it belongs. AfD is strictly a place to discuss deletion. A better place for the TOC discussion might be the village pump, however. --MCB 05:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Actualy, I don't think that there would have been the FSF if it wasn't for Len Tower. He also has supported the Free Software Movement since almost it's very beginning. Len Tower is a notable person and should be included in the Wikipedia.Org site. The really nice thing about Wikipedia is that we can learn about the people who helped to get us to where we are today.

--lile 21:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Bias disclosure: Len is a friend that I still see occassionally. I believe that his contribution to FSF (and the FSF's work) is significant enough to merit an article. However, the current version needs better sourcing. GRBerry 01:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep WP:AUTO should never be a problem with stubs. It appears he passes WP:BIO, by satisfying "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" Ohconfucius 02:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I have known Mr. Tower for decades and it is clear to me that he edited this page in order to make WP articles on FSF related maters, of which he was a major contributor, more complete and not for self aggrandizement. _HughDaniel 03:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: User's only edits are to this debate.

• Keep I don't think Len has an egotistical bone in his body. The content makes Wikipedia more useful. --Rich $alz. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.70.58.76 (talk • contribs) .

Note: User's only edits are to this debate.

• Keep I've known Len for nearly 20 years and if anything the entry is far too modest. In many ways, I do not believe the FSF would have gone as far as it has without him. While RMS had the vision, it takes smore than that to make an organization run, and that came from Len. Len never asked for limelight, even when RMS received a McCarther award. He just kept doing, and that says a lot. -- Eliot Lear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gargleblaster (talk • contribs) .

Note: User's only edits are to this debate.

• Strong Keep Why is this even a question? Len has been a widely known "tower" of the free software community since the beginning, and is integral to any history of the movement. And the comment above about "no egotistical bone in his body" is 100% true. If Rich Stallman wrote his own stub, would we be having this conversation? The entry is brief and to the point, and simply a jumping off point for others to expand upon. -- Becky Waring. Bwaring 14:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: User's only edits are to this debate.

• Keep Just adding my voice. Aside from his other contributions (noted above), Len played a crucial role in the FSF by acting to calm and clarify assorted discussions. RichMorin 22:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Subject is certainly notable and important in his field. Capi 01:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Very Srong Keep and definitely expand. Len is a class act. This isn't self-promotion, the article contains only history and fact. I too have known Len since the mid-80s. --Jim Thompson Gonzopancho 02:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.52.77.54 (talk • contribs).

Note: Anon's 4th edit; registered user's first was to sign this comment.

• Keep Len has been a quiet yet effective advocate for free software since the free software movement began. Although they may be less visible, his contributions are at least in the same league as many of the other people with pages from the FSF entry. WinTreese 02:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: User's only edits are to this debate.

• Keep and Expand As noted elsewhere, Len has been a major, effective contributor to the cyber community through his quiet work behind the scenes in many organizations, not just the FSF. A trivial bio does not do justice to his efforts; a more complete description would make his role more obvious. -- Jim Duncan JNDuncan 20:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: User's only edits are to this debate.

• Keep and Expand Without Len and his contributions, the FSF would not have been able to accomplish nearly as much as it has. Ambar 02:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand Free Software wouldn't be where it is without Len. He's the unsung hero of the FSF, often bringing sanity and balance to the organization. The FSF is one of his more visible roles, but Len has contributed significantly in many other spaces, and has done a lot to make the world a better place. stephen g. wadlow 02:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: User's only edits are to this debate.

• Keep and Expand Len was the quiet polite face of the FSF in it's founding years. He did a lot to get it going and got little credit. The page should be alot longer, Len is very modest about his contributions. Rob Robertson. Remarquian 03:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: User's 2nd edit.

• Strong delete. Doesn't like fame, but creates his own article? (see his website for similar evidence on modesty if you feel that to be a criterion). And maybe I'll write an article about myself and then get all my friends to create new user accounts and oppose its deletion when the time comes. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Whether or not he is modest or likes fame is irrelevant to whether or not we should have an article on him. He is clearly notable, and an important subject in his field. No, I do not know him from anywhere. And no, I did not join Wikipedia 3 days ago, you're welcome to look at my contributions if you so choose. As for your claim that the keep votes are nothing but accounts created by his friends for the fact, a quick look at user contributions easily disproves that: myself, lile, Ambar, Ohconfucius, MCB, TruthbringerToronto... In fact it's funny you should mention "most keep votes" in your edit summary, since except for yours, all votes so far have been to keep ;) Capi 14:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete Lack of notability per WP:NOT (from my NPOV on this, his work doesn't merit any of the criterion for notability), violation of Vanity and Autobiography policies. However, unless the person tallying up this AFD does his work, the legion of first-time users and Len Tower friends coming to vote keep might end up turning this into an undeserved WP:SNOW job. Seems Mr. Tower, facing deletion for his self-bio, drummed up his fellow computer nerds to climb the barricades. I would think, for a self-bio, Mr. Tower could have at least written something longer than a pithy two-line stub. After all, most self-bio vanity articles here are poorly written, unwikified, and often long-winded. —ExplorerCDT 14:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Most of the 10,300 google hits for "Leonard H. Tower" [13] are his contributions to way too many mailing lists, or webpages/documents he's signed. Google should not be taken as an account of this man's notability, because his google presence, like this article is self-generated. Further, a search for "Leonard H. Tower"+"Free Software Foundation"[14] bring up 517 hits, and "Leonard H. Tower"+"GNU" 699 hits [15] comprising chiefly of GNU's own newsletter, many e-mail list/group posts, and nothing else. No one outside of himself and his own circle have written anything regarding his contributions to GNU or FSF. Big reason why he fails the WP:NOT test. —ExplorerCDT 14:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I searched for sources on Leonard Tower, and couldn't find any reliable ones. I think we can source that he was a director of the FSF, but as it stands, that isn't enough of a reason to have an article. He has done so well at not promoting himself, I can't find any good sources about him. However, if anyone can produce a source that says anything beyond the basics about him, I would support keeping. I don't mind having a stub if it can grow, and I think he's notable, if sources can be found. Mangojuice^talk 17:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete per Mangojuice. JoshuaZ 18:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funoon

This page fails WP:WEB. It has an Alexa ranking of ~4.5 million and most of the results on Google are for people names Funnon. --Supermath 03:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment- As far as I can tell, nothing in the article indicates that this journal even has a website, so I don't see how WP:WEB is relevant. However, the article about the journal's publisher spells this "Fanoon" and I'm convinced that both are probably problematic transliterations from Urdu. It certainly claims notability; I'd like to see some references that actually establish that notability. Geoffrey Spear 19:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep- I tracked down a solid reference in English and added it to the article; this is clearly a notable publication in the Urdu-speaking literary world Geoffrey Spear 23:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Geoffrey. I could track down a few more Pakistani newspapers and websites refering to the journal as a prestigious literary journal - [16], [17], [18], [19]. A thing to note may be that the paper was started in 1962 and is located in a part of the world where not having a website is not a big deal and may not signify anything. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FreeCulture.org

nn websites. alexa 672,000rank D3bv1 03:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

— Possible single purpose account: D3bv1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

• Speedy keep Seems well referenced, supports notability. Alexa doesn't mean anything. Ryūlóng 03:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• It's true that Alexa Rankings are not terribly useful, but the references really A) aren't all reliable and B) don't all seem to even mention this specific site, let alone constitute meaningful converage under WP:WEB. At least at first glance. Still needs some looking into. --W.marsh 03:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, this seems to be more of an organization than a website.--W.marsh 03:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - reasonably prominent NGO-type group with significant involvement in multiple prominent issues. This resembles a bad faith AfD nomination. My Alt Account 03:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Template:Vote keep: I've seen several nominations like this lately. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• I'll have to abstain since I am largely responsible for writing this article, but I would like to say that if there is something wrong with the way the article is written and/or sourced, I'd welcome everyone's help improving and making it more encyclopedic. I think deletion would be a little harsh. --Skyfaller 05:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This is practically db-club. "Significant involvement in multiple prominent issues" means much less than Alexa rankings. I've never heard of them, so delete. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  Respectfully, most indications of notability trump alexa ratings, except when the subject is a website, which is not really the case here. "I've never heard of them, so delete" - if I could enforce this criterion, only 10% of WP's content would survive (and as we all know, the actual amount of salvageable content here is at least 25%) My Alt Account 13:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. I have to agree with W.marsh, this is more of an organization than a website, despite the name of its primary webpresnce. Applying WP:ORG, I find that the organization has a verifiable national presence and is thus notable. By the way, I find this whole nomination to be disquieting.-- danntm ^T _C 00:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This is an organization that's as Wikipedia as anything. Where better for it to be listed? --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - There's a fascinating history of students fighting Diebold, and I just went to a meeting of a student-led free culture group on another campus. If delete, how about merging this page with the Free Culture movement page? Which seems largely about Wikipedia now, but could be about students struggling against voting machine hijinks as well. -JustinHall 15:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Justin! Glad to hear you made it to the USC chapter's meeting :) With all due respect, merging this article with Free Culture movement would be counter-productive, because people continually conflate this student organization with the movement as a whole. Merging these two pages would only perpetuate this error. --Skyfaller 07:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (possibly with cleanup). Referring to it as a website and measuring it by Alexa is disingenous. It quite clearly states that it's an organization, and that ".org" is merely part of the name they were incorporated under. It even makes reference to its website. Websites don't have websites!  :) As an organization, the article seems to assert its notability well enough. -- Xtifr 01:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Might be worth mentioning Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) as a guideline for determining notability. I think FreeCulture.org should count as notable by these guidelines, although Free Culture Swarthmore as a local chapter might not. --Skyfaller 14:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 06:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Madonna films

Listcruft.--Zue 03:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Verifiable and notable material. It should stay.UberCryxic 03:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Kappa 04:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Template:Vote comment Zue (talk • contribs) is a possible single purpose user
• Delete, this AFD might be a little tainted though because the nominators only edits were nomitating the article for deletion. TJ Spyke 06:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-written and it genuinely is a notably subject. -- Voldemort 06:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The world must never be denied knowledge of Swept Away. 205.157.110.11 07:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Madonna's article the Madonna videography. Her "acting" career does not merit a separate article any more than William Shatner's singing career. Lazybum 23:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per UberCryxic. SliceNYC 01:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not IMDb. Stev0 05:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Madonna. Markovich292 05:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Artifact (Stavanger)

• Delete: Non-notable band with only a single EP apparently released. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unsigned etc. Punkmorten 06:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Artifact? Stavanger? Who? What? Delete. WP:SPAM. WP:NN. --S0uj1r0 07:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; nn band vanity. --MCB 03:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adetola Faminu

Possible hoax. No Ghits [20] which does not mean much but is troubling. In any case unreferenced and probably unverifiable. WP:BIO probably applies as no trace of a reliable source to back it up. Pascal.Tesson 04:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a hoax unless a reliable source emerges, which seems unlikely. --W.marsh 04:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - if it were real, and he were notable, don't you think google would dig up 419 spam emails claiming to be from him? ;-) My Alt Account 04:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I should note that the talk page of the article has some very very weak evidence that this is perhaps semi-legit. But the whole concept of a Nigerian prince with a lost brother on the US east coast does not make any sense. Pascal.Tesson 04:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Hardly any context, hardly any assertion of notability (it should be noted that in many West African cultures, virtually every clan leader is referred to in royal terms, meaning that this is probably one of thousands of Nigerian "princes"), and no verifiable sources. Dylan 04:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 07:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete probably a hoax. Blankable as unverified. Robert A.West (Talk) 08:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a possible hoax. Even if not a hoax, fails WP:BIO. Thε Halo ^Θ 11:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. --MCB 03:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Like I said on this article's talk page, there are lots of these Yoruba regional kings, almost all of whom are going to be pretty difficult to verify with Google. That said, without being able to find anything more specific than evidence that a Cheif named Adetola was made a regional king (may or may not be this guy), I really don't see how we're going to be able to verify this one through reliable sources. I hate to have to see a Nigeria-related article go, because we really do suffer from a lack of them (see WP:CSB), but I don't think that we're going to find enough evidence to keep this thing. From the article, we can't even tell where this guy is supposed to be from, and he isn't mentioned in any of the Nigerian national newspapers whose archives I checked. That alone ought to raise questions of notability, since local cheifs frequently make national news. So, regrettably, I find myself having to vote delete on this one. It would be nice if the closing admin would not prevent recreation in case we're able to confirm this person's notabilty (or even existence) later. ergot 14:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 20:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Hernandez (photographer)

Article does not demonstrate notability sufficient for the terms of WP:Bio SteveHopson 04:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Spam. Robert A.West (Talk) 08:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I think this is a good faith edit and doesn't seem to be spam. The facts cited in the article match up (photos for ad campains on his website, google pages listing "alice in chains" and "paul hernandez"). However, unless I am given more evidence I still feel this fails WP:BIO per nom. Irongargoyle 23:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Markovich292 05:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pete Holly

This article is about a musician with claims to notability including Grammy Award nominations ... the problem is, most of these claims are unverifiable.

This article has been up for deletion twice before. The first time, it was deleted. After that, it was created in the Wikipedia namespace for some reason, then moved into the main namespace and nominated for deletion again, where it was closed as a "no consensus keep". In response to the "no consensus keep", I added {{fact}} templates to the article in hopes of encouraging the subject's fans to improve the verifiability of the claims. However, that was over three months ago, and nobody has made a single edit to the article since then until it was nominated for AfD.

As to the substantive claims in the article, Pete Holly's web site says "-4-GRAMMY NOMINATIONS FOR "PETE HOLLY III"- -INCLUDING ONE FOR THE VIDEO "HEART OF GOLD"-in 2006-" yet his name never appears on the most recent year's list of Grammy nominees. The article only claims that Holly has "received 4 first round nominations from "The Recording Academy"" but there is no such thing as a "first round nomination" in the Grammys. Entries to the Grammys are screened to determine eligibility, but the Grammy web site explains that "The purpose of screenings is not to make artistic or technical judgments about the recordings, but rather to make sure that each entry is eligible and placed in its proper category." [21] The only recordings that can be considered "nominees" for the Grammys are those which make the final five choices in each category, which I don't believe Pete Holly has ever done.

Maybe Pete Holly really does meet one or more of the WP:MUSIC criteria, but the article really needs verification from reliable sources, because I have never seen a musician's web site blatantly lie about his receiving Grammy nominations in the same way that Holly's does. --Metropolitan90 04:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and protect - looks like some kind of joke. This supports the notion that such an artist exists, but they all appear to not be in stock (suggesting self-published at best). All other hits point to out-of-date wikipedia mirrors (!) and myspace/sites that point to myspace. My first guess is, serial hoax. Someone named Pete Holly does have some albums, but a grammy nominee's CDs would be in stock *somewhere*. The link I provide there shows him as the producer and sound engineer, suggesting self-released. My Alt Account 05:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC) - addendum - since this has been deleted so many times and notability hasn't been verifiably established, salt the earth. My Alt Account 05:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and how could I forget to comment on [22]? I have no words to describe it, you just have to see for yourself. My Alt Account 05:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Did you look at Amazon? They have his albums in stock. Besides, having an album out of stock in an online store and a crappy website are not criteria for deletion. BTW, this is only the 3rd nomination for deletion. The previous ones were closed as no consensus. It hasn't been deleted before. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 13:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It was deleted on the first nomination, but closed with a no consensus keep the second time. See the links in the second paragraph above. --Metropolitan90 16:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I stand corrected. But that is still not a reason to delete and protect this version. I also feel that lack of attention is not a criteria for deletion. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 17:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 07:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Artist has released three albums on The Orchard (music label).[23] Meets notability criteria of WP:NMG #4. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 13:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Malber. Kappa 16:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as having longstanding verifiability problems. I pointed out in May that the article was largely unreferenced and, since then, the only article improvements have been minor spelling corrections. If, after three months, nobody has bothered to reference the article, it should be deleted. If someone wants to write a version that meets the verifiability policy such a version could be re-created without prejudice, but the article in its present state should not be kept. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've found at least one review on Rolling Stone. Unfortunately, I can't access music sites where I am. Lack of sources means the article requires {{attention}}, not deletion. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Dpbsmith. PJM 19:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Anger22 23:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Malber.--Adrift* 00:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep lack of verifiable references is a different issue than notability. FilmGal 02:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • To be clear, another editor has removed all the unverifiable content from the article since this AfD began. --Metropolitan90 03:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Scratch that, the article now contains some unsourced content again. --Metropolitan90 02:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I strongly advise the closing admin to review the content of the article at the time this discussion closes, because it has gone through about four different versions so far (i.e. with significantly different amounts of content) since this AfD began. --Metropolitan90 13:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • "lack of verifiable references is a different issue than notability." Yes, it's a much more serious issue. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Malber's comment regarding three albums on The Orchard (music label) is problematic to me. If one goes to their website, one will find that The Orchard is, as near as I can tell, a distributor of albums for independent musicians and small labels - but it is not a record label, producer, etc. They distribute more than 14,000 artists. I would suspect I could get distributed by them if I were to record something and pay them enough. The artist thus fails WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. fails WP:WEB --Madchester 00:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CCfamily

Google search turns up nothing useful. Fails WP:WEB. Article's author keeps taking the prod tags off. Sparsefarce 04:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Could probably be speedied for lack of context. Dylan 04:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No notability. Doesn't even make much sense. I agree with Dylan, this should be speedied for lack of context. ---Charles 04:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Appears to be brand new. Alexa has nothing, and google hasn't even found the site (or any reference to it) yet. Wikipedia is not for promoting new, unknown, ventures. Fan-1967 04:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete blatant spam per everyone above. My Alt Account 04:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I wouldn't bother with the speedy now that the AfD is running. It's not like it's a copyvio. Erechtheus 05:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spam. Danny Lilithborne 07:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, nonsensical spam. --S0uj1r0 08:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:WEB. Thε Halo ^Θ 11:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.UberCryxic 19:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:WEB, but I suggest you read WP:PROD before complaining that your multiple prod tags keep being removed. Removing it once is enough to make an article forever unsuitable from prodding by definition. Geoffrey Spear 20:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anger22 (talk • contribs).

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of references in Codename: Kids Next Door

An indiscriminate collection of references to other fictional works. Fine as part of an article, but not as a standalone. Lovely cruft! Wonderful cruft! Cruft cru-u-u-u-u-uft cruft cru-u-u-u-u-uft cruft. Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! Lovely cruft! Cruft cruft cruft cruft! Garrett^Talk 04:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - well, at least the article doesn't have a trivia section. Oh, wait, it is a trivia section. My Alt Account 04:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; egregious fancruft. --MCB 05:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete that's how cruft riders roll. Danny Lilithborne 07:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We just deleted one of these for Pokémon a while ago, and, while I love KND, if it's cruft for Pokémon it's SURELY cruft for anything else. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  Oh, and censure anyone who suggests we censure anyone. Myself included. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per cruftmongering. Bonus points for hilarious nomination. --S0uj1r0 08:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, helps Codename: Kids Next Door fans understand the cultural background of the work. Censure nominator for gratuituously offensive nomination. Kappa 16:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There are plenty of fansites to help fans understand the cultural background of the work. And don't indiscriminately throw claims of being offensive around. Danny Lilithborne 17:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • There are other encylopedias which partially duplicate wikipedia function but we don't close it down. I don't "indiscriminately throw claims of being offensive around", I may have to put up with offensive remarks but I'm entitled to object to them. Kappa 22:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment As I am entitled to object to your objection, and your objection to my objection to your objection. Now let's see where this ends! ^_^ Danny Lilithborne 00:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a reference to Monty Python's spam song, with "spam" replaced with "cruft". I've been using this on and off for a good year now. Garrett^Talk 20:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Please stop. Kappa 22:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Don't stop! --Calton | Talk 05:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and censure nominator for suggesting that it would be fine as part of an article. Geoffrey Spear 20:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• I support censuring for this suggestion. Censuring for 'gratuitous offensiveness', however would be absurd. It may have gratuitously used 'cruft', but I found it far more humorous than offensive. --S0uj1r0 20:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• LOL. I don't really want it in the article either, but at least there it would have length limits. Garrett^Talk 20:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as too uncontrollable of a list. But howable we don't censure anybody.-- danntm ^T _C 21:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--Peta 05:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Can someone please lend Kappa a sense of humour ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep-- I agree with Kappa's comment about 'cultural background of the work.' Furthermore, although there are some fansites that also lists the cultural background of KND, wikipedia is by far a most reconizable source thus making it an apporpriate place to post it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bertabanes (talk • contribs) .
• Comment-- Instead of deleting the article altogether and losing all of that information, I suggust someone redirect it to the main page of KND or shorten it to make it easier for some people to understand. But hey, that's just my opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bertabanes (talk • contribs) .
• Delete per nom. Indrian 02:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Nuke from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. --Calton | Talk 05:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect. Mangojuice^talk 16:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Somerset (In Death)

Minor character in the In Death series of books by Nora Roberts, not notable enough to have his own page. Additionally it is already included in a In Death character profiles at In Death Characters#Summerset --ImmortalGoddezz 05:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect per WP:FICT. Actually (with all due respect to the nom) the AfD is pretty pointless. One could be bold and just do it. Pascal.Tesson 21:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I originally listed it for speedy deletion before the character bio article was created, given the differences in spelling somerset and summerset I opted to list it for deletion rather than be bold and create a redirect.

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as a hoax. Teke^(talk) 05:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• While I know CSD doesn't outline hoaxes, sometimes you just have to be bold. No prod or Afd needed. Teke^(talk) 05:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conde du Venz, Count of Venz

I don't believe this is real. I think it is basically a hash of unrelated sentences or paragraphs from the 1911 Britannica or elsewhere. Jmabel | Talk 05:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. This thing is hard to follow; if nothing else, it needs a lot of cleaning up. Djcartwright 05:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - this is the biography of Odo, Count of Paris, with a few names changed here and there. Grutness...wha? 06:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - blatant hoax per Grutness. My Alt Account 07:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. User:Grutness is on the money. --S0uj1r0 08:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per above. VegaDark 09:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a hoax. A hoax article does not fall under a Speedy Delete. Thε Halo ^Θ 11:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The text for this article was taken directly from another article and 2 or 3 words were replaced. If that isn't speedyable then I fear what happens when vandals find that out. I'd say it falls under G3 as pure vandalism. In fact, I'm going to tag it as such right now and see what the reviewing admin decides. VegaDark 05:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Extreme Unction (talk • contribs) and Alphachimp (talk • contribs) (presumably as nonsense and non-notable). --Nlu (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blogman

Dicdef, unencyclopedic, possible original research Djcartwright 05:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nelson Onit Vazqueztell

I don't think true assertions of notability have been made, and this author does not appear to be actually notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. All books are self-published vanity press. My Alt Account 07:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. --RMHED 11:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per My Alt Account. Camillus (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a promo for a non-notable author, whose books were published by a vanity press and rank ~4 millionth or worse at Amazon.[24] [25] [26]. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vazqueztell. -- Scientizzle 18:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Scientizzle. Victoriagirl 01:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Speediable under WP:SNOW, I'd say. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The swordfish

tagged for importance, linkless, and unsourced - appears to be a ficticious work -- Robocoder (talk | contribs) 05:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't even know what to make of this. Real name? Fictional character? Indian comic book artist Shiva? Ripped his victims? WP:NN? WP:CITE? --S0uj1r0 08:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. VegaDark 09:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:FICT. I've also got concerns that this is unverifiable. Thε Halo ^Θ 11:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Notability isn't relevant. The article cites no sources and searching for some turns up nothing. Unverifiability isn't just a concern. This article is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 14:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom. Borderline speediable for no context. Irongargoyle 23:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 06:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Haberl hut

Not evidently very notable; appears more like a page from a travel brochure than anything remotely encyclopedic. Djcartwright 05:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The hut was just built this summer, so its notability will come. As it's the newest of the 25 or so alpine huts in Canada, I'm adding to Category:Mountain huts in Canada. I've asked for discussion on the WikiProject Mountains talk page, and I'd encourage you to join the project and have your say. --ghoti 06:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom... Now if only it was built on Hoy island... Irongargoyle 23:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Article makes no claim to notability. -- Chabuk 15:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • What would you consider an appropriate "claim" to notability? The hut certainly has significance to the mountaineering community, and the circumstances surrounding Jim Haberl's death and the hut are documented on the article page (I've added some more). What are your criteria? Would you suggest that the rest of the alpine huts in the Category:Mountain huts in Canada category should be deleted?  ◉ ghoti 17:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding notability, I should point out that Google has over 700 references -- quite a bit more than many other topics that are documented at wikipedia without argument. This meets Uncle G's notability criteria. And of course, the content of the article is verifiable. Some rationales would be appreciated here.  ◉ ghoti 18:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge into Mountain huts in Canada or there may be enough information to be split into Mountain huts in Alberta and Mountain huts in British Columbia (I'm referring to all the other Canadian mountain hut articles in addition to this one). These buildings provide shelter for thousands of hikers and mountaineers each year. Some of the "travel-speak" can probably be trimmed if the articles are merged. These are not sub-stubs and contain verifiable content. How can these be less notable than articles on radio towers and transmitters or for petes sake all the highly questionable (IMHO) primary school articles. If merged, all the hut names can have redirects to the new article(s). RedWolf 19:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge as RedWolf suggests. It's already notable, and as ghoti notes, it will have more published references as books are updated. Since it is short, it would make sense to merge it, but keeping as is seems fine to me as well. -- Spireguy 04:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Markovich292 05:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge per RedWolf. hike395 22:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Folks, so that I don't keep spending time creating pages that get nominated for deletion 30 seconds after creation, can you point me to the page the contains the definition of "notability" you're using? I was going by Uncle G's criteria, which states that notability is objective and measurable, but that's obviously not being being used here, or we wouldn't have to vote. Thanks.  ◉ ghoti 05:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

While I wouldn't be so negative about voting/consensus/discussion per se (since even "objective facts" can be disagreed about by imperfect humans), I agree that it is important that people have rationales. The only rationale given for the original deletion proposal was that it seemed "like a travel brochure". Since the article is about a structure that is used for recreation and a base for travel in a certain area, I have a hard time imagining an article about it that wouldn't sound a bit like a travel brochure. Facts like how many people can sleep in the hut, for example, could be considered "travel-speak," or they could be considered very pertinent information about the structure.

I would like to see more about the connection to Jim Haberl, and any special circumstances regarding the funding and construction of the hut, since those would increase the value of the article; and whenever print sources become available, those would of course be good references, further nailing down the notability. But I do find it weird that this was nominated for deletion so quickly. What's the hurry? This is not commercial spam or a personal attack. -- Spireguy 20:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment For situations like this, I like the essay WP:HOLE. This hut exists. Okay. Why should I care about it? What makes it so special that it should have its own article? Why couldnt it fit within a larger article on mountain huts in Canada? Resolute 23:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• keep or merge this per redwolf it is already notable and verifiable too Yuckfoo 05:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neomorph

Neomorph (in terms of linguistics) is an unrecognized neologism; it's in no dictionary and google scholar brings up no results on the term in relation to linguistics. Nothing is cited to back up claims. AEuSoes1 06:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC) AEuSoes1 06:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - for my part, all I can tell is that the article's creator follows the usual pattern that is seen in hoax articles. The nominator here appears to have some pretty substantial knowledge of linguistics. I hesitate to vote this far outside my expertise, but if I had to choose, it'd probably be delete. My Alt Account 07:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• This is one of several linguistics articles that the author, Nimic86 (talk • contribs), has just added. Xe asserts on Talk:Neophone that "There's always plenty of room for brand new terms which serve perfectly useful purposes.". Wikipedia isn't for promoting brand new linguistics concepts that one has just made up. And this is one such. There are no sources that describe this as a concept in linguistics.

  A neomorph is a concept in genetics. See Kiss E, Heszky LE, Gyulai G, Horvath Z, Csillag A. (1991). "Neomorph and leaf differentiation as alternative morphogenetic pathways in soybean tissue culture". Acta Biol Hung 42 (4): 313–321. PMID 1841482. for example. It is, to quote Webster 1913, a "structure, part, or organ developed independently, that is, not derived from a similar structure, part, or organ, in a preexisting form".

  This article used to redirect to mutation. It's debatable whether that is strictly the correct place, given what Webster 1913 and Abraham D. Krikorian and Liisa Kaarina Simolasays (Febuary 1999). "Totipotency, somatic embryogenesis, and Harry Waris (1893–1973)". Physiologia Plantarum 105 (2): 347. DOI:10.1034/j.1399-3054.1999.105221.x. both say. Either revert to the redirect or delete. Uncle G 15:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Original research. Djcartwright 19:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, OR, neologism. My Alt Account 19:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Already deleted earlier. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neophone

Neophone is an unrecognized neologism; it's in no dictionary and google scholar brings up no results on the term. Nothing cited to back up claims. AEuSoes1 05:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC) AEuSoes1 06:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - for my part, all I can tell is that the article's creator follows the usual pattern that is seen in hoax articles. The nominator here appears to have some pretty substantial knowledge of linguistics. I hesitate to vote this far outside my expertise, but if I had to choose, it'd probably be delete. My Alt Account 07:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• The article cites no sources. I've looked for some myself, and like Aeusoes1 I cannot find any. The author, Nimic86 (talk • contribs), asserts on Talk:Neophone that "There's always plenty of room for brand new terms which serve perfectly useful purposes.". Wikipedia isn't for promoting brand new linguistics concepts that one has just made up. original research. Delete. Uncle G 14:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - based on my new understanding that even the article's author admits this term is made up. This clears things up nicely. I'd previously planned on abstaining due to my ignorance of linguistics. My Alt Account 14:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Centrx→talk • 05:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'remier league

While this was cleaned up a lot from the one I nominated for speedy deletion, it remains unencyclopedic and not notable. Djcartwright 06:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not-notable --ArmadilloFromHell 06:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The hell? I'm starting to become of the opinion that any article without quality references should be eligible for speedy delete. —Trevyn 06:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete stupid. Should've stayed dead. Danny Lilithborne 06:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. My Alt Account 07:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:NFT. Angus McLellan (Talk) 07:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Please delete this nonsense per nom. User:Trevyn: I agree! --S0uj1r0 08:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete forthwith! Camillus (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Thε Halo ^Θ 11:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, urgh.--No more bongos 13:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this and all other drinking-games-only-known-by-one-group-of-people articles. NawlinWiki 17:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Very obviously something made up in school one day. Lazybum 23:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Can anybody say... Original Research? --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 23:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• 'elete — per nom, WP:NFT & WP:OR. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New World Thorndon

Although I shop at New World myself (a different branch), I don't think we need articles for individual branches of supermarket chains unless they are truly notable. This one ain't. Grutness...wha? 06:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Grutness...wha? 06:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Imagine if we had an article on every individual Wal-Mart. VegaDark 09:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Avenue 09:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can find multiple non-trivial references for the supermarket. --Mako 09:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non notable. Thε Halo ^Θ 11:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Totally hilarious. I know it's a novelty to squeeze a supermarket into downtown welly, but ummm. yeah. --Limegreen 01:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colin Thiele Bibliography

The WP:PROD I placed on this article was removed by its author, so I have brought it here for wider consideration. Article should be deleted per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is no precedent I'm aware of for such an article, and we should be especially wary about creating one. cj | talk 06:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- cj | talk 06:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep while I'm not the biggest fan of the format, Colin Thiele was indeed a very prolific and notable children's author. Far from being an indiscriminate collection of information, this is a very precise and discriminate list of his works--it just so happens to be so abundant that it would overwhelm the main Colin Thiele page.205.157.110.11 07:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but move to Colin Thiele bibliography. Compare naming format to articles such as Kylie Minogue discography. -- Chuq 07:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep DXRAW 07:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename as per Chuq. Confusing Manifestation 09:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it. --The Dok 13:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Good info, well set out, but merge to Colin Thiele. Lankiveil 01:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename per Chuq. Thiele was one of Australia's most prolific authors see [27]. Capitalistroadster 04:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename. Ansell 05:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a collection of bibliographies. A link should be provided on the Colin Thiele page to an off-site bibliography. michael ^talk 05:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename per Chuq. We can afford a bibliography on one of the most prolific authors of Australia. RFerreira 05:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or delete. All this infor is easily accessed elsewhere. --Peta 06:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. I recommend reducing the extent of the bibliography, and provide external links to full versions. --Design 00:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename per Chuq. MojoTas 06:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge a select biography to Colin Thiele and provide links to a complete one. SM247^{My Talk} 06:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Markovich292 05:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mangojuice^talk 13:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Free Range Studios

This article is about a small, non-notable graphics company. It is maintained by a single user and reads like an advertisement with no critical insite or references. It sets a bad example for any small start up with a few web films who wants to use Wiki as a free billboard. James Gordon 22:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)(This nomination was this editor's first edit)

• Delete as above. Also delete the unnotable film The Meatrix from the same people. DJ Clayworth 22:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Full Disclosure: I am a Free Range employee. Free Range might not be a name as well known as the larger communications firms Porter Novelli or Fleishman Hillard, which both have entries here in Wiki, but ask almost any non-profit organization with a presence in DC, and they will know Free Range. They will know the Meatrix. In the world of non-profit advocacy, Free Range has and is playing a significant role that's worthy of notation here in Wiki. In this sense, Free Range is not "non-notable." By putting our entry up on Wiki, we embrace the idea that anyone can edit our entry. We hope they do. But by removing our entry, I'd argue we're missing documenting an important player within the heart of America's progressive non-profit community. -- Susan Finkelpearl, Saturday, Sept. 2, 2006, 9:47 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sfinkelpearl (talk • contribs) .(This editor has only contributed to this AfD and the article under consideration)
• Keep.I'd like to comment in defense of this article and the signifigance of Free Range Studio's presence in both the non-profit world and the popular culture world. From the definition and guidelines of the Wikipedia Notabillity article for Company's and Corporations: "A company or corporation is notable if it meets any of the following criteria: The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." The Free Range article has been updated with over a dozen citations and references from independent, non-trivial sources discussing Free Ranges' works. A google search of Free Range Studios will yield hundreds of articles discussing Free Range and its work. These hits range from major news papers and film festivals all the way down to personal blogs and online forums. Clearly there is a large and independent interest in the notable work of Free Range. The Meatrix created an internet viral phenomenon, was viewed over 10 million times and won a Webby Award in 2005. [28]Eriq Wities 20:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wities (talk • contribs) .(This editor has contributed only to this AfD, the article under consideration, and closely related articles)
• Keep. In addition to the posting above, I'd like to also comment in defense of this article. As a person rather well-versed in the non-profit technology community, Free Range has clearly met the Wikipedia standard of "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". A huge number of individuals in in the progressive non-profit sector has been touched by one of Free Range's works, including Store Wars which has been published and commented on by everyone from About.com to Business Week. To delete this entry would be slap in the face to the non-profit community. -- Ryan Ozimek, Monday, Sept. 4, 2006, 18:32 EDT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.156.164.47 (talk • contribs) .(This comment is this editor's only edit)
• Comment. I'd like to now point out that user "Eriq Wities", who is defending this article, has also created an article about himself. This Free Range is a virus spreading non notable articles. I believe it needs to be stopped now. Please vote delete on this article as well as on the deletion page I've created for Eriq Wities. Thank you. --James Gordon 07:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)'

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Herostratus 07:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: Every single commentor so far, including the nominator, with the exception of one Delete vote by actual user DJ Clayworth, has contributed only to this AfD or related articles. So I think we are starting with a clean slate, here. Are there any disinterested parties willing to take a look at this? Herostratus

• Delete Currently it's spam that fails WP:CORP with some tinges of WP:VANITY as well by the employees working on the article. 205.157.110.11 07:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. After initially being skeptical, having read the entire article and going through the sources I can say say this is a notable company that passes WP:CORP. It needs a NPOV rewrite though as in some places it reads as if it was written by someone who works for the company. VegaDark 07:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep and Strong Rewrite - per VegaDark. Marginal on the usual WP:CORP criteria but the company's projects appear exceptional. My Alt Account 07:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not shown. Sock/meatpuppetry suggests spamming intent behind article. --Nlu (talk) 09:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The article reads like it was written by an advertising firm. It's clearly not WP:NPOV and it looks a lot like WP:ADS. Many of the claims lack verifiability and could be considered original research. It's not very encyclopedic. Publishing both a "Mission Statement" and a "Vision Statement", in addition to a listing of employees and an accompanying image, all seem a bit WP:VANITY. It appears that this company has produced some interesting material, but so have countless other advertising firms around the world. I'm not seeing anything particularly distinguishing here, despite the numerous examples of WP:PEACOCK used to describe their work. If the article could be rewritten in a more neutral, less commercial tone, I would vote to keep it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Authalic (talk • contribs) .

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

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

The result was delete. If this guy is the Persian version (oo, rhymes) of P-diddy, the article can be recreated when it can be verified. Re:Mubed, that wouldn't be a move, that would be a different article. I encourage you to create it. Mangojuice^talk 16:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mehrdad

Biography of a non-notable person. Not enough personal information to be considered as a biography. Commercial form of representing the person (unencyclopedic). Insufficient evidence like links to the works, make this person notable, or sources mentioning this person. Repeted removal of {{subst:prod}}. Mubed 06:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral I think more research will need to go into this. There is a claim for notability and for all we know this guy could be the Persian version of P-diddy. Currently it's unreferenced and far from a perfect state but if notability can be established then it's worth keeping. 205.157.110.11 07:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Good point. If "9 successful albums" is anywhere close to true, he's easily notable. I would be slow on the trigger with this one, especially as the original author seems to be familiar with contemporary Persian musicians but very unfamiliar with English wikipedia :-\ My Alt Account 07:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I googled him a bit. Anything written about his biogrphay is taken from his official site and so you can't know if it's realy true or not, well that's the story he has told! I didn't find 9 albums but 6. There was no information about how successful they were, but none of them was listed in any top 10 or something like that. It lookes like, he was not a very successfull singer in the past, but he got famous after singing together with Googoosh (the most popular female singer of Iran). I found also something about his family: "Mehrdad AsemAni left his 1 year old daughter (Maahak) to be with his gf (GooGoosh). Mehrdad's wife (daughter of a rich iranian merchant) took her daughter and left him to Iran." [29]

• Move Another point is, that "Mehrdad" is a popular persian name, with relativly old history. There were some important kings in persian history who were called Mehrdad (M. I, M. II, ...), so the first content which is associated with this name is some historical persons like Cyrus and Darius. Dariush is one of the most popular iranian singers, but you won't get any information about him on Darius. The same is with "Amadeus". No-one has written an article about Mozart and called it "Amadeus", although he may be the most famous "Amadeus", so an article about Mr. Mehrdad Asemani, who is not even the most popular and well-known "Mehrdad" shouldn't also be called Mehrdad, but "Mehrdad_Asemani". See also de: Mehrdad. Mubed 07:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no verifiable evidence of notability provided.-Peta 04:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. El_C 11:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pacific Coast Railway

• Also: Pacific coast railway.

Fails WP:NN, non-notable place. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 07:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This page replaces poorly capitalized "Pacific coast railway"

• Keep. We will have to figure out whether we need both this article and Pacific Coast Railroad, but there is no emergency. Robert A.West (Talk) 07:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Pacific Coast Railroad. There may be no emergency, but it would be best to resolve this since it has come up for discussion. Erechtheus 08:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge No need to have two stubs for related entities, no matter how notable they are. If they're expanded and become unwieldy they can always be unmerged. ~ trialsanderrors 08:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (or merge). -- RHaworth 09:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect per Erechtheus and trialsanderrors. No more bongos 13:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep historically relevant and encyclopaedic information on narrow gauge railwy in California. Ohconfucius 02:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge, whatever, but this is not an appropriate discussion to be having on AFD, as deleting this is inconceivable. RFerreira 05:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Pacific Coast Railroad has been made a redirect to this article, so merge is moot. Can we get a speedy close? Robert A.West (Talk) 21:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magreaux dog

Very minor (3-strip) plot arc on the webcomic Achewood. Originally I suggested a merge, but seeing as it ended up being such a minor part of the strip, it's not even worth mentioning in the Achewood article. See Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C, after which this "character" is gone. Only 17 unique Google hits for "Magreaux dog," and they're all bulletin boards or blogs/myspaces referencing Achewood. -Elmer Clark 07:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Achewood is among the most notable webcomics, but no current webcomic needs seperate articles on every character, story arc, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 07:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fancruft. My Alt Account 07:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - yeah, have to go with delete on this one. If the main characters don't have their own articles, it's hard to justify one for this tiny blip of a plot. john k 10:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, strongly agree with Andrew. When I first read the strip I actually came on Wikipedia to see what the hell a Magreaux dog was or if Magreaux referred to anything. Turns out he just made it up. Oh well. Recury 20:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, man why you gotta do such a thing we was cold scared right then you know i mean damn RBeefK 08:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: RBeefK (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

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

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

The result was delete Mangojuice^talk 16:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of number-one hits on the Radio & Records CHR/Pop Chart (U.S.) and subpages

Before all of these are created, we should probably figure out whether annual charts are notable and not copyrighted. (The charts for 2005 hold the copyright notice © 2006 VNU eMedia Inc. All rights reserved., terms of use here). This AfD does not include the entry on Radio & Records itself, which should be notable, but all annual charts created as subpages. ~ trialsanderrors 07:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 00:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as copyvio. VNU website states that: "copying or storing of any Content for other than personal use is expressly prohibited without prior written permission from VNU."--TBCTaLk?!? 00:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per TBC. --Aaron 00:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Resolute 04:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete before we run in to copyright problems caused by this. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 07:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as (a) likely copyvio and (b) a copy of a primary source anyway. Guy 14:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. I was going to say merge, but then I looked at the wonderful Ohio State University article and didn't want to ruin it with a merge from this article. The content is basically just a two-line description and a bunch of external links, anyway. If someone wants to include it in another article, do so. Mangojuice^talk 16:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WebMediaCollective

Contested prod, does not seem to be notable outside OSU. MER-C 08:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral - There's a chance this is worthy of inclusion as a separate article, but not as it's currently written. There are many OSU articles; perhaps it could be rolled into one of those as well. My Alt Account 08:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Ohio State University. Irongargoyle 23:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with MER-C about the non-notability outside OSU. Please advise best way of resolving this. --Sunbomb 19:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge --Peta 06:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Traffic Manager

Subject is a non-notable software product authored by a single individual who appears to have a connection to the product's company NetUP. Delete per WP:CORP and WP:ADS Justin 08:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Erechtheus 08:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Valrith 21:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Konstantin Emelyanov (talk • contribs).

Comment note that the above was by the author of the article. MER-C 08:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as spam. MER-C 08:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Don't delete the article. I'm very tired to explain to everyone that this is not spam, this is not an advertisment because nobody can find the article without knowing its name a priori. Please, stop defaming me and the article by messages as "delete this spam" as I'm a real author, and the software is well known among ISP and Telecom companies. It is popular among huge ISPs because of it's phenomenal performance. Or just delete it at all, with all the detractive messages, I didn't suspect such behavour of Wikipedia members. Regards, Konstantin Emelyanov

Comment This is not completely accurate. There is an internal link to this article from the UTM disambiguation page which has been deleted twice and reverted twice by the author of this article. Whether the subject of this article is popular among ISPs or not, it clearly does not meet the definition of a "notable company" as described on WP:CORP Justin 17:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment to the comment: This comment is not that exact. The author of the comment doesn't possesses the full information, he doesn't know the exact reason of deletion and doesn't know what was happening after that.

Comment: The reasons behind this request for deletion were the failure to meet the notability criteria in WP:CORP and the appearance of an advertisement masquerading as an article, see WP:ADS. The article also fails to cite any sources, it has a single editor, and as such, it appears to be original research. It certainly lacks any sort of verifiability of claims made in this AfD discussion, such as "huge ISPs" and "phenomenal performance".

The request for deletion is not a personal attack. It is not a statement on this product or the work of User:Konstantin_Emelyanov. He appears to be a new user and may not be fully familiar with certain policies, particularly regarding the AfD process (see user talk page). If there is any way the article can be modified to be in compliance with content policies, in good faith, I will support keeping it. Justin 18:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment to the comment: Information about the partners is available on the original Russian web site of the company: http://www.netup.ru/teh_partners.php , http://www.netup.ru/biz_partners.php . You may contact the company and ask questions in order to check whatever you need. Also, please see the certificates, which are legal documents granted by the ministry of communications of Russia. If this is not believable, ask about that in the ministry. The scanned certificates may be seen here: http://www.netup.biz/certificate.php. There may be also seen some technical details. If you need any other info, please contact the company. Best regards, Konstantin

• I can't tolerate this criticism any more. Why are you so captious? I thought that anyone can publish an article in Wikipedia. It's very easy to criticize whatever another man does. Ok, let's delete it instead of improving the content. Come on! You have created real public legal proceedings here. Let's proceed to the execution.
• Delete nn software.--Peta 06:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• This cannot be advertisement because of the article cannot be found without knowing it a priori. These two articles (User Traffic Manager, NetUP) are linked one to another. But there are no other external links, that's why this is a loop system. What is the problem, I can't comprehend? Konstantin

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

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

The result was delete. The burden of WP:CORP has not been met. It's not policy, but no good reason to ignore it has been provided. Mangojuice^talk 16:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NetUP

Subject is an advertisement for a non-notable software company. Google search returns other companies and products with the same name and a number of questions posted on message boards which are remarkably similar to each other. Delete per WP:CORP and WP:ADS Justin 08:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This company's product User Traffic Manager is also nominated for deletion. It was a Google search for that product which returned the multiple message board postings with similar wording. Justin 08:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Valrith 21:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Don't delete the article. I'm very tired to explain to everyone that this is not spam, this is not an advertisment because nobody can find the article without knowing its name a priori. Please, stop defaming me and the article by messages as "delete this spam" as I'm a real author, and the company is well known among ISP and Telecom companies. I didn't suspect such behavour of Wikipedia members. Regards, Konstantin Emelyanov
• Delete per nom. --Peta 06:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• This cannot be advertisement because of the article cannot be found without knowing it a priori. These two articles (User Traffic Manager, NetUP) are linked one to another. But there are no other external links, that's why this is a loop system. What is the problem, I can't comprehend? Konstantin
• Keep WP:CORP is only a guideline, Wikipedia is not paper Markovich292 05:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete According to the article "NetUP also contributed to popularization of Linux in Russia". If this is correct the company is can be notable but only if the effect was enough to create a verifiable source for this. Until then there are thousands of software companies in Moscow and, until something comes out to show that this one is special, I'm afraid the article should be deleted. --Spartaz 23:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Information about the partners is available on the original Russian web site of the company: http://www.netup.ru/teh_partners.php , http://www.netup.ru/biz_partners.php . Also, please see the certificates, which are legal documents granted by the ministry of communications of Russia. The scanned certificates may be seen here: http://www.netup.biz/certificate.php. Best regards, Konstantin

Comment I'm not disputing that the company exists or that your software is registered in Russia so neither of those links is particularly helpful. Lets go back to notability and you providing some independant verification of the assertion that your company is "popularizing Linux in Russia". Cpacibo! --Spartaz 16:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Ok. NetUP has developed several opensource projects: http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/ndsad/ ; http://sourceforge.net/projects/get-xyz . Linux Live CD was sent more than 3,000 times, its image was downloaded more than 7,000 times (totally more than 10,000 times). Yours, Konstantin

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 10:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bib2x

Non notable new software, fails Wikipedia:Notability (software), only 273 Google hits (64 distinct ones, 47 excluding Wikipedia links) Fram 08:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete (as original prod'er) per nom. Looks new and non-notable. Fan-1967 14:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no need for us to become a freshmeat mirror. I looked for evidence of widespread usage, including the "do distros package it?" test. Results point to NN. My Alt Account 17:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Don't delete. Free software/open source.--elwikipedista 19:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  Oh, is that all it takes to get in Wikipedia? In that case, I'd better hurry up and write a very detailed article on this, it's open source! My Alt Account 19:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - WP is not Sourceforge. Valrith 21:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, My Alt Account and Valrith. If the consensus is delete, the link to here in BibTeX should probably be moved to the External Links section and changed to a link directly to the software website. I presume Bib-it will be up on the chopping block next. Michael Kinyon 11:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Markovich292 05:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 07:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reform Act 1886

I believe this article has been created in error, see Talk:Reform Act 1886, and 1886's Acts of Parliament Kurando | ^_^ 08:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Lincolnite 16:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; article appears to have no actual substantive content except the note that it was a mistake. --MCB 06:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Knight

Disputed prod. Autobigraphy. Does this guy satisfy Wikipedia notability criterai? -- RHaworth 08:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Lincolnite 16:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Anger22 23:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nope! RFerreira 05:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; WP:AUTO, WP:BIO. --MCB 06:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Ohé en Laak, their location, as I've already merged all the info in this article to there. --- Deville (Talk) 07:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Walburgia

Walburgia plays in the zesde klasse, which is only the ninth league in Dutch football, and the seventh league in Dutch amateur football. This club is about as non-notable as it gets. Aecis ^{Appleknocker Flophouse} 08:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, unremarkable amateur soccer team Fram 10:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. NawlinWiki 17:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep -- bad faith nom. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salim Saifullah Khan

A.M Khan nominated this article on the page but did not complete the process. I'm listing it for him. -- The Bethling^(Talk) 09:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC) Speedy DeleteAs this article is 90% unreferrenced and based upon lies, I plea for it's deletion. Please, discuss and look forward for an appropriate action. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A M. Khan (talk • contribs) .

• Keep. No criterion for deletion, let alone a criterion for speedy deletion, has been given. If it's based upon lies, please elaborate what lies are there. In any case, if subject is notable, remedy is to fix article into a factually correct form rather than to delete article. --Nlu (talk) 09:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Bad faith nom by A.M Khan, who apparently doesn't like the article's subject. My Alt Account 11:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- Mereda 11:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Subject is an obviously verifiable Federal Minister in the current Government of Pakistan [30]. --Mereda 11:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. A well known politician and a Federal Minister of Pakistan. This nomination reflects the bad faith of User: A M. Khan. -- Marwatt 12:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SAMCO Monitoring Glossary

Non-notable e-book (?) about structural monitoring. No Google hits except Wikipedia and SAMCO itself, no reliable sources given. May be WP:SPAM. Was already speedied as a copyvio, but claimed to be released under GFDL, "as confirmed by permission sent to Wikipedia with number 2006062810005608." Delete Huon 09:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - apparent spam/hoax/whatever, in any case it's not verifiable and wouldn't be notable enough for inclusion if it were completely true, so, no chance for this article. My Alt Account 10:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Justin 10:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SPAM. By the way, the article's creator was User:Judith wallisch, and a Google search reveals that someone named Judith Wallisch is/was a SAMCO employee. Michael Kinyon 12:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joakim Tangstad

Probably a hoax or autobiography, no verifiable facts

• Delete This article has many faults. First of all it does not come with any verifiable facts, just claims of different types. Secondly this article does after my opinion not come with any bio facts (like birth, education, present jobs etc) which can be used to verify that this is not a fraud. Third of all there is a claim that this person is the first non-sami to live in Lakselv, something that I doubt since there have been non-sami living there for probably hundreds of years. And it also makes unsourced claims in relation to Lakselv Airport, Banak. In the talk page it is claimed that the person has been on TV2 (Norway) and TVNorge, but not what programs, if it was a regular or as a prop. This is not mentioned in the article itself. A serch on Google and Kvasir (Norwegian serch engine) shows nothing that can verify that the person is actually noteworthy of any kind. Neither has repeated questions to the author about finding some sort of source that can verify the integrety of the person has not been answered. The article has also been deleted previously on September 7, while this article was recreated on September 8. I suspect this article is either a hoax or an autobiography. Arsenikk 09:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO, WP:V. --Huon 09:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per Huon. Coincidentally, the page's author has other "biographical" contributions that have been called into question, and he likes marking major edits as minor, but I'm sure that's only a coincidence. My Alt Account 10:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO if it's even about a real person. Punkmorten 11:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Huon. --No more bongos 13:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete junk. Danny Lilithborne 18:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator, fails the everything test. RFerreira 05:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accounted Truth

Protologism, fails WP:NEO, Google shows only two uses with the article's meaning (the samco.org hits, obviously related). Was twice deleted as copyvio, but claimed to be released under GFDL, "as confirmed by permission sent to Wikipedia with number 2006062810005608." Delete --Huon 09:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - WTH? protologism + some of the most blatant spam I've ever seen. Nice combo. Bye. My Alt Account 10:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; nn neologism/protologism bordering on nonsense. --MCB 06:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PayPlay

Advert for non-notable company. --Pak21 10:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - but not after congratulating them on getting their press release into Wikipedia! Enjoy it while it lasts. Can't fully verify that they fail WP:CORP because the only real info I can find out about their company is that they're an LLC, and probably based in the US. 100% complete lack of independent news coverage (other than press release reprints) points strongly to deletion. My Alt Account 10:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Apart from the press releases everywhere, there seem to be about 100 or so proper google hits. I can't find any references other than the press release on notable sites. Of course, per WP:AUTO, these don't count - and so WP:CORP is failed. --No more bongos 13:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per No more bongos. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Lincolnite 16:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per WP:ADS Justin 18:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allen Street

A mass nomination for the streets of Penn State University. These streets are non notable outside the university: some of them have been nominated for merging, and while I have no reason to oppose a merge of info (if people want that info in the main article, be my guest), I would oppose the keeping of the generic "allen street" as a redirect to Penn State University. I don't oppose the inclusion of major, famous streets (highways, major streets in big cities, Monopoly streets, ... ) but the inclusion of every street of a University campus is overkill. I'll add the other related articles below Fram 10:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Atherton Street
• Beaver Avenue
• Bigler Road
• Burrowes Road
• Calder Way
• College Avenue
• Curtin Road
• Garner Street
• Park Avenue (State College)
• Pollock Road
• Pugh Street
• Shortlidge Road
• University Drive

These are the articles in the category Roads in State College.

Also added:

• Downtown State College

11:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I think you are on to a loser here. Pretty-well every road in the USA appears to be on Wikipedia, even if it's entry is something like highway X is Z miles long. The precident seems to be set, so I think you're going to have to live with this little lot. Markb 13:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there is quite a difference between a highway and a campus road. And I wonder if e.g. any other road in Centre County, Pennsylvania (excluding highways) has been included in Wikipedia yet, or if any other similar roads to these ones have survived any AfD yet. I suer haven't seen such precedent yet. Fram 13:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not Google maps. Nice pictures, though. Add them to a gallery on the university's article. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a road atlas, and it'd suck at it if we tried (in current form). Per the usual standards, it's not obvious why any of these roads are notable by themselves, nor is it obvious how we could write more than 2-5 sentences of non-crufty information about each one before getting hopelessly mired in inanity. Yeah, I'm probably wandering off into my own opinion here. My Alt Account 17:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Move all these articles to Penn State University/xxx, there's precedent for moving streetname into subarticles of their location. There's definitely more than one "Calder Way" out there. --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Article subpages are not allowed, see Wikipedia:Subpages. An article streets of Penn State University could be a solution if people think it is necessary to have this information Fram 05:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Move all of these into one article as per Fram's suggestion above; as a State Collegian, I myself find it unnecessary to have an article for each of this town's streets. However, because some of the streets have interesting stories, I would like to see them all collected on one article, perhaps Streets of State College (as most of the streets are not within PSU itself). I'll try to add a few blurbs (such as streets' histories and name origins) to each section. Additionally, in the roads section of the infrastructure for State College, the highways can be left alone, and the list roads can be replaced with a link to Streets of State College. --Ratiocinate 16:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per previous comments. Vegaswikian 23:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; there was a batch of road articles like these about roads in Norfolk, Virginia that were pretty much all deleted a few months ago. Mangojuice^talk 16:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Some streets are notable. These aren't. -- Necrothesp 00:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 20:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AirTODO

Sourceforge project, less than a thousand ghits of which about 170 unique. No evidence of meeting WP:SOFTWARE. Guy 10:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nomination. Orsini 16:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's essentially an ad. Michael Kinyon 12:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under A7. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pizza Dave

I do not think it is possible to write an entry befiting an encyclopedia on this subject. —Encephalon 11:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I think it's possible - all you need is for multiple independent reputable sources to write many articles that are primarily about Pizza Dave! And, trust me, we have much worse than that. Still, I can't find sufficient coverage of this subject, so it'll have to go for now. My Alt Account 11:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • ...all you need is for multiple independent reputable sources to write many articles that are primarily about Pizza Dave! Precisely. ;-) —Encephalon 11:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advert. Camillus (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN, No coverage. --No more bongos 12:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Achievo

No evidence of meeting WP:SOFTWARE, 142 unique Googles [31]. Creator has virtually no history other than creating and linking this article. Guy 11:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Clearly advertising. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:SOFT, and certainly does look like an advert. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete though the title made me chuckle. From the makers of Achievo, "Make-your-dreams-come-trueo!" Danny Lilithborne 18:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Anger22 22:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Geni under CSD A7. MER-C 13:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Jake Donnelly

Probable vanity page. Child playing in a youth football league. No indication that he, his team, or his league are notable. No Google hits. PROD removed without explanation. -Elmer Clark 12:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - CSD A7. Tagged as such. MER-C 12:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Geni under CSD G7. MER-C 13:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catholicism and Freemasonry/example

I created this article to demonstrate a proposed wording for a change to another article. The issue was discussed and resolved. There is no need to have this article or its associated talk page. AfD proposed by article creator. Blueboar 13:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete, I tagged the article as a speedy delete under criteria G7. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BHW

An extremely not-notable backyard wrestling federation. Nonsense claims such as being the biggest PPV, hell even being a PPV alone is nonsense. Vanity article as the creator is User:BHW and may also fall under wikipedia not being for stuff made up in school one day. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I was unable to verify the claims of the article (such as the claim that the federation exists), but as soon as I hunt them down, I will wrestle them all, and take their federation's world heavyweight championship title. Next, I'll recreate the article. My Alt Account 12:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Lincolnite 16:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this and all other backyard wrestling federations. NawlinWiki 17:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't think there are any notable backyard feds(the same way that individualy e-feds are not notable). TJ Spyke 22:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, arguably there is one in the OMEGA federation. –– Lid^(Talk) 06:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That is the exception, and mainly because it was from the Hardy Boyz, but I think you would agree that in general backyard feds are not notable. TJ Spyke 21:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• In nearly all of them that is true, but I was stating the exception to the rule. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ros Bates

This article is about a candidate who failed to get elected in the recent Queensland state election. BrightLights 12:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions --- BrightLights 12:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I've restored the article to the version of a few days ago as all of the (possibly vain) content was removed. Still she seems to not meet any of the requirements of WP:BIO as a failed state political candidate and the subject of no notable news articles I can find. - Peripitus (Talk) 13:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I can't see anything that makes her pass WP:BIO. Thε Halo ^Θ 14:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - losing candidate. Lincolnite 16:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete as a losing candidate--Whpq 17:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as an unsuccessful candidate. Fifteen references in the Ebbsco Australia New Zealand database all related to her role as a candidate. Capitalistroadster 04:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Peta 06:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete never should have had a page in the first place Teiresias84 13:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. --Roisterer 14:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable.--cj | talk 04:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete failed candidate (for my own electorate no less), non-notable and article is not WP:NPOV. SM247^{My Talk} 06:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was SPEEDY KEEP. Nobody wants this deleted any more, so we're done here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Navel lint

I would say non-notable - and I would tend to lean towards the view that being the subject of an Ig Nobel Prize would tend to confirm this rather than give any basis or grounding for an article. Only sources are seemingly non-notable sites. The tone isn't exactly encyclopedic either, and I would say delete. No more bongos 12:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - The article's claims at least cursorily look correct and the sources support it. I will grant that the second link is a bit gratuitous. My Alt Account 12:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC) -- addendum, I really don't know how to address notability with this type of content, but suffice it to say I'm not concerned. At least in this case. My Alt Account 13:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I just don't see myself why it is a subject worthy of an encyclopedia article. Counter-arguments on the talk page have included the presence of such articles as Exploding Whale - but while this has received non-trivial press coverage, the only press coverage Navel Lint appears to have received is in connection with the Ig Nobel prize. Surely there's a reason why these prizes are awarded? If it wasn't for the prize, the first link would also be viewed as gratuitous and non-notable, i'm sure. I'm open to any valid reasons to keep, however - i'm just realising that those last few sentences could be interpreted by some as overbearing... - should I write articles on Exploding trousers; Artificial dog testicles; Television viewing by locusts, or communication among herring by farting? --No more bongos 13:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • This isn't the sort of subject you can evaluate based on the number of news articles. Aerodynamics, Ballistics and Capacitors get no non-trivial press coverage, but they all deserve articles. We're not talking about people, organizations, or historical events here. Happily, much of the treatment of navel lint presents no verification obstacles, since the subject matter is so near at hand... My Alt Account 14:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, what I should have said was "press or academic". I would, myself, immediately define a study into it which won an Ig Nobel prize as being trivial. Others may disagree, though. I do see what you're trying to say, but I still think it has no place as an article of its own. Claus Diff's suggestion to merge seems like a possible compromise, and if consensus heads that way, I wouldn't have a problem. --No more bongos 15:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• looks like it should merge into Umbilicus. Claus Diff 13:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Everyone has heard of it, and the article goes well beyond a dicdef. There's actually a lot of weird stuff to say about navel lint, both in terms of its color variations as well as the things people do with it. Zagalejo 14:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There are similar articles. in at least 5 other languages. Zagalejo 14:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, ubiquitous substance. Kappa 15:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I was sure that this would be an easy article to delete, but, lo and behold, the article actually addresses the subject in an encyclopedic fashion. I guess I may lose a title for a sample article that is a sure bet for deletion, but this article should stay. Ig Nobel or not, the research was done and the info regarding the scholarly work in the field is from verifiable reliable sources. Alansohn 16:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I know some people are annoyed at how this is turning out, and I can sympathize. But look at the bright side - there's no way Brittanica's treatment of navel lint is anywhere near as informative as ours (someone verify please). My Alt Account 16:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it's a verifiable phenomenon with sources provided in the article. --Whpq 17:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Nomination Withdrawn - Close Please - There seems to be a consensus to keep, so to save a long, drawn-out argument, I'm withdrawing the nomination. This isn't to say that I agree with the arguments to keep - I firmly believe the consensus reached is the wrong one. This is entirely without prejudice to any further AFD, either by myself or somebody else. Nevertheless, I would like the nomination withdrawn, as I have no desire to get into lengthy arguments, or to waste editors' time with bloated AFD discussions. No more bongos 20:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Automation in Construction

A small bit of original research with no discernible encyclopedic value. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 12:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The lack of references does not help. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and be done with it. Lincolnite 16:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep; withdrawn. MCB 06:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yua Aida

*Delete per WP:PORNBIO - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per 1.5million Ghits, 66 DVDs and 14 books on sale at amazon.co.jp, inclusion in Japanese wikipedia, along with several other recent similar discussions regarding the appropriateness of PORNBIO for some of these articles. Neier 13:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 13:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but is in desperate need of references/external links. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Neier. WP:PORN BIO is (unsurprisingly) woefully biased towards the American porn industry, as I'm sure you can tell just by looking at many of its criteria. ja:あいだゆあ lists about 70 videos and other publications, which actually puts her close to the massively disproportionate requirement of 100 in PORNBIO (which would be typically many times harder to meet for Japanese AV actresses due to the fact that most Japanese DVD releases are a single girl with many scenes, instead of many girls with just one or two scenes each as in the US). --Rankler 15:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Regardless of any perceived bias in WP:BIO or the proposed WP:PORN BIO, actress does not seem to be verifiably notable. - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Rankler, verifiable popular performer. Kappa 15:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (though Deletion nomination has apparently withdrawn for now) - per Neier and Rankler. Clearly notable, though the article itself does need expanding and sourcing. I'll try to do some work on it later. Dekkappai 17:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it's clear enough from the Japanese Wikipedia entry that this would pass a hypothetical Japanese-oriented equivalent of the WP:PORN BIO proposal. — Haeleth Talk 19:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bethany Knox

Nominating as a previous prod was removed. I don't see how casting directors are notable. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 13:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. If there was anything interesting to be said about this person it would have already been in the article. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 18:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect. - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Make You Feel Better

Song stub of a rumored single. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Stadium Arcadium. Article shows none of the qualities needed at WP:SONG. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Stadium Arcadium per The JPS. --feydey 13:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect. - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Desecration Smile

Song stub of a rumored single. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Stadium Arcadium. Article shows none of the qualities needed at WP:SONG. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Stadium Arcadium per The JPS. --feydey 13:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Punkmorten 20:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rockinfreakapotamus

Non-notable fan club, reads like an advertisement. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No signs of notability, and the tone is really bad. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -_- Danny Lilithborne 18:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collendina

Contested prod about a non-notable town. MER-C 13:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep Seems like a notable neighborhood/section of a town. Has some history, no reason to think it's untrue. Meaningful Google coverage is a bit scarce though, but that might be expected for the historical stuff. [32] --W.marsh 14:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions -- Longhair 14:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC) (UTC)
• Keep -- the place certainly exists, though I'd have to do a check on the accuracy of some of the information within. The Collendina Pub is somewhat famous among locals of Geelong though it's been years since I've been there myself. - Longhair 14:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Ebbsco's Australia and New Zealand database has 105 hits mainly from the Geelong Advertiser. It seems to be a reasonably well known locality at least in the area. Capitalistroadster 04:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to town article.--Peta 06:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I'm of the opinion that a town is inherently notable, and even a section of a town if the history about the administrative split from Ocean Grove can be verified. Will need to be moved to Collendina, Victoria as per naming conventions for Australian places, and to disambiguate from the town in New South Wales [33]. --Canley 09:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• KeepThere was no documentation on the internet about my town or now suburb as many see it, so I decided to use wikipedia to put a bit about the history. If you need proof of existance use http://www.street-directory.com.au it is marked on there(at detail level 5). but it is more considered by the locals to start at tuckfeild street. The infomation I have written is gathered from people who have lived in Ocean Grove longer than me. The Handshake is an actual handshake (this section was deleated, I'm not sure how many people still know it, but it does exist at least me and my friends still use it. I dont mind if that section isnot deemed encyclopedia worthy, but the histroy is definatly worthy Koikaze 10:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

What goes into articles should be from published sources, though offline sources are fine. I doubted that the handshake thing met this criteria... but if you have a source, feel free to re-add it. --W.marsh 13:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, it's a real place that exists, which is good enough per well established precedent (the Rambot stubs). The area officially called Collendina (east of Bonnyvale Rd) is small and not terribly notable because there is little development yet, although as Koikaze says, east of Tuckfield St/Grubb Rd is usually considered Collendina. Here's a link to a map: [34]. --bainer (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete since already mentioned at OpenView. Mangojuice^talk 17:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OpenView Service Desk

Contested prod about non-notable software. MER-C 13:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - already has a one-line entry in the heinous list at OpenView, that's plenty. My Alt Account 14:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

HP OV SD is one of the flagship in the ITIL domain. Day by day lots of compnaies are moving towards ITIL pratice. Visit the forum http://forums1.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/categoryhome.do?categoryId=160 or use Google with HP Service Desk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ashlyak (talk • contribs).

• Merge to OpenView. Michael Kinyon 11:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boiseworker.com

Spammy contested prod. MER-C 13:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a non-notable site. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 13:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:WEB by about 186,000 miles. My Alt Account 14:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Lincolnite 16:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Treet. Danny Lilithborne 18:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. As the dance frenzy peaks once again. El_C 10:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chop-The-Snake

Neologism, bad joke - take your pick. cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 13:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Just sensible enough to avoid being nonsense, gorram it. -- Merope ^{Talk to me}/_{Review me} 14:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Very bad joke, indeed - delete. Lincolnite 16:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, nonsense. NawlinWiki 17:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unfunny nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 18:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete as A7. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bestiality's Best Boys

Non-notable improvisational song. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William H. Kennedy

I am placing this article up for AFD at the request of its subject. As a result of malicious vandalism to the article (see OTRS ticket #2006090810001751) he has asked us to consider deleting it. In his own words:

Please express to the editors that I hate being listed on Wikipedia because of the open source policy which has caused lies to spread about me.

I have explained to him that we don't as a matter of course delete articles on notable individuals even at their request, but in fairness to Mr Kennedy I think it is reasonable for his request to be discussed by Wikipedia editors.

This nomination should not be interpreted as an endorsement either of deletion or retention: I will remain neutral in this discussion so that I can fairly report its outcome to Mr Kennedy.

--ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 14:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Quixotic endeavor here. Might as well get this over with fast. I've nothing else non-obvious to say. My Alt Account 14:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Don't make me mention slippery slope…oh, curses and black pudding, there I go… —Phil | Talk 14:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems reasonably well known. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but clean up. Too many red links and external links for such a short article. If this article is a subject of frequent vandalism, it should be added to a vandalism watchlist. I haven't seen more than one instance, however, of vandalism. Bastique▼^parler _voir 14:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, As an admin who has been watching the article, let me weigh in a little on it's history. And there is a good bit of deleted history to it. The article's subject is apparently fairly controversial in certain circles, and has a number of detractors. There was an edit war a while back between a strong supporter and a strong detractor. The detractor was posting some extremely derogatory material, but would provide no sourcing that would satisfy WP:RS. Several admins (including me) became involved, the page was protected, and in the end the bulk of the edits with the derogatory material was removed from the edit history. The one "vandalism" that has happened since then was of similarly derogatory material. It was quickly reverted by Dawn Horse Warrior (talk • contribs), who is at the least a strong Kennedy supporter. So in the end this is not about normal vandalism, but a WP:BLP issue, with unsourced derogatory material. Still revert on sight stuff, but a different type of "vandalism" than most are used to. - TexasAndroid 14:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep We don't delete the Hitler article because he's not man of the year material --Stuartyeates 15:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment actually, he was Time's Man of the Year. ;-) Carlossuarez46 21:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm sympathetic, but there's no way to start deleting entries on notable individuals. If he's been subject to significant vandalism, maybe semi-protection is the answer? TheronJ 15:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

In the non deleted edit war, the page was at one point semi-protected, and the detractor, who had a new-ish account was able to resume editing and warring within a day or two. So Semi protection is not necessarily useful in cases where the detractors of the subject are determined enough to wait out the aging of new accounts. As for it being "Significant" vandalism, while I'm sure Mr. Kennedy thinks that any vandalism is significant, looking in the history I see the one edit war between 617USA (talk • contribs) (Pro) and Suture (talk • contribs) (con) that lasted 4-5 days in mid July, and one more, from the 7th of September, that was quickly removed. I would not really call these "significant vandalism", compared with many other pages on the project. - TexasAndroid

The specific piece of vandalism that Mr Kennedy was concerned about was reverted within 30 minutes by another editor. I've already explained to him our unwillingness to protect or semi-protect articles that are not subject to persistent vandalism. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 15:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

One thing you could tell him, on a positive note, is that this article is not going to be subject to missed-vandalism. It is on a number of people's watch-lists, including several admins, including me. Any of the stuff like has been previously posted is going to continue to be reverted on sight. - TexasAndroid 16:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Umm, where is the evidence that he is notable? WP:BIO appears to be the relevant standard. Based on the claims in the article, it looks borderline to me. An internet based radio show is a podcast by another name. I haven't succeeded in finding the reviews of his work to meet the published author criteria. Absent any independent reliable sources, I choose to be consistent and believe that deletion as non-notable is the appropriate outcome. (Note there also may have been an individual of the same name involved in Travelgate, but I found no reason to believe that it is the same person.) GRBerry 01:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above comments. RFerreira 05:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete deletion as non-notable is the appropriate outcome. Dirty Frank 07:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the subject's wishes about its existence are irrelevant. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Can't we Keep and Protect? Least we can do if the guy is actually complaining about abuse. If the George Bush site can be protected from vandalism, surely an administrator can lock his site too? Legis 15:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The GWB article is only semi-protected, not full protected. Semi protection is great against casual vandals, but not that useful against determined detractors/edit warriors. All it takes to get past semi protection is 4-5 days of patience, and the account is old enough to get around it. And that's exactly what happened on the WHK page back during the July edit war. Page was semi-protected, the detractor with the new-ish account waited 1-2 days and was able to resume editing the page despite the semi-protection. - TexasAndroid 16:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The reviews of his books are at http://www.williamhkennedy.com/articles/reviews.htm but with exception of Brad Steiger, all seem to have borderline notability. Being a frequent guest on talk shows and having an internet radio show are irrelevant to notability unless he's incurred significant publicity from reliable sources. TransUtopian 14:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield ladder bug

A single bug in a computer game is not notable enough for an article by itself (only in rare cases of very notable software/hardware bugs, like the Y2K bug and Pentium FDIV bug), and the creator of the article has already added information on the same bug to the article Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield itself anyway. Prod removed without comment or improvement. ~Matticus ^T_C 14:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - short, redundant dicdef. No excuse for this article. Unless the phrase ladder bug has some other common meaning, I'd consider re-directing it to Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield. My Alt Account 14:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom--Whpq 17:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 18:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 05:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete without redirect, since content has already been merged and article title is very unlikely to be a link target or search term. — brighterorange (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A single, rare, bug does not need an article. +Fin- 16:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable bug. Probably OR. guitarhero777777 04:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete There are a few video game glitches notable enough to be owrthy of an article. Minus world is one of them, perhaps the only one. No way does this qualify. Ace of Sevens 07:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- NORTH ^talk 05:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect, as merging well is too complicated for me (this sounds like one of a cycle of "types" of superheroes). The history remains, if anyone cares to. Mangojuice^talk 17:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plantopath

The term seems like a poor neologism, much like "chlorokineticist" with no source. It's also an unnecessary page which can be covered in a line for a single film with a very small mythology. Sky High lacks the complexity or notability of say, articles pertaining to areas of the Buffyverse. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Sky High (2005 film). -- Merope ^{Talk to me}/_{Review me} 14:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Merope. Danny Lilithborne 18:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect --Peta 06:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal Paradoxes

Essay; original research. Does not appear these problems could be fixed. Allen 15:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, doesn't even make a pretext of referring to a physical law. --Zeizmic 15:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - runs afoul of WP:OR and WP:V. (I expect this to change after I complete filing patents of technology based on the theories in this article.) My Alt Account 15:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic original research. --Ed (Edgar181) 15:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Lincolnite 16:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom--Whpq 17:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• The article discusses science fiction as if it were real science: "either situation is theretically possible and as neither has ever happened before no one can say otherwise. (Although if some one has the expertise on this subject it would be great if you could shed some light on the subjetct)." Experts on the subject are called physicists, and we have an article on wormholes that not only sheds light on the subject but explains in its second sentence that this article is rubbish. original research. Delete. Uncle G 18:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 18:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research essay. It seems to be about the video games Narbacular Drop and Portal — the first revision mentions them. Which means that even if it was cleaned up and clarified, it'd fall under Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. -- Plutortalkcontribs 19:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above comments. Anger22 22:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete since we can't even be sure what it's supposed to be. Game instructions seems most likely, which comes under Wikipedia is not an instruction manual and possibly copyright violation. Peter Grey 23:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. Michael Kinyon 11:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falkner Eggington Courts

Delete. It's a university residence of no particular importance. ^{[Check Google hits]} shows 111 hits, with 48 of them being "unique". Prod was removed by article's author with the comment "Reason for deletion didn't make sense to me. You'll see how notable the hall is once the page is finished." ... discospinster _talk 15:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Do not delete Searching for "Falk-Egg", as the hall is more commonly known, gives you nearly 5000 hits, on the basis of a google search. 86.143.211.37 16:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Louisa
• Do not delete I don't see what the problem is, surely Wikipedia is here with the aim of collecting and showing information. This page has been set up to provide information on the hall, which is so much more than just a collection of buildings. Also I don't see how someone who's never been there can label it as "of no particular importance". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nick Dastardly (talk • contribs).

Comment. Actually, I just searched "Falk-Egg" on Google, and it gave me 2000 hits (which I suppose is "nearly 5000"), with 160 of them "unique". And no, I have never been to Falk-Egg, but then again I've never been to your flat, but I can still tell you it's of no particular importance. Please see "what Wikipedia is not". ... discospinster _talk 16:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - nothing distinguishes this residence from the many other residences at unversities and colleges. No sources cited also. -- Whpq 17:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - inevitably, an extremely provincial article. WP:NOT a campus building directory; this residence doesn't have notability in general. Tangentially, I think it would have been good form to omit the trivia section. My Alt Account 17:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. --Huon 18:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete luffduckcruft. AndyJones 19:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The fourth item at Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas is "Your dormitory (unless it's on the Historic Register)." There is no assertion in the article that this dorm is on the Historic Register or equivalent. No assertion of notability in the article. GRBerry 01:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all. Punkmorten 20:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saga of Souls

Please note: I am putting this in today's AfD log (September 11, 2006) because I failed to do so on the day that I nominated it (August 31, 2006). Thank you to Wmahan for bringing this to my attention. ... discospinster _talk 15:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Unpublished book by non-notable author; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Prod tag removed. Good luck to the aspiring writer, but it's not yet at the level of a Wikipedia article.

I am also nominating the article about the book's author: ZB Fischer. ... discospinster _talk 20:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related articles for the same reasons, per Elmer Clark's suggestion:

• ZB Fischer
• The Possession Trilogy
• The Morbid Angel
• The Deceptive Demon
• Valiant Soul
• Experiment 18L

... discospinster _talk 14:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable author not published by any traditional publishers. I also suggest you add The Possession Trilogy, The Morbid Angel, The Deceptive Demon, Valiant Soul, and Experiment 18L to the nomination. -Elmer Clark 02:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per noms. -IceCreamAntisocial 07:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. No doubt it's impressive to have written a book at age 14. But in general I think self-published books and their authors shouldn't have articles unless there is verifiable evidence of notability, regardless of the author's age. Wmahan. 22:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per noms. Hope to see these articles again in ~5 years. My Alt Account 15:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all Lincolnite 16:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Danny Lilithborne 18:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Anger22 22:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all Well developed and written, author is notable, has website and large fanbase. 209.192.78.149 22:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• you people who say this should be deleted should be ashamed of yourselves. You should at least read the story instead of jumping to conclusions. I myself have read it and enjoyed it very much. I'm sure you will too if you just read it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.133.3.72 (talk • contribs) .

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The-Slackers

Delete. Non-notable webcomic with no Alexa data. Article itself states that it is new and "gaining readership very slowly". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ... discospinster _talk 15:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I change my vote to Strong Keep if they agree to make me a mod on their forums. My Alt Account 15:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable webcomic. NawlinWiki 17:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. JPG-GR 17:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per article. "fairly recent diary-style webcomic that follows many of the standard clichés ... gaining readership very slowly." No sign of reputable, third-party reliable sources. -- Dragonfiend 16:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, its complete crap. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.65.37.101 (talk • contribs).
• Strong Keep, why delete it? We have a growing readerbase, and I see smaller webcomics getting their own Wikipedia pages. This comic is very important to me, it's something to call my own. I'll take off the "gaining readership slowly" section, but at least let us keep the page up.Slackerone 12:58, 15 September 2006
• Delete - As per above. Please please please delete the "smaller webcomics" as well. - Hahnchen 23:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. El_C 10:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tokhmism

Contested Prod. Per the talk page, a "totally new, and still non-formal concept." Latest new philospohy that someone wants to spread through Wikipedia. Totally fails google search. Neologism. No sources. Not Verifiable from Reliable Sources -- Fan-1967 15:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - this is purely what we politely call Original Research, and it has multiple intractable problems that make it forever unsuitable for wikipedia. My Alt Account 15:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom -- Whpq 17:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 18:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. -- Jeff3000 03:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Max Eider

By the request from the author I have restored the article recently deleted by Prod. abakharev 15:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, member of notable band who released two solo albums, and received independent attention such as an All Music Guide review [35]. Kappa 15:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep A google search shows quite a number of hits. Meets WP:V with no problems as well. On top of that the article meets the basic requirements of WP:MUSIC. Has released at least two albums (solo career) according to this website. Was a member of a notable band as well. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. it's rough but has potential. --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus - kept (D:14, K:12) comment: After trimming the article during the discussion to verifiable text, all objections are polarized w.r.t. notable/nonnotable. "No reliable sources" argument is moot, since the court case is clearly a public information, hence reliable and verifiable. Lacking better arguments in favor of deletion, the article stays. `'mikka (t) 04:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barry Gurary

This article was prodded by me on August 6th, and deleted after five days. Today a couple of editors realized it was missing and sent a couple of messages to the deleting administrator. I have asked him to undelete this article per WP:PROD, which allows post-factum challenges.

This person is a son of a failed candidate for the leadership of the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic movement, Shemaryahu Gurary, and nephew by marriage of the 7th Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson. And he stole some books from his uncle once. That is it. A comparison has been made between Barry here and Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich of Russia. That is disingenuous. Tsarevich Alexei was a certain heir to the throne of a nation of 150 million people. Barry Gurary was a not-so-certain heir to the religious leadership over a Hasidic movement of 50,000(?). There is no comparison whatsoever. Barry Gurary is profoundly NN. There aren't multiple non-trivial works about him, and some sources in the article fail WP:RS. Recommending Delete. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no reliable sources. Jon513 18:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Huon 18:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remain due to Chabad messianism and lack of heirs after 7th Rebbe death in the movement, article on the person who could prevent it should be discussed.Narshavs 19:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Chabad messianism has absolutely no relevance to his notability or verifiability. - CrazyRussian talk/email 19:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I suggest you read several books on sociological understanding of what is going on in Khabad. All great schism between Khabad and Lithuanian Judaism is for Chabad messianism of last generation, when 50 years before rebbe's death it was clear that rebbe whould be considered alive and messiah, but would Barry be inside Chabad it could not happen.Narshavs 19:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Irrelevant. We need multiple - nontrivial - reliable - sources. - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Crazy: Perhaps you are not that well-acquainted with Wikipedia yet where articles may start as stubs and then progress over time, sometimes years, into longer articles. This article is well beyond stub status, it has a number of links that verify a lot of its content. To ask for Harvard research-level quality as an article progresses is not always realistic because as you may be aware, articles need time, sometimes years, to evolve and mutate into better articles. Featured articles are not born overnight. And when an article touches upon potentially critical subject-matter, as this one does, you need to respect those editors who feel it has enough intrinsic value to be saved. IZAK 04:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless reliable sources can be found. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Remain - I discovered the voting while proofing the hebrew article on the famous Chabad Library. This guy has a major part in it's history. The trials conclusion is nowadays celebrated by Chabad followers worldwide. This guy ("Bad guy"?) warrants an article. DGtal 21:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Jon --Shaul avrom 00:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per my responses above and because the saga, or tragedy, of Barry Gurary is an important chapter in the history of the latest stages of Chabad. The very enmity that mainstrean Chabad has towords him would be reason enough to warrant an article about him. The article is free of any original research. IZAK 03:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - This is a perfect example of what constitutes unencyclopedic content. He is notable only by association and the argument that Chabad Messianism makes it notable is totally fallacious. -- Chabuk 03:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Chabuk: Obviously, Lubavitchers are going to have a hard time with any article about Barry Gurary for obvious reasons. IZAK 03:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless non-trivial and reliable sources can be found, but even then, I'd probably dispute notability per nom. james^(talk) 03:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Seems to meet (barely) the threshhold for notability. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • What about the threshold for reliable verifiability? - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Crazy: What is not verfiable in this article? It in fact adds to common wisdom, and no-one denies any of the raw facts in it. It's a lot better than the thousands of stubs in its present form. IZAK 04:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral: borderline notable. Not sure we need an article on the individual, though the book thing seems worth a mention, possibly in some other article. Would be very open to a merge suggestion. Verifiability doesn't seem to be an issue at all: if some particular fact has a verifiability issue, take it up through normal channels, not an AFD: the broad outline is completely verifiable. - Jmabel | Talk 05:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; only notability though a long and tenuous chain of association; article completely unencylopedic. --MCB 06:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the Chabad saga is obscure to most people, and difficult to figure out; but it's still notable in itself, and to the Chassidic enterprise as a whole. I am concerned about the difficulty of sources, though. --Leifern 10:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep - of interest to those researching the history of Chabad. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. When you remove all the unsourced stuff there is little left; he is not personally of much relevance. If the library incident is encyclopedic (which I doubt) an article could be created under the name of Chabad library controversy using only [[WP:RS|reliable sources. JFW | T@lk 11:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Jfdwolff: An article about the library incident would be useless without a better understanding of what Barry Guarary represents to followers of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson. In any case, Barry Gurary would probably be at the heart of many similar articles such as one that could be named The relationship between the Gurary family and Rabbi Menachem Schneerson or The Schneerson Gurary rivalry etc. IZAK 12:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Still we are not helped by poorly sourced biographies like this. JFW | T@lk 20:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete — Barry Gurary's role in Chabad history was trivial and of no interest to the general public. The incident of the books' "theft" could be summarized in an article about Chabad, and so could Barry's lineage. Nobody except a few historians dedicated to the subject will either remember or care about this person or his activities in future generations. -- Nahum 12:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes notability threshold because of the library court case. Article should be rewritten to emphasize the court case and minimize unimportant things like his "letters to the editor" --Eliyak T·C 14:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Just not notable enough. Comparing the historical significance of the Schneersohn-Gurary-Shneerson family to the historical significant of Adolf Hitler is, well, something of a reach. Legis 15:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Beware of Godwin's Law. JFW | T@lk 20:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As much as I hate deleting articles about Jews from Wikipedia (an admitted bias), I have taken the stance before that relation to notable people does not automatically make a person notable. To be honest, I've never even heard of this guy before. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Count} 20:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Khabad tries to let the people forget about leadership struggle for Khabad movement in 1950, and to represent R.Menakhem Mendel Schneerson as the sole candidate to the post, while there was a struggke underground which not ended up even 30 years later. As It is said, the winner side writes history. I never heard about Barry before inquirung in Rebbes genealogical table about succession line after R.Joseph Isaac death, it is clear that people outside Khabad wouldn't know the story. According to my opinion people should see different perspectives on Rebbe's messianism and immortality. Of course I recognize Rebbe's unique personality and contribution to modern Judaism.Narshavs 21:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. After reading the delete justifications, it just seems that this guy is definitely 'notable', but the 'deletes' don't think he is notable to them. Definitely not trivial. --Shuki 21:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep But He comes up often enough and he was involved in notable events. We should retrive the original article and place it as a section on his father's page.--Jayrav 22:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Compared with the garage bands, webcomics, dorm rooms, and other stuff that regularly comes up for deletion, notability here is no problem. No-one's aerioualy challenging the existence of enough reliable sources etc. I disagree with claims that notability has to be based on what people do. As no less an authority on notability than Sherlock Holmes pointed out, what the dog didn't do in the night is just as notable as what it did do. The consequences of bowing out can be just as historically important, and notable, as bow-wowing in. As with dogs, so with would-be heirs to the Lubavitcher dynasty. Keep. --Shirahadasha 03:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep. While doing research, I noticed that Barry's case is described in several Wikipedia artices ans a notable event, and the versions differ. This article must stay for purely wikipedia's policy no forking. We must have a consistent story, don't we? Therefore it must be in a single place, referred from everywhere. `'mikka (t) 19:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not only is he barely notable (I can't find almost any of the details by google searching even on the more scandal mongering anti-chabad sites) but the complete lack of sources runs afoul of WP:BLP. Claiming he went in clandestinely to steal books with no source at all? That's such a BLP issue it isn't funny. JoshuaZ 19:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Joshua: If Barry Gurary is "not notable" then why does the entire Lubavitch movement have a huge day of celebration ("Didan Notzach") trumpeting a secular court's ruling in their favor against Barry Gurary? As a number of people here have already pointed out, this alone deserves time for expansion and is certainly very notable in the context of the history of latter-day Chabad. IZAK 14:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you have a citation for this? I know a number of Lubvatichers and I've never heard this day. I'll ask around to see if they actually do this. JoshuaZ 21:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Joshua: The Lubavitchers are experts at hiding their own true beliefs! Take a look at what a Google search for Didan Notzach shows... Lot's of Lubavitch gloating and exuberance about this day - and without Barry Gurary's role as "the designated fall guy" none of it would make any sense. IZAK 03:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Er, most of those hits aren't relevant, and although I strongly dislike the Lubavitch movement I'd hardly saus that they "are experts at hiding their own true beliefs." JoshuaZ 03:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mikkalai, seems to meet the threshold for notability and verifiability. Silensor 03:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per all the above. Shlomke 13:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)