Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Purge server cache

Contents 1 Tera Williams 2 Magnolia Bakery 3 Brett Leighton 4 Straight, Incorporated 5 John Stango 6 Dead! 7 Rpoints 8 Quidco 9 Spoonbender 10 Marry Me 11 Zeta sigma alpha 12 Unorthodox (doom band) 13 Skyblazer 14 Clay Rains 15 Paul Hollins 16 Hotel Kota Kinabalu 17 List of Microsoft Vista game compatibility 18 Zinkplaat 19 Edsel D Rivera 20 Don G. Giunta Middle School 21 Buffalo Chips 22 De Minimis 23 Fluid Dynamics (music) 24 Huffines Middle School 25 Eric Zane 26 Internet brigades 27 Producer Joe 28 Free Beer 29 Hot Wings 30 Garth Westbrook 31 Free Beer & Hot Wings Morning Show 32 List of Spectrobes 33 LeaseTrade.com 34 Locale of Muscat, Oman 35 Teamsports 36 Sullenearth 37 RPGds 38 The Graham Roff Experience 39 Mechanised Convulsions 40 Double-Standards and Human Rights Protection 41 Roy Batchelor 42 Lara Grice 43 Sean McKinsley 44 Amit Avner 45 BWitty 46 Terry Chipp 47 Tina Chancey 48 Electro-gravitic propulsion 49 Adventure Games 50 Broadcasting of The Simpsons 51 Abe Tran 52 Titane laurent 53 Bill still 54 Akisha Samia 55 Zhu Xiao Di 56 Winner Winner Chicken Dinner 57 Gavin Priestly 58 Chester Hill Hornets 59 Vienna Cricket Club 60 Stainless Broadcasting Company 61 Dante Salvatierra 62 Abraham Soltero III 63 Electromagnetic brain animation 64 Diocesan College (Definition) 65 Joe Jacks 66 KOPT_Kent_Open_Poker_Tour 67 List of books and references on sentencing, law, and related matters 68 Alexander Haslett 69 London_Titans 70 Bias Vineyards 71 Spaceships of EVE Online 72 Tupalo 73 Body Image 74 Snowball Earth/Infobox 75 Scientific acupuncture 76 Abdul Rahman Husseini 77 Ken Ramirez 78 Avant coast 79 Ben Padnos 80 Krewe of Atlas 81 Narahara 82 List of Elvis Presley songs covered by other artists 83 David J Searle 84 Brandon Scullion 85 Judi Cohen 86 Green transportation hierarchy 87 Twisted mods 88 Bobby Korom 89 Construct Deep Linking 90 Amy Crawford (Nitro Girl) 91 Chris Kay 92 Chad Patton 93 Arnob 94 Robert Ditter 95 Cordlife 96 Elk Cove (Overboard) 97 2101 98 The Healing Project 99 Beth Raines 100 Kittendo 101 Additional nom 101.1 Lolifox 101.2 Doc Chopper 101.3 James Hart (Bassist) 101.4 Tony Ramos 101.5 Curve transformation 101.6 Tees speak 101.7 Back F.C. 101.8 The Hot Corner 101.9 Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia - Chapter Epsilon Lambda 101.10 Jingle Bells parodies 101.11 Dandelife 101.12 Shane Dorr

[edit] Tera Williams

Tera Williams (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability in question. Appears to be a reporter of only local importance. ghits NMChico24 00:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails the notability criteria for biographies. NeoFreak 01:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO by leaps and bounds. I can think of very, very few local TV news anchors who'd clear WP:BIO, and local TV beat reporters don't come remotely close.  RGTraynor  03:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Tentative Keep, the Burlington Industries implosion story marginally satisfies WP:BIO, although more noteworthy works would make a more solid case. Perhaps the original author of this article can add some? There are lots of Wikipedia articles involving local news reporters whose notability could be questioned. At least this is in a major market, Chicago. If we delete this one, where do we stop? Truthanado 04:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: When there are no local reporter articles that don't come close to satisfying WP:BIO, is my guess. Whether the Burlington Industries implosion is a notable story is one issue -- buildings get imploded all the time -- whether that makes one of (no doubt many) reporters who had on-air time commenting on it is quite another entirely. Only 36 Google hits for "Tera Williams" + "Fox" [1], almost all of which are blogs, her TV station's website and her own website. There may be some spam issues involved; almost the sole Wikipedia activity of the article's creator is putting up articles on various local reporters of Fox-affiliated stations.  RGTraynor  04:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Covering a notable a story does not make one notable, unless it involves getting some sort of major "scoop" that other reporters on that same story don't get. And if that happenes, there'll be secondary sources which make mention of it that could be cited to establish that notability. Mwelch 06:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, While some local reporters, print and electronic, may satisfy the demands of WP:BIO this one does not. JBEvans 10:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- for failing to meet WP:BIO. Retiono Virginian 16:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and other similar articles. Johnbod 19:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brett Leighton

Brett Leighton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability not established. Also, the talk page assertion that the subject won the "Paul Hoffheimer prize in Innsbruck" does not appear to be easily verifiable: [2] & [3] &[4] & [5]. Other ghits: [6] & [7] NMChico24 00:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Claim to notability is unverified. Abeg92contribs 02:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Not sourced at all. Tohru Honda13 04:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - The article doesn't specify how this person is notable--$UIT 05:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I see no sources or specifications of being notable.--Joebengo 06:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep A quick Google of the name Brett Leighton shows numerous links to a wide variety of sites which confirm notability. He is a classical musician and an academic, thus he does not have the kind of bombastic site and fan club that some musicians have. The article is desperate for a cleanup and needs additional references cited. I have added three and there are more. Someone who can speak German is probably needed for some of the key sites As of April 8, 2007. I urge my fellow editors not to pull the trigger too fast on this one. JBEvans 11:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I think he passes WP:PROF although maybe not WP:MUSIC. The full professorship (could someone who knows german check this here?) plus the work on the world's oldest organ and his role as top judge in major organ competitions passes the bar for me. Music profs are hard to judge as they don't typically write for journals indexed by google scholar, and their performance/composition work stays below the radar of the major media. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 14:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Needs a major clean-up. Ganfon 15:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- strong notability, references included. Meets WP:BIO. Retiono Virginian 16:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 19:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straight, Incorporated

Straight, Incorporated (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article has some severe WP:BLP problems - some very serious accusations and allegations are made with some very flimsy sourcing - said sourcing being self-published or of dubious reliability.RJASE1 ^Talk 00:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• While please by all means prove it. Please provide some information to prove otherwise. Here's plenty of proof for you backing what is stated in the article and then some. What proof have you given that the allegations are false other then your opinion.

• Maia Szalavitz article in Reason Magazine from January
• Information and a personal story about the Straight experience
• The Rick Ross Institute on Straight Inc.
• Surviving Straight, Inc. In their Own Words
• Report Fox news did on Straight, the Sembers and more
• Straight Court Cases—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Webdiva (talk • contribs).

*Speedy delete and template attached. The sources support a critical article but do not support some of the important statements in the article. There is no balancing text or attempt to obtain a NPOV. As it stands it has to be considered an attack article. Once deleted a new article, more closely tailored to those sources considered reliable, could be written. Bridgeplayer 02:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think the only alternative would be stubbing the article and clearing the history. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, conditionally: Folks, take a look at the edit history of the article. You'll see that at various points this actually had a balanced POV that took into account the various controversies about this place without doing an obvious hatchet job. This wasn't designed as an attack article; it's been vandalized to become one. That isn't necessarily the province of AfD to solve unless the problem's endemic and unfixable.  RGTraynor  03:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• keep I have just this minute removed a totally unwarranted speedy tag. The circumstances allerged in the articles are supported by the sources. DGG 05:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but much better sources, like those listed here (Fox News rather than Cannibis Culture), need to be added. I would try a NPOV rewrite but I'm too pissed off. Thousand points of light my ass!
• Keep Serious charges to be sure but that alone does not indicate a delete. Keep it and keep it well sourced. JBEvans 11:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As long as it gets some better sources and a little cleaning it's fine, definitely notable. Ganfon 15:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - listed on the BLP noticeboard here. I agree that the organization is notable and that the WP:BLP concerns can be handled in a method other than deletion. RJASE1 ^Talk 16:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional keep - I have cleaned the article up removing unsupported accusations (just because accusations are fringe sourced doesn't mean that they are accurate or that we should record them). The article can be re-expanded from the Fox source. Bridgeplayer 17:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Fox source now included and expansion started. Bridgeplayer 17:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep and add better/additional sources. --Czj 20:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Stango

John Stango (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable visual artist. Bus stop 22:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Improperly listed debate. It is listed now. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No sources. Abeg92contribs 02:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable artist. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 03:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO, WP:ATT. WP:SPAM and WP:COI come into play too, since the creator User:Nangellini has the same name as a gallery explicitly listed as hosting this fellow's works, and the article represents the creator's sole Wikipedia activity. Subject has 97 Google hits [8], almost all of which are various e-Bayish sites or blogs hawking this or that painting, and none of which look like credible, reliable attributable sources.  RGTraynor  04:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This article is copied from here which makes it autocopyviovanispam in my book. --killing sparrows 06:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Copyvio and non notable--Joebengo 17:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rpoints

Rpoints (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Notability not established or sourced per WP:WEB.RJASE1 ^Talk 01:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No sources. Abeg92contribs 02:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nn. YechielMan 07:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- Not notable enough. With or without external links. See WP:WEB. Retiono Virginian 16:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- not notable--Joebengo 17:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quidco

Quidco (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable webiste per WP:WEB.RJASE1 ^Talk 01:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. It apparently got a story in the Guardian. Abeg92contribs 02:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I see the references, but I don't buy the notability. YechielMan 07:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. Only one item of media coverage is non-trivial. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 13:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. One article (which is here, if anyone wants to read it) is not enough to confer notability on its own. J Milburn 13:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. It is an important site. In the UK Cashback Websites are a growing phenomenon. Quidco is one of the biggest and most respected (Depending on who you believe it may be the biggest, but if not it is at least in the top three). If you go to any site or forum that discusses Cashback Websites then Quidco is mentioned more than any other. The reason I say weak is because the article is poor and although Quidco is the leader in its field, it is not special enough to be on its own here without having articles about other leading Cashback Websites. I'd rather see this article improved, and more articles about similar sites, than this one go. Identz 15:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that Quidco has a page where it highlights where it has been discussed in the news here. It has been in the news several times. Identz 15:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The main difficulity is with notability. I personally think sites like quidco and topcashback are notable because they currently offer the best deal for consumers, i.e. 100% cashback on purchases, unlike those like rpoints which give 100%less. I'm troubled because some notability appears due to bias in the media. For example Martin Lewis, recommends rpoints over quidco giving a very dubious example of how rpoints apparently offers more savings, most cashback users I'm sure would disagree! Another example of terrible bias is the BBCs touting of [http://www.mrscashback.com MrsCashback]] which if you read this article is a terrible deal for consumers. Note that quidco is mentioned and given barely any coverage, it's advantages are not mentioned. Do you think it is right to create an article on Mrs Cashback if there were enough of these biased articles, because it would be notable? What would have been achieved? The notability of a company in the media seems determined by factors which do not have the interests of the consumer (in this case to moneysaving) in mind. I know what wikipedia is NOT, but is it NOT a good source of information for consumers? Supposed 15:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Where on the internet are there attempts to wite articles on these companies and cashback sites in general in an objective and unbiased manner? very few notable places, apart from wikipedia. Again this is why I'm eager to keep this article. Also why should a large company which offers poor value for the consumer be given more notability on wikipedia than a tiny one which offers amazing value? Supposed 16:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please note, Supposed, that as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, meaning it integrates information derived from secondary sources. What you seem to be proposing is that this Wikipedia article integrate information from primary sources, but this is original research and synthesis, and is against our rules. If as you suggest there are no attempts to write articles on these companies, then they lack secondary sources altogether and fail notability guidelines. Finally, notability has nothing to do with the merits of the financial transactions offered. --Dhartung | Talk 19:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoonbender

Spoonbender (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable artist that has been tagged as being of "questionable notability" since October 2006. I see nothing that hints at notability - the Spoonbender news site hasn't been updated since April 2006, and no major performances or releases have been listed. I've never nominated an article for deletion before, but I think the bottom line is that notability has to be proven and it hasn't been proven since the page was created nearly a year ago. Davemcarlson 02:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Abeg92contribs 02:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. That's odd. I wonder if this has any connection with I Am Spoonbender. It doesn't seem to, but this is strange timing. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 03:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think it does, but I actually found this page because I was looking for the I Am Spoonbender page and happened to type this in. I found the timing a bit strange too. But I guess that's for the Department of Mysteries to investigate :) Davemcarlson 07:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Haha, well-said sir! Cheers, Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 14:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as failing any sort of notability or reliable sourcing test. perhaps redirect after deletion to Uri Geller ? - Peripitus (Talk) 12:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • A redirect should be to spoon bending, which is a broader topic than Geller. Gazpacho 20:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect after deletion to appropriate article on Psychics per Peripitus. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 14:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marry Me

Marry Me (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Contested prod. MER-C 03:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable album. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 03:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a textbook case. YechielMan 07:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and myspace is not a reliable source. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 14:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non notable album and myspace is not a good source.--Joebengo 17:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete reads more like an advertisement than an article; after the album is released, this could perhaps be added to the albums released by Beggars Banquet, but prior to release its existence in the real world is too iffy; myspace neither reliable nor valid source Cyg-nifier 19:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zeta sigma alpha

Zeta sigma alpha (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 03:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no sources. Abeg92contribs 03:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:ORG. Student organizations that exist at only a single school are generally non-notable. I might have recommended a keep if this were a national sorority, but it doesn't seem to be. --Metropolitan90 04:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:ORG, WP:COI, and it seems that the prod was contested by an anon IP without comment. They seem a perfectly nice handful of ladies, but this is a teensy four-year old, single school sorority. Creator is User:Zetasigmaalpha, and as one might expect this article is the creator's sole Wikipedia activity. I'd suggest to them that they check back in twenty years when/if they've achieved national-level notability.  RGTraynor  04:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Non notable with no sources--$UIT 06:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unorthodox (doom band)

Unorthodox (doom band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band, no reliable source, myspace doesn't count. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 03:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - One of many doom bands from Maryland on Hellhound Records. These bands collectively had a heavy impact on doom metal in the 90s and 2000s. The band also features members that went on to be in larger bands like Spirit Caravan and Pentagram. Olliegrind 14:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral- I have trouble understanding how this article shows notablity.--Joebengo 17:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skyblazer

Skyblazer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software. The majority of the article is game guide material. Of the two references provided, one has no text - hence is not admissible. Prod was contested via email. MER-C 03:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Just got your message, and noticed the articles for deletion thing a little while before. Sorry about the game guide (I'm new when it comes to the more specific Wiki rules, although I admit I had basically thrown a few sentences on I could think of.) I'll definitely remove the textless link and try to post more specifics. What specifically do you mean by "you've convinced me that it needs some wider attention," when you also note that it is "non-notable software?" I will try to make it conform to a style similar to that of any other game wiki when I have the chance in the next day or two (taxes and lots of other work have kept my busy.) -Thermal0xidizer

• Keep, a Sony SNES game that had a worldwide release. [9]. Online sources for mediocre flops from the pre-Internet age aren't always easy to find, but there are certain to be reviews in the print magazines of the time. WP:SOFTWARE is not policy and nothing in the article is really game guide material.--Nydas^(Talk) 11:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per Nydas. Article needs so rearranging and rewrite, but seems notable enough. Few more reputable sources would be ideal, but indisputably was a worldwide NSES release. Goodnightmush 16:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clay Rains

Clay Rains (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced vanispamcruftisement. Has already had two speedy deletions. Contested prod. MER-C 03:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete and salt the earth, then. This bloke fails WP:MUSIC by a country mile. His sole claimed album has ONE Google hit other than this article [10], and only 85 hits (almost all Wiki mirrors or blog posts) for Rains himself [11]. Allmusic.com has never heard of him, and neither has Amazon.com. Perhaps this fellow really exists, but as a musician, I strongly suspect WP:HOAX.  RGTraynor  04:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Strongly smells of hoax (The list of influences on his MySpace starts "Johnny Cash, Corrosion of Conformity, Duran Duran..."). The MySpace is a new page and the other links merely get you a 403 or 404 error. EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete and agreed. Salt the Earth. Goodnightmush 16:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- No reliable assertian of notablity.--Joebengo 18:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- looks like a self-aggrandizing advertisement; definitely not NPOV and definitely not notable (infamous perhaps?); information presented is not reliable or verifiable. There was no Missouri Country Music Hall of Fame in 2001 (1st yr is 2003) & Rains isn't in it in 2003-2007. His recording studio seems to not exist legitimately (and he is highlighted on Waylon Jennings web site for creating it as an illegal studio to put out Jennings songs illegally). Midwest Country is a community-based weekly tv show out of Sandstone, Minnesota on RFD-TV (rural tv) -- if they've ever awarded an artist of the year, there is no evidence of it. It's nice he participates in community theatre, but that doesn't make him either professional or notable. Cyg-nifier 20:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Hollins

Paul Hollins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO as there are insufficient third party sources for this article. Unsourced. Contested prod. MER-C 03:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Heart Digital in lieu of deletion. He does not deserve his own article. YechielMan 07:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect either way he is not notable enough to have his own article.--Joebengo 18:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - It seems obvious to me that this guy has written a page about himself, and it is therefore in violation of the general consensus of this website that people don't write or edit articles about themselves. Either that or it's a strange co-incidence that the article has been written by a Paul Hollins. 81.152.149.61 18:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hotel Kota Kinabalu

Hotel Kota Kinabalu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Copied exactly from wikitravel, and the content is uncyclopedic Zack2007 03:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. It may be a CSD G12, but I'm not familiar with the relevant copyright rules. YechielMan 07:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wikitravel licence (which is CC-by-SA 1.0) is not GFDL, although I must admit I don't know if that is allowable or not. My understanding is it isn't. Orderinchaos 17:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Microsoft Vista game compatibility

List of Microsoft Vista game compatibility (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Per WP:NOT and a lot of precedence, Wikipedia doesn't do arbitrary, uncompletable lists of software. -/- Warren 03:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. While uncompletable, the lead clearly outlines how this is not an arbitrary list. Vista compatibility is a very notable topic. Please clarify pertinent section of WP:NOT, I just spent my night compiling this list, be specific or don't bother referring to a policy. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The related sections of WP:NOT arte "not an indiscriminate list of information" and "not a directory". In the past, several other articles like lists of 64-bit Windows applications, list of applications compatible with Vista, and others have been deleted because they're basically unmaintainable and uncompletable. I'd dig them up but Wikipedia makes it difficult to search the list of deleted articles.

After you get bored of copying information from a couple of gaming sites, who's going to take care of this list? The information is going to change pretty rapidly (indeed, you've got a source there that says Simcity 4 crashes after the starting movie, but the 200,000+ sims living in my copy of the game running on Vista would strongly disagree with that assertion!), or is going to be based on forum postings or other conditions that can't be authoritatively stated with a high degree of accuracy. There are many factors involved: Vendor patches, appcompat patches from Microsoft, video driver updates, audio driver updates, otherwise unfound problems that are exposed by how Vista handles hardware, and the million-plus combinations thereof.

Wikipedia:Listcruft notes that a list article should only be made if the subject of the list is worthy of an article. This guideline exists because it helps prevent us from going off and making a list about something that it isn't really clear that Wikipedia actually needs to cover. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; we should be focusing on the subject of Windows Vista game compatibility as a topic, with quotes from notable people on the subject and information on what, if anything, is being done about it. It's perfectly fine to do this, then link to a notable gaming web site which devotes itself more thoroughly to the subject.

As to the long-term usefulness of such a list, assuming that compatibility improves, won't it become irrelevant with time? Can this list really pass the "ten-year test" suggested by Wikipedia:Recentism? Will anybody care? We want to focus on information that has lasting value. If we keep this list, Wikipedia might as well get into the business of publishing lists of road closures.

Finally, I recommend looking at Wikipedia:Featured lists, which is the pinnacle of what a list article should achieve. If a list article on Wikipedia can never meet those requirements (and this one certainly won't), then we shouldn't put our time into it. -/- Warren 04:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You've made a detailed case and somewhat thoughtful case. I'll answer as best I can in reverse order.

I used to do the Features and Admins beat for WP:SIGN and I helped a great deal on List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes (not featured, but it should be), so I'm familiar with featured content. Point taken with irrelevance with time, but that is an entirely irrelevant point at this time; don't get into a habit of using it.

An article on Vista game compatibility (and its history through the beta process, and on how DirectX 9.0L differs from DirectX 9.0C) is sorely needed, but I wanted to get summary information to people and provide a space where others can readily add their problems and experiences with games. An article is great, but most people would be interested in a listing of issues for the immediate future... hence I'd consider a list more immediately relevant than an article. An article can be grown organically from this list (which then can be deleted if not needed); nothing says it has to be the other way around.

Who's going to take care of this list??? Did I become an admin by putting crap onto Wikipedia? No. I will take care of this list and I intend, time permitting, to oversee the growth of a Game article and increased coverage in the Vista series of DirectX 9.0L and legacy support issues. As to Simcity 4, I recognized beforehand my first source was based on Vista Beta 2 and I had started to remove references I knew were wrong, so I missed Simcity 4 (partly because I had two S sections), I want to ignore the relevant newbie computer advice; the List has a disclaimer for godsake. I'm not new to this, and specific setup incompatibilities are to be expected and make this list more relevant, not less.

As to WP:NOT, you are mistaken as to its applicability. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 14:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: I dunno, it's heavily sourced, it has information beyond mere lists of games. What exactly is "arbitrary" about this list, and what makes it uncompletable?  RGTraynor  04:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't know, but this looks uncompletable, even in principle. It aims to outline the compatibility of every game on Windows vista, and known issues for each - apparently with a fix, for some. This is an impossible, and massive list that cannot possibly be completed - even if it currently well-sourced.--Haemo
• Weak keep as compatability issues are of interest. However if I had my way I'd retool this article to be more a list of software that is not compatable with Vista. Granted it would make for a longer list, so some sort of criteria would be necessary. 23skidoo 06:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought that would be a good idea as well, especially since I think it would make the shorter for the immediate future. The problem is you get the inevitable situation of people wanting to know if X or Y game is compatible. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 14:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not IGN. --Cloveious 15:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Haemo. Ganfon 15:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

But I argued for deletion? --Haemo 20:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and please dont cite essayes like "Listcruft" as a reason for deletion, that not policy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep very well sourced and just needs some work.--Joebengo 18:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what this means - "needs some work". In what sense? Does he need to add more articles? Does he need to source it more? It's already decently sourced, but it's still an uncompletable list! -Haemo 20:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, WP is not a free web host for what-have-you. Gazpacho 20:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zinkplaat

Zinkplaat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Subject of the article does ot meet the guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 03:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as a junk article. We don't need someone's memoir of riding a truck through South Africa. Sorry. YechielMan 07:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edsel D Rivera

Edsel D Rivera (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:BIO Nv8200p talk 03:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:N She's a "hopeful" model (meaning she wants to be one, but isn't). TJ Spyke 03:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete: "Hopeful" is right. There are two unique Google hits, both on model wannabe sites [12], and one of those is a bad link.  RGTraynor  04:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as there is no assertion of notability and no independent references and has more than usually annoying mylitterbox page.--killing sparrows 07:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 18:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don G. Giunta Middle School

Don G. Giunta Middle School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable middle school, one of over a hundred middle and elementary school stubs put up by the editor over 14 months ago, very few of which have ever been improved. There have been zero substantive edits (other than mentioning that the fellow after whom the school was named was now deceased) since February 2006 save for repeated and frequent vandalism, which has become endemic in the last two weeks. Article was prodded three days ago, but prod was removed by an anon IP without comment or reasoning. Fails WP:ATT and WP:NN, no real prospect of the article ever being sourced or improved.  RGTraynor  03:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• 'Delete No assertion of notability, stub for over a year (and a 2 sentence stub at that). Should be speedy delete, but people seem to complain when a speedy tag is put on any school article. TJ Spyke 03:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 05:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no assertion of notability. Naconkantari 05:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I tried looking for an article to merge this into, but on second thought, there's hardly anything to merge even if there was something to merge with. And it is a vandal magnet. I've reported the IP address to admins (absolutely nothing comes from that address except vandalism, apparently it's a computer in the public schools in that district). If anyone invests time and effort into creating a good article here, that editor will have to be around to watch it or see it destroyed by vandals. Not worth it in my book. Noroton 05:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - School does not appear notable enough for its own article. Any notability it has should be in a school district article, if one is ever created. Camaron1 | Chris 11:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buffalo Chips

Buffalo Chips (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable college a cappella group. No sources. Written from the memory of the group's members and from the group's website. Savidan 04:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Non notable and per nom--$UIT 06:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC. THF 11:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] De Minimis

De Minimis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable a cappella group. No sources. No claim to notability. Savidan 04:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete since it clearly fails the notability criteria, and no sources are provided. YechielMan 07:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete cleary fails WP:MUSIC.-- danntm ^T _C 16:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fluid Dynamics (music)

Fluid Dynamics (music) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

College a cappella group. No claim to notability other than "love of music" and performances in the "Southern California area" Savidan 04:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. YechielMan 07:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Huffines Middle School

Huffines Middle School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

no legitimate sourced claim to notability, was included in earlier afd for another middle school in same district- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbor Creek Middle School, but overlooked at time of deletion Chris 04:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: fails WP:ATT. I wouldn't say it doesn't make any legitimate claims to notability -- it makes several, in fact -- but nothing is sourced. If it is, my opinion may change, but it'll take some doing, given that I feel middle schools to be inherently non-notable.  RGTraynor  04:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 05:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Butseriouslyfolks 06:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Lewisville Independent School District. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 14:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral - I do feel it is notable enough but there doesnt seem to be enough sources to support it.--Joebengo 18:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Zane

Eric Zane (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article about a DJ with no claim to notability and no independent references killing sparrows 04:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. YechielMan 07:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, myspace is not a reliable source and no real claim of notablity.--Joebengo 18:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internet brigades

Internet brigades (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Original research, Misattribution, False translation, Undue weight and Weasel words, POV fork from previously deleted article, attack page Original version of previously deleted article Vlad fedorov 05:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• First of all, nothing has changed really in the article. The only thing that changed is defenition. And again it is original research. Where and who named those hoax russian teams "internet brigades"? Biophys linked originally to the Guradian article about China, but there is no any labelling of that thing in China. Guradian uses the term "army of secret comentators". Later after the article was nominated for deletion, Biophys has added a link to Polyanskaya article "Commissars of the internet". And again we see that throughout the whole text a term "brigade" is used meaning "team". Only once the term "web-brigade" is used. Looking onto other sources - we see that there is no such term which was used by Biophys. Conclusion, the term and the name for the article is an original research by Biophys which is not found in its sources.
• Second, Biophys again publishes Sections "Behaviour" and "Tactics" - they haven't changed even and are ridiculously worded. According to them, every man in the internet who supports Putin - is a member of KGB "internet team". It is stupid... They abuse directly other users in Wikipedia.
• Third, the article in Russian Wikipedia directly shows in its infobox that "Internet teams" are conspiracy theory and the whole thing is based on claims of few people, namely - Polyanskaya, Krivov and Lomko - authors of the article "Commissars of the Internet. The FSB at the Computer". Nowhere on this article the information about conspiracy theory is indicated.
• Fourth, like the other article it is totally dedicated to Russia. Even adding some original research comparisons with China didn't help - the article is totally about Russia. For example. original research is all that Biophys published in the Section "Recent developments" nothing is said in the sources about the subject of the article - internet teams.
• Fifth, the defenition of internet teams is totally original research. Nowhere you coud find that "intenet teams" are waging state-sponcored information warfare. Indeed, the word "warfare" is totally POV, except original research. Nowhere in sources you find that this is a warfare, and is against "blogs" or "political bloggers" - I have already pointed many times that nowhere in Russian sources you could find a word "Blog".
• Sixth, false translation and original research in that "internet brigades" are working against blogs.
• Seventh, this article is a POV fork of the deleted article Internet Troll Squads which was twice deleted: AfD and deletion review. Here you could find the original version of the article Internet troll squads.
• Eighth, Tygodnik Powszechny actually writes that "We don’t know it for certain (tracing a source of the attack failed). Only questions and assumptions remain and we are unable to verify them". Then it writes "According to Polish specialists in Russian affairs", the names of these are not disclosed, so it may be just Polish KGB disinformation and an act of Poland aggresion against Russia. Moreover, the first voting at AfD was rigged by Biophys and his Polish friends canvassing outside the Wikipedia. Vlad fedorov 04:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per abovementioned. Vlad fedorov 05:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep the allegations are supported by the sources. I do not remember the prev. article, but I see that this is not devoted to any one country. I have been canvassed to oppose this article, as I believe have a number of others. I have never been in contact with biophys. Entirely on my own account, I judge it honest reporting, appropriate for WP. I can understand the POV that would wish to pretend that the methods of the KGB have not continued to the present. The very attempt to suppress this article might perhaps be taken to indicated otherwise.DGG 05:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you cite where the term "internet brigades" is taken from? Please give me the reference.Vlad fedorov 06:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

English translation of reference 2 (first publication on this subject) say: "web-brigades". "Internet brigades" is a better wording in my opinion. But this can be easily corrected and not a reason for deletion. Russian version also calls them "web-brigades" or "forum brigades". Biophys 07:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong!!! Reference 2 uses term "brigades", only once it says "web brigade". So you have confirmed that you've done original research, because you cited no sources for your "internet brigades". Thank you so much. Moreover reference 2 is published on blog, so it is violation of Wikipedia policies to use blog entries.Vlad fedorov 08:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Original Russian article is a reliable source. Providing English translation is not neccessary, although desiarable. So everything is consistent with WP policies.Biophys 14:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Original Russian article is an immigrant advertising newpaper with low circulation. English translation is from blog and falsifies Russian text. Moreover, you, Biophys has added to the original research a lot of texts not relevant.Vlad fedorov 15:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Well referenced, notable phenomena, former POV problems eliminated. For an article about what is in essence an ongoing intelligence operations by a major power, good job.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Czesc Piotrus. Could you cite where the term "internet brigades" is taken from? Please give me the reference.Vlad fedorov 06:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with Internet censorship. The problem I have with this article is that a lot of things I see in here are "alleged" or "supposedly." I can't see how an article like this can stand on its' own with all of that text being used. However, it would be worth noting this in an article about Internet censorship in the Russian Federation, or on censorship in general, since while some nations are also mentioned, this is heavily about Russia. Notable subject, but just presented in the wrong format. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd support that if not for the fact that in addition to censorship this article also describes information manipulation (adding false info, etc.) - which goes outside the definition of censorship. Last time I suggested the name Online information manipulation by Russian intelligence (or similar) - this would probably be better than merge. But now that the article talks about Chine and other countries... I am not sure about the best new name.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD G4: Recreation of a deleted page. There is really nothing to discuss, this article is a blatant hoax and OR about a non-existing phenomenon. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You are telling this is a hoax. Among all cited sources, there is only one (Usupovsky) that claims this to be a "conspiracy theory" (not a hoax). So, this is small minority opion, and it was described as such. I agree that originally submitted stub was not good. So, I worked a lot to improve the article. Now it is significantly bigger, well-referenced, less POV, etc. This is exactly what WP rules ask us to do: create interesting articles supported by multiple reliable sources. Of course, it can be improved further.Biophys 14:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• delete. It's pure conspiracy theory, and the article treats it as reality. {removed my prev. comment} ellol 20:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Rules say: verifiability, not truth. No one is proving anything here. There are many complicated phenomena and controversial subjects described in WP. How to deal with them? Do not invent or research anything yourself. Simply follow reliable sources whatever they say. It is exactly what I did. Your are talking about "absense of any research". Yes, I did not do any original research of my own. And I am not suppose to judge research of others. I only have to make sure that the sources are reliable, and their content is properly described in this artice. If you can provide any reliable sources which say: this particular reserach and claims made by Polyanskaya, Svirsky, journalists from Guardian and reports by New Times and grani.ru are wrong - such sources can be cited in the article. I found only one such source: claims by Usupovsky (with regard to only publication by Polyanskaya), and it is included. Biophys 14:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Not truth? Thank you. I do not have to reject nonsense. There are no names in sourced articles, no direct evidences. All is easy. Economic growth => spread of internet => internet hooligans. Journalists — liberal democratic journalists — encountered them and wrote article about internet brigades. Fun? Not really. Fair? Not at all. ellol 20:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep (I am creator of this article). I will answer to AfD nominator's claims at the talk page.Biophys 14:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The article still has bad title and requires massive cleanup: I have to agree that it dangerously close to original research by mixing/matching different phenomena into one text: Russia + China + CyberArmy. Nevertheless the organized intereference into internet opinion flow is an observable and non-surprizing fact or opinion. `'mikka 18:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Referenced. But possibly bad title. --Lysy^talk 18:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - once again, this article is still about as good as it was before. I'm still not convinced this is at all a notable phenomenon, since the key sources are very slim, and it smells like WP:OR, and the creating editor seems to have some kind of argument to be made using the pages. However, none of that really matters, since there's no coherent reason presented to remove it. --Haemo 20:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Producer Joe

Producer Joe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article is about the producer of a radio show. It makes no claim of credible claim of notability for the person or the show and has no independent references killing sparrows 05:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. YechielMan 07:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete uses myspace as a source and has no other independent sources, no claim of notability.--Joebengo 18:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Free Beer

Free Beer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Yet another radio host article with no claim to credible notability and no indy references killing sparrows 05:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. YechielMan 07:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hot Wings

Hot Wings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

4th in a series of DJ's with no credible claim to notability and no independent references killing sparrows 05:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. YechielMan 07:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable.--Joebengo 18:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Garth Westbrook

Garth Westbrook (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

False NFL player, never played in the NFL, never recorded his stats, trust me, I have Madden 2001.Garth Westbrook

Garth Westbrook (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)<noinclude>

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prometheus92 (talk • contribs) 2007/03/31 21:18:11.

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Herostratus 05:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete He has about 15 Google hits. Even if he did play in the NFL - and I can't be sure about that - he didn't do anything significant there. YechielMan 07:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The only hit I could find for Garth Westbrook, is he is a Madden create a character. --Cloveious 16:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Free Beer & Hot Wings Morning Show

Free Beer & Hot Wings Morning Show (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A morning radio show with no claim of notability, no ratings listed and no independent references killing sparrows 05:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have added the following related page as it is the only one in the below category not currently under AfD;

Freebeer & Hotwings Morning Show Glossary (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment from nominator. There is also a category 'Free Beer & Hot Wings Morning Show' that should be deleted but I don't know how to nominate that.--killing sparrows 06:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Response. That goes on WP:CFD. I'll see if I can take care of it. YechielMan 07:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Follow-up After checking the guidelines, I realize that it doesn't make sense to delete the category so long as the category contains some articles. I recommend that all the articles in the category be deleted, and then the category itself can be speedied. The closing admin should take note of this. YechielMan 07:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Note the related AFD on Eric Zane. YechielMan 07:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this is the third or so in a number of related articles that need to be deleted.--Joebengo 18:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Spectrobes

List of Spectrobes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I am nominating this page for deletion for a few reasons. First, it violates WP:NOT, specifically Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a game guide. Second, it somewhat violates Wikipedia:Copyrights in that all the information is straight from the game, not paraphrased, sourced, etc. It's almost as if the editor went through the game, looked at all his Spectrobes, and just copied their info word for word! (Doesn't that kind of count as Original Research?) Lastly, it somewhat violates WP:NOTE in that the Spectrobes themselves are not all that notable; apart from this game and a few webisodes, they have not made any public appearances, been in any other games, caused some riots, etc. SuperDT 06:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. Who needs this silly list? It's useful only for people who play the game, not for people who might want to know about the game from an encyclopedic point of view. YechielMan 07:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT, there is not need for this list in an encyclopedia.--Joebengo 18:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LeaseTrade.com

LeaseTrade.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:WEB. Also largely reads like an advertisement. ghits: [13] NMChico24 06:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This is not meant as an advertisement, rather a notation about a related website and a definition of lease assumptions. Please note, an article specifically defining "lease assumptions" will be authored shortly. mattmcg
  • The issue is not so much it sounding like an advertisement, that was just a secondary comment. The main problem is conforming to WP:WEB. To be acceptable, the article needs to cite sources that establish how the site is notable to make it clear why an article should exist. You can also read WP:NOT for more information about what is inappropriate for Wikipedia. --NMChico24 07:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I will be updating this again tomorrow. There are credible second sources that cite LeaseTrade.com as notable for a number of reasons (e.g. one of the original websites that pioneered the concept). mattmcg
• Delete. I'm not only working with WP:WEB, I'm hedging on WP:CORP - doesn't appear to be very notable here. --Dennisthe2 16:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Would be nice to keep but its not a notable company and also I think it fails WP:WEB] --PrincessBrat 18:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Locale of Muscat, Oman

Locale of Muscat, Oman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Apparently an article about a church in Oman. No claim of notability and no references killing sparrows 07:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless notability can be asserted. Thanks, Navou ^banter / _contribs 07:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Cautious keep. There can't be that many churches in Oman. Though to be sure, the ministry of information site says that there are. StAnselm 12:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:ORG. This article appears to be about a local church in an international denomination, yet I can't find any article about the international denomination in Wikipedia. The only source provided is to a web site about the denomination, which doesn't appear to show a directory of its local churches, so it doesn't help confirm the existence of this local church. There is no clear claim to notability in this article, and merely being a church in a mostly Muslim country is not an inherent claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 17:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- I definitly do not see how this church claims notability.--Joebengo 18:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sullenearth

Sullenearth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable comic publisher. I'm pretty sure the subject doesn't meet WP:N, but that's what AfD is for... Possible WP:COI with the authors of the article. The Bleak content was in another article (speedy deleted for copyvio twice). -- Ben 04:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't seem notable, appears to be promotional. Artw 22:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- -- Ben 04:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 07:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I seems notable to me but it could be promotional and I think it needs work on NPOV.--Joebengo 18:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RPGds

RPGds (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software. I'm unable to find any secondary, reliable sources to verify any of the content in the article, and, as the article has remained tagged {{primarysources}} since November 2006, neither has anyone else. —Cryptic 10:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. There is no reason to delete this. You can verify by visiting the website. http://www.rpgds.com/ --Darth Borehd 00:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Does "secondary" mean something different to you than it does to everyone else? —Cryptic 01:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Apart from being completely NN, according to the article it's still in Beta test. EliminatorJR ^Talk 15:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete its a beta test and that is certainly not notable.--Joebengo 18:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Graham Roff Experience

The Graham Roff Experience (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Does not satisfy WP:MUSIC, prod contested with no explanation. -SpuriousQ (talk) 08:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete - completely non-notable. Orderinchaos 08:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete this should have been a speedy delete, totally non notable.--Joebengo 18:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mechanised Convulsions

Mechanised Convulsions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 10:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Does not satisfy the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC. No hits, tours or awards and no 3rd-party commentary. EdJohnston 22:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, can't find any reliable sources (looked on a couple of subscription engines too). Orderinchaos 08:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no reliable sources and fails notablity of WP:MUSIC--Joebengo 18:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Double-Standards and Human Rights Protection

Double-Standards and Human Rights Protection (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Basically it's a short rant about human rights protection and alleged Western hypocrisy. Some interesting points but not at all relevant for an encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 08:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is an encyclopaedia not a blog. Fails WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. --Folantin 12:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; I'm amazed this survived for as long as it did. Obvious violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 15:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Regardless of whether the points expressed in the article are valid, the execution is clearly designed to present a particular point of view, and as such is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.--Xnuala (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. thewinchester 16:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete violation of NPOV--Joebengo 18:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete while there are some good points, Wikipedia mainspace is not designed for opinion essays. Post it somewhere else. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 18:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roy Batchelor

Roy Batchelor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable professor with some consultancy work on the side. Pleclech 12:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - NN, autobiographical, advert, no sources, not even a full biography. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 13:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 14:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Named chair at the 2nd-best business-school in the UK, strong research record, stronger record of industry and government panel involvement. Seems a clear pass for WP:PROF to me. I wikified the article but didn't change the content much; there's a lot more that could be added from his web page. —David Eppstein 16:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

(Added later): I ran a Google news archive search and included some results. Now has multiple independent sources per WP:N. —David Eppstein 19:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. Needs a lot more information and sources to support claim of notibility.--Joebengo 18:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lara Grice

Lara Grice (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Bit part and extras actress, no major roles. Does not meet wikipedia notability guidelines (WP:N) Madmedea 15:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - no indication she passes WP:BIO or WP:NOTE. Otto4711 14:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - seems her only claim to fame is that her grandparents owned a restaurant, definitly NOT NOTABLE--Joebengo 18:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sean McKinsley

Sean McKinsley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Article makes several claims which just barely meet A7 threshold -- nevertheless, is orphanned, unsourced, and resume-like. Unless someone comes forward with sources, delete. Xoloz 15:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - unsourced, so no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to meet WP:BIO. Delete unless sourced by end of AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 16:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - No sources and doesnt seem to meet notability requirements.--Joebengo 18:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amit Avner

Amit Avner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Vanity article from non-notable web developer. His company, BWitty, appears to have done little of substantive value. Any coverage of him/his company relates to the foundation of the company by him at a young age (14) in 1999. TreveX^talk 17:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This nomination was misfiled at the top and moved to its correct chronological position by Flyguy649^talk_contribs 18:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This article has already been deleted on the Hebrew Wikipedia [14] TreveX^talk 01:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The Hebrew article lacked a lot of information. This article describes the Internet company that was mentioned in a few newspapers. Should keep it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.178.16.62 (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete appears to have been created by the person themselves and the deletion tag was removed (most likely by the same person) I dont see an very good claims of notability.--Joebengo 18:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BWitty

BWitty (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails notability. The sole output of this company appears to be an online noteboard service that carries no advertising. Vanity article as per Amit Avner. TreveX^talk 17:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This nomination was misfiled at the top and moved to its correct chronological position by Flyguy649^talk_contribs 18:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This article has already been deleted on the Hebrew Wikipedia [15] TreveX^talk 01:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The Hebrew article lacked a lot of information. This article describes the Internet company that was mentioned in a few newspapers. Should keep it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.178.16.62 (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

• Delete per nom. - Aagtbdfoua 00:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, also the deletion tag on the article was removed by an anon editor, so be on the look out.--Joebengo 18:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terry Chipp

Terry Chipp (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An artist with no real claims of notability that I can see. May be a member of some artistic organisations, but this is not attributed. Has an official website. Other than that, there are no references.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no reliable sources and no real claim of notability.--Joebengo 18:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tina Chancey

Tina Chancey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No assertion or evidence of notability whatsoever, other than a tenuous "was in a band with a guy from Deep Purple" which would be better suited to that band's entry. However, seeing that as it's been up a year with multiple editors, bringing it here instead of speedying or merging. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've heard of her a number of times in the "early music" world, won't say keep or delete yet, let me do a little digging, though. Mak (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The early music world is understated in the Wkikipedia and Tina Chancey is well know in this field. I feel the comment about her being in the band with a guy from Deep Purple is both potentally insulting to her and to Ritchie Blackmore who is that guy. I would hope that the comment is not coming from the point of view of a Deep Purple fan which I happen to be but from someone who is trying to be both constructive and extending the entry on Tina Chancey. I am looking for her academic details as she is an academic working in the field of music that she is credited for here. I think a look at the Hesperus website would provide us useful information which will allow us to keep this entry. At this time I object to deletion. Paulw99 20:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"I feel the comment about her being in the band with a guy from Deep Purple is both potentally insulting to her and to Ritchie Blackmore who is that guy" - what? She was in a band with a guy from Deep Purple. It's not a value judgement! - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You totally miss the fact that she was in her own right able to achieve two National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) awards for which you have to be of a extremely high standard as a musician. To have picked up on her performing with Ritchie Blackmore seems to be a little like a lack of other reason to object. I didn't mean to be insulting to you, I am sorry if that came accross that way, but she has done much more than that. I still object to deletion can we please look at giving me sometime to research more imformation on her and make this entry up to the standard required?. Paulw99 20:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment So far I have added an additional discography section and will be adding further information. Will someone comment on the additions please? I am also preparing a section on her academic work and the papers she has written but these are proving a little harder to understand as I don't have a doctorate in musicology.Paulw99 09:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electro-gravitic propulsion

Unsourced weasel-speak. --Pjacobi 20:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. RogueNinja 18:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to recreation. However, any new version of this article will need references which provide some evidence that this concept is notable. --EMS | Talk 22:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone finds notable references, and most websites not included. Someguy1221 02:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, and hunt down references. This idea is certainly mentioned enough to be notable; the problem is the lack of references to respectable commentary on it, not the article's existence. --Christopher Thomas 03:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per EMS. Tengfred 09:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

---

• It's sourced and free of weasel words now. Uncle G 13:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitively an improvement, but what should be done with science fiction and ufology aspects? Remove categories and navbox from from outer space or include these aspects. Keepable now but I very mucg assume it will drift away from sane version if not closely watched. --Pjacobi 13:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral there are sources now and it does seem notable enough to have an article but it still needs some work.--Joebengo 18:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adventure Games

Adventure Games (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This page has little indication of notability and seems to be mainly an advert for the store Amaccormack 09:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete although I rather like the idea of this being the largest gaming store in the National Environmental Policy Act as the article claims. A gaming store isn't notable on its own, an it definitely reads like an ad. Gwernol 09:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:RS and WP:CORP. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 15:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broadcasting of The Simpsons

Broadcasting of The Simpsons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of program syndication or a TV Guide. The Simpsons does not gain notability by being syndicated and individual stations do not gain notability based on syndicating it. Also oppose merging any of this information into the featured article The Simpsons. Otto4711 22:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, also, some of this article appears to violate WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE as well. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 22:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This article holds information about who does the voices in other languages. I believe this is valid information. --Maitch 17:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Rename to Foreign language voice cast of The Simpsons and remove all information about the programs syndication in other countries. --Maitch 17:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• delete this article is really unneccesaryGman124 18:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral I do see potential for this to be a list of foreign language voice cast but it still violates the fact that wikipedia is not a directory.--Joebengo 18:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Rename per Maitch. Gran² 19:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I did a quick clean up (I know the lead doesn't fit) in order to show what I imagine. See User:Maitch/draft5. --Maitch 20:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abe Tran

Abe Tran (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable reality show contestant. Who cares what fan clubs he is a member of? Corvus cornix 23:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• No vote yet The article does make a couple of claims that sound like they might be notable (in particular, being "World Champion in the American Taekwondo Association,") If sources can be found to back these up, it might be a keep, if not, delete as unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No assertion of notablity.--Bryson^{{Talk}{Edits}} 02:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Numerous links within the page point to different articles that also mention him as World Champion in the American Taekwondo Association, particularly the article in the ATA World Magazine and the bio found on the MTV2 page for the Final Fu show. Further, he was recently featured on the cover of ATA World Magazine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TKDchampXI (talk • contribs) 06:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Also, new sources have been added to further verify information. Sentences concerning fan clubs and nicknames should be deleted User:TKDchampXI

• KEEP - I created this article originally. Considering Abe Tran was just on the cover of ATA World Magazine and wikipedia lists the American Taekwondo Association as one of the largest martial arts organizations in the US and worldwide, Abe Tran is at least a celebrity within that large circle of martial arts practicioners. Furthermore, he is a Head Coach of the Rutgers University Taekwondo Team. - Brett Yates - bay8s

• STRONG KEEP - Page has been reformatted. As of April 6, 2007, Abe Tran is also a new member of ATA's prestigious World Demo Team. -- R. Rendeiro - Red eyed dream (talk

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless better claims of notability are produced. At the moment there is nothing much here that many other talented martial artists can claim. The ATA cover, incidentally, was based on his appearance in Final Fu. (Without invoking some sort of reverse WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, not even the winners of that show have articles). EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Titane laurent

Titane laurent (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced biography claiming half a million readers for a webcomic. A previous prod was removed with additions to the article. Delete unless sourced. gadfium 09:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- -- Ben 15:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bill still

Bill still (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bio / promotion for someone trying to push some highly original ideas for monetary reform. -- RHaworth 02:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep: He seems to have many google hits, although its hard to sort out which are specific for him. If it is kept it should be redirected to Bill Still.--Dcooper 14:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but Stubbify and Rename to William T. Still. He does seem to be a notable conspiracy theorist, writing on other topics as well [16][17][18]. Most of the claims in here are unreferenced, however. Having poorly referenced biographies is a bad idea for anybody, but particularly for conspiracy theorists or other individuals holding controvercial or unpopular views. Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 14:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Also, how do we know that the TMJ/Hormone author Bill Still is the same person as William T. Still? Rookwood^{Dept. of Mysteries} 14:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, but on account of lack of attribution. --Dennisthe2 16:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Akisha Samia

Akisha Samia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This page has been tagged three times with a PROD and at least once with a speedy, all because someone thought the article is a hoax. At least twice an IP has tried to create the AfD but of course could not finish the process. I am completing this AfD as I think based on a small amount of research is either a hoax or non notable. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral I can't say that this woman isnt notable, at least in the world of wrestling, but there are no sources which do not help support a claim of notibility.--Joebengo 18:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zhu Xiao Di

Zhu Xiao Di (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Reads like advertising and does not really show notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, the article is messy, but it doesn't mean this person's article should not be in wikipedia. SISLEY 09:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - the article is a mess and asserts no notability (sources etc) whatsoever. Baristarim 04:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Winner Winner Chicken Dinner

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced slang Vegaswikian 06:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• delete but only because of lack of sources. 14,000 G-hits for such an odd(unlikely to be assembled at random) phrase indicates a reasonable probability that there are sources out there, and given the small region it is specific to, a fairly large number as well. I'd be quick to switch my delete to a keep if reliable sources could be found. i kan reed 07:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to source it, the place I learned about it was an online forum [19] so I don't know if that's a valid source. I'll add it anyway, just in case. By the way how can you tell it's gotten 14,000 hits? --MrCalifornia 22:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for details. Vegaswikian 05:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm afraid that's not a valid source. Typically a source is someone or something with a reputation for presenting factual information. i kan reed 06:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete/Transwiki. Even if relevant sources are dug up, this is little more than a dicdef, and would not belong on wikipedia in any case. If sources are found and noteability asserted, a transwiki to wictionary might be the solution. Otherwise, delete.Dr bab 10:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. I'm worried about the apparent folk etymology behind it, but if it's on Wikt, then it'll work itself out. --Dennisthe2 15:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gavin Priestly

Gavin Priestly (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A mere potential candidate for election into the Australian House of Representatives. The article makes unsupported claims and reads more like a campaign pitch. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 06:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No real claim of notability, could just be a campaign pitch.--Joebengo 18:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chester Hill Hornets

Chester Hill Hornets (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A Junior sports club and as such non notable Mattinbgn/ ^talk 07:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Dlete rnadom suburban sports club. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7 (non-notable club), but that's more hedging a bet. Club only talks a bit about history, no proper attributions for it. Going on speedy though because it doesn't appear to be much more than a "barbecue league" team, but I could be wrong.... --Dennisthe2 14:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable local sports club is not enough to have an article.--Joebengo 18:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vienna Cricket Club

A social cricket club in Austria, 30 years old. Organises a few social matches between expats from Commonwalth countries etc. The tours mentioned are not between semi-proffessional teams, they are games against other social teams. They play in matches of 10 overs per side, which is much less than Test cricket (5 days and total of 450 overs) or ODI cricket (50 overs each) Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete A social club rather than a notable sports club. --Mattinbgn/ ^talk 08:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge No noteability is asserted apart from being the first cricket club in Austria. A non-professional cricket club is not in itself noteable. As it is the first cricket club in Austria, a merge of the relevant historical information into a history section in Austrian Cricket Association might be appropriate. Dr bab 11:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stainless Broadcasting Company

Stainless Broadcasting Company (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company. Article makes no assertion of notability —Ocatecir ^Talk 23:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dante Salvatierra

Dante Salvatierra (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I came accross this one whilst doing some cleanup work. A previous discussion in the summer of 2005 ended without consensus. Since then, there has been little development to the article text. Earlier this year, an editor redirected the page to United States House elections, 2004 (subject was an unsuccessful candidate in Nebraska), which seems to be a particularly bad solution as the reader (in this case, me doing cleanup) has no idea as to why they find themselves there (and no hope of skimming such a huge page). The article is obviously not speediable, but the subject still seems unnotable to me. Hence, I am bringing the discussion here, with an opinion of delete, to see what other users think. Physchim62 (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. 1% of the vote for a seat in Congress = non-notable. -R. fiend 21:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abraham Soltero III

Abraham Soltero III (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Appears to be an autobiography that doesn't meet WP:N, probably created for self-promotion. Article doesn't provide independent published references to support inclusion and it looks unlikely to do so. Dugwiki 18:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:BIO and, apparently, WP:AUTO. Deor 19:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There is nothing here meeting WP:BIO. The only assertion of notability in the article is the statement that he has become a radio personality, but the gloss at the end "they hope to make a great show", shows this is forward looking; they are not yet established. The radio shows's site reveals that this is a free account at a website anyone can join. Finally, the conflict of interest is pretty clear since the photo, uploaded by the creator of the article, states "A photo taken by me on vacation".--Fuhghettaboutit 14:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electromagnetic brain animation

Electromagnetic brain animation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable product from a non-notable company. 14 unique google hits (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Electromagnetic+brain+animation%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N) not counting wikipeda and its mirrors. No article links to this page, no categories for this article. FateClub 17:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nn and does not pass google test.--Joebengo 18:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diocesan College (Definition)

Diocesan College (Definition) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Four months after its creation and this article is still just a definition, even the name specifies that. Until today it had no category and no article links to it. FateClub 16:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or Redirect to a Category for Catholic colleges. Bearian 23:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 09:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Jacks

Joe Jacks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable artist - zero non-wikipedia Google hits for "Silver and Spiders" OR "Silver & Spiders"; no relevant hits for "Joe Jacks"+artist or "Benjamin Jacks"+artist. Prod removed by author with comment: Hello. I would like the article to stay. While i admit that i haven't encountered him outside my college art books, i think he is relevant enough and i will search my textbooks more better information. Nothing has been added since then (almost a month ago). Delete due to lack of evidence of notability. ... discospinster _talk 12:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 10:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Appears to be unverifiable through any source but the book source stated in the article, and that appears to be a simple mention, rather than substantive treatment. I also searched Google with both names and "abstract", as well as Google books, and since he is stated to be from New York, the New York Times archive [20], [21] under both his real name and his assumed name with no relevant results.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KOPT_Kent_Open_Poker_Tour

KOPT_Kent_Open_Poker_Tour (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Vanity. Zilch notability, only online references are this article, their site and some youtube-like video things. 2005 10:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No assertion of notability. Anyone else confused on what months they don't play between December and January? --Dennisthe2 14:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of books and references on sentencing, law, and related matters

Note: This debate has not yet been categorized. Please select an appropriate debate category and update the code letter in the {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} template.

List of books and references on sentencing, law, and related matters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Listcruft, unencyclopedic, probably unsalvageable, copyright violation in places, seems to be a general list and synopsis. WP:NOT applies. Delete. – Chacor 12:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wikibooks (ie. create a Wikibook on literature about sentencing) or maybe Wikiversity, but only after removing any parts of this that are copyvios, and it certainly seems that some of this is probably copyvio. --bainer (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as listcruft. I don't understand the need for a list of references about any issue or topic. - SpLoT // 12:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Haslett

Alexander Haslett (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable person, Google search results were minimal, No references (failing WP:V), it was either {{PROD}} or AFD, I deemed AFD be more appropriate as it a politician which some may wish to keep. Tellyaddict 12:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep He was a MP in the Irish Parliament for 10 years. Could do with expanding and tidying up, though. I've fixed the spelling errors and added a ref.EliminatorJR ^Talk 15:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- quite a notable person. Historical background, I don't see why it should have been nominated. Retiono Virginian 16:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- probably bad faith nomination. A representative in a national parliament is notable. Google hits is a very bad indication of noteability for someone that was profesionally active before the second world war. Dr bab 18:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

This was not a bad faith nomination, I deemed it more appropriate to bring it here other than using {{prod}}, this has since been cleanup up a little since my nomination, assume good faith. Thanks - Tellyaddict 19:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. No offense was intended, hopefully none was taken. Dr bab 20:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] London_Titans

London_Titans (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Reads more like an advertisement Rangemean 12:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to GFSN National League (and the same could apply to Yorkshire Terriers FC). EliminatorJR ^Talk 14:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias Vineyards

Bias Vineyards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable winery that fails WP:CORP. Article was prod'd on March 23rd with the prod removed by the article's creator who has edited very little else apart from this article and may have a conflict of interest with the subject matter. Despite repeated request on the article's Talk Page and the deprodder's talk page to provide sources and establish the article's notability in accordance to Wikipedia guidelines, the article still sits in its sorry state. That's probably because there is no grounds for notability to begin with. Bias Vineyards is a very small production winery whose wines are hard to get even within in Missouri and are available only at the wineries own shop and at a handful few "Missouri wine" stores. The average Wikipedia reader will never see or even hear about this wine, There is scarce mention of non-trivial writes ups or sources about the winery-819 ghits for "Bias Vineyards" with no g-news hits and 79 ghits for "Gruhlke Microbrewery" which the article claims makes this establishment unique as "Missouri's first vineyard-microbrewery". However, outside of the Wikipedia article, there is no reliable sources to back up that claim. The "regional awards" that the creator mentions in his edit summaries are essentially non-notable county fairs and even that is lacking reliable sources to back up those claims. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 12:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - Reads like advertising, and is unsourced, hence no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources to establish notability per WP:CORP. The regional awards might be evidence of notability, but these claims need to be sourced by the end of this AfD; otherwise delete. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 14:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spaceships of EVE Online

Spaceships of EVE Online (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a game guide. Ample precedent exists for the deletion of this article, see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vehicles in Unreal Tournament 2004, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in Battlefield 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in the Halo universe and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft III units and structures. MER-C 13:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or merge to EVE Online, removing the excessive detail. Not notable enough to merit its own article per WP:FICT; this kind of content belongs more on a specialised game wiki than on Wikipedia. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 14:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:NOT. Ale_Jrb^talk 14:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tupalo

Tupalo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Low Alexa rank Computerjoe's talk 09:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:WEB, makes no assertion of notability and has no references. Tried poking around on Google and all I could find were blogs that brought it up - many of which pointed out the fact that the service was "Too new to have much info". Interesting concept but lacks reliable sourcing at this time. Come back with it after it's gotten some reviews or such. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rlevse 13:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snowball Earth/Infobox

Note: This debate has not yet been categorized. Please select an appropriate debate category and update the code letter in the {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} template.

Snowball Earth/Infobox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A template but using main article's namespace. Included only by an article called Snowball Earth. Should be subst'd to “Snowball Earth” and delete this stub. Please also remove Snowball earth/Infobox which is a redirect. --✉Hello World! 14:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Move to template space. Delete the redirect. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 14:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It is not suitable to move it to template namespace because it is used by ONE ARTICLE ONLY. --✉Hello World! 15:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific acupuncture

Scientific acupuncture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The incredible claim in the article that "This is an objective review from more than 10,000 scientific research studies published on acupuncture" is prima facie evidence that this article is Original Research, and should therefore be deleted, not merged. It is also a POV fork of Acupuncture, and is therefore not neutral, despite claiming to be so. greenrd 15:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as an obvious POV fork. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 15:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but Strong Cleanup I agree it appears to be a noticeable POV fork seeming to defend the scientific basis of acupuncture, but it has a degree of citation rarely found in a POV fork and addresses a common topic that is brought up in acupuncture discussions. I'd say rename to something like "Scientific Theories Regarding Acupuncture", link it from the main article, and clean this up toward NPOV...including some commentary regarding scientific theories that debunk acupuncture. Keep in mind AfD is not generally meant for articles for POV problems. -Markeer 15:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abdul Rahman Husseini

Abdul Rahman Husseini (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a prank from looking through the history. Several people tried to correct the prank by blanking, but it got reverted every time. The embassy's web page makes no mention of this person, and the current ambassador, Mr. Suwit Saicheua, has been in place since 2003[22]. Google hits only seem to show wikipedia mirrors. Bkkbrad 15:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as a hoax. Neither name picks up anything except mirrors. Also, the line "Whoever who is reading this delete this article this was made by me as a joke this person is a student and is not what the article is describing" may be a giveaway. EliminatorJR ^Talk 15:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense - on the grounds that somebody alleging to be the author notes as such. --Dennisthe2 16:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Ramirez

Ken Ramirez (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Resumé-like article. No sign of significant, reliable third-party coverage. Sure he gives interviews about things happening at his aquarium but he has not been the main subject of significant work. Pascal.Tesson 15:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avant coast

Avant coast (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization. Google for <"Avant Coast"> (with quotes) gets 55 Google hits, mostly brief mentions of the name, and no detailed write-ups in reliable sources. [23] Of the external links provided, 2 are non-references: 1 is to the main page of a related group, 1 is to Avant coast's own website, and the only reference provided is to [24] whose only mention of Avant coast basically says that the organisation exists, and not much else: "After February, Keith and Webb formed a group called Avant Coast, which tries to move creative, improvisational music into the public eye and encourages collaboration between local musicians. The group presented a show in Kittery last fall, and on Feb. 23, they are starting a new music series in the Lotus Rising dance studio at the Mills at Salmon Falls in Rollinsford." Resurgent insurgent 15:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• from the author

The assertion that the Wire magazine is associated with Avant Coast is incorrect. This is a small, worthwhile organization in my area that I felt was interesting and important within the realm of creative improvised music. Their model is very close to that of the AACM, and I thought that would be enough of a reason to create an entry. I'm confused; is the assumption that my entry was a shill for the organization? I also made contributions in the form an entry for Dick Griffin, a valuable musician in American music. Most of my source material came from Griffin's site, but that was not questioned. I'm just confused about the process. There are a great many topics which will not produce much in a google search, but does that necessarily make them unworthy? Please understand, I'm not questioning the rules, but my goal in creating my account was to contribute information which is absent. As a life-long student of Jazz music, I have a great deal of information to offer, but it seems like much of it will be questioned by the current posting criteria. I'd like to know that before I expend more time (this first page was roughly 4 hours of research). Please bear with me, this is a learning process and I'm trying to do right by Wikipedia. Im not the guy 15:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• The article is being nominated for deletion due to lack of cited sources. This makes the group non-notable per our criteria for music group/artiste articles. Resurgent insurgent 16:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Padnos

Ben Padnos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unsourced resumé for non-notable entrepreneur. Google for <"Ben Padnos" Yahoo!> gets 69 hits, none in reliable sources. [25] Factiva gives only 2 hits, and both of them are passing mentions of the name only. Resurgent insurgent 15:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as copyviovanispam as this is substantially copied from here, a promotional site and so there is no independent source. --killing sparrows 18:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Krewe of Atlas

Krewe of Atlas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non notable Mardi Gras krewe. 56 unique Ghits show only listing-type info (i.e. the krewe does exist and does parade) but no sign of significant third-party coverage. Pascal.Tesson 15:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Narahara

Uncited. Google comes with nothing. Appears to be original research. --Infrangible 15:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No sources and no evidence it's anything but a name on Google. Fails wp:att. Goodnightmush 16:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Elvis Presley songs covered by other artists

List of Elvis Presley songs covered by other artists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - prod removed stating there have been previous prods and AFDs but there are none linked to the article's talk page. This is an indiscriminate list and directory of cover songs with no relation to one another other than a particular artist initially recorded them. Otto4711 15:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• My bad, it was affected by the AfDs but wasn't the subject. Still, it's already been deproded before, so it's not a prod candidate now. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Jakerforever 17:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into List of Elvis Presley songs. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brandon Scullion

Brandon Scullion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails notability criterion Madcoverboy 15:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence of notability. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 16:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - "Two Dudes and a Zombie" exists only on YouTube. I can't find evidence of "Bath of Blood" at all. Gotta be WP:COI. - Richfife 16:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, possibly speedy with {{db-bio}}. Glad to see ambition, but we're not a "get my name out there" site. --Dennisthe2 16:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Judi Cohen

Not sure whether this meets WP:BIO or not. Comments appreciated. BlackBear 16:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Judi Cohen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Keep I think she passes the so-called test, but getting a few references of the web will really help. The Evil Clown ^{my contributions} 16:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as I see no claim to notability and there are no references provided. The burden of proof should be on the creator, not the reader.(sorry, forgot to sign)--killing sparrows 18:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Green transportation hierarchy

Green transportation hierarchy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Original Research, POV SpookyPig 16:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Twisted mods

Twisted mods (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not a significant website as far as I can tell and the whole thing reads as an advertisement. It's been tagged for a while for notability and lack of sources. Contributors to the article are all single-purpose accounts which doesn't really help to dispel the feeling of WP:COI or WP:SPAM issues. Of course, I might be wrong but I don't see how this meets WP:WEB. Pascal.Tesson 16:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Even overlooking the COI or spam problem, the article seems to still fail WP:N, and needs attribution anyway. --Dennisthe2 16:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - fails multiple policies, notably WP:NOTE and WP:ATT --Haemo 20:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bobby Korom

Bobby Korom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article originally contained some spammy hero worship/crystal ballism. However, I removed that, and Googled it- one page on the 'net mentions him, and it is this. Delete unless some decent sources can be found. J Milburn 16:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Construct Deep Linking

Construct Deep Linking (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Speedy deletion criteria 11: Blatant advertising. Google for "Construct Deep Linking" -wikipedia returns precisely one (unrelated) hit. Article's prose is horrible, too.

Related policy question: I attempted to speedy this twice, but due to the administrative backlog no one looked at it and User:Weggie (not an administrator) removed it twice without rationale aside from "because I can." While obviously anyone can remove speedy requests that are clearly vandalism (suggesting Judaism be speedy deleted, for example), my impression was that good-faith speedy requests shouldn't be removed except by an administrator examining the case. Unlike the prod process, the speedy tag can be repeatedly re-added if removed. If it's just a free-for-all in removing speedy tags as well, wouldn't this lead to dumb edit wars? SnowFire 17:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• I dont understand why this is raising a SPAM issue?

There is no external links pointing or and to the article. This is a brand new technique of taking "rich user experience" and "organic search" and combining the two by using the CDL implementation. It has never been done and will change the way a lot of developers will create their sites. I shared all the technical specifications in order to assist the general public with this knowledge. If there is any way I can improve the article, I am open to suggestions. Is not benefiting any organisation nor is it promoting any product, CDL is just a name that was given to it.

Regards,

n.

--Coetzeen 19:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. First, I took the liberty of moving your comment to the bottom, where new comments go. Hope you don't mind. Secondly - your article lacks sources and seems to be talking about how this new technique is awesome and will help out websites and so on. If it wasn't done for advertising purposes than I apologize, but in that case this is original research, which Wikipedia doesn't allow (see Wikipedia:No original research). You said on my talk page that "It has never been done and will change the way a lot of developers will create their sites." Well, that's fine, but there's nothing stopping you from getting your own website and bringing this to other's attention. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or a free webhost, so if this technique becomes famous and notable, THEN it can have an article. SnowFire 19:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or Speedy Delete. This is a web topic that does not appear to be notable, appears to be either original research/thought or borders on advertisement since the article is primarily extolling the virtues of the subject in a biased manner. This also appears to be a conflict of interest as the author's username appears to be that of one of the originators of the topic (Nico V Coetzee -> User:Coetzeen). -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 19:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete user admits this is original research [26]. There is a conflict of interest: "The technique was developed by Dennis Chacon and Nico V Coetzee, USA.". The subject only generates 3 Google hits, so there's no chance of learning about it from independent sources. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 19:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have removed any reference of any names in the article. Google does return a lot of hits about deep linking in flash:

[27] --Coetzeen 20:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The problem isn't that you said who invented the technique - that's valuable information- but rather that it was just you who did it, and there are no sources that aren't from you. Again, Wikipedia is not a free webhost. And there does in fact exist an article on deep linking; that's not under debate. (....though this is not an invitation to simply move your ideas over to the Deep Linking article, where they would likely also be deleted as not appropriate. But feel free to help improve it with verifiable information from elsewhere, though.). SnowFire 20:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amy Crawford (Nitro Girl)

Amy Crawford (Nitro Girl) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Fails WP:BIO and WP:A. has been tagged for failing WP:A since August '06 ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Kay

Chris Kay (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Completely non-notable referee. Fails WP:BIO and WP:A ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chad Patton

Chad Patton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Completely non-notable wrestling referee. Fails WP:BIO and WP:A ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arnob

Arnob (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:V mostly, and WP:MUSIC. References were asked for in January, but have not been forthcoming. Bubba hotep 09:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page – album by above non-notable:

Hok Kolorob (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Bubba hotep 09:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete both unless both articles are satisfactorily referenced under the terms of WP:Music before the end of this debate. A1octopus 23:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC),

• Keep. Two solo albums, two albums with Bangla (band). I'm assuming that these are on real labels. Needs sourcing, not deletion. However, Hok Kolorob should be merged into Arnob. Herostratus 06:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Splash - tk 17:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Ditter

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

• Keep the unknown I.P. gives no reason for deleting the article. Pinus pinea 20:16 1.4.2007 (CET)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - director of a high school with 900 pupils is not grounds for notability. - Iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Splash - tk 17:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cordlife

Cordlife (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

While the company may be notable, this article reads like a press release and appears to be self-authored. Mattinbgn/ ^talk 22:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up. I like the sources, but I'm willing to overlook the obvious WP:COI to get it cleaned up. --Dennisthe2 23:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- A blood bank company on the Australian stock exchange with facilities in 3 countries is notable. Keesiewonder ^talk 16:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Splash - tk 17:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I think it needs expanding but I think its worth keeping --PrincessBrat 17:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elk Cove (Overboard)

Elk Cove (Overboard) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A fictional location in a minor 1980s comedy. Not in any way notable. -Branddobbe 17:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2101

2101 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This page is too far in the future to have a page of its own. Only anniversaries on at the moment. Philip Stevens 18:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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

2102 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

2103 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

2104 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

2105 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

2106 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

2107 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

2108 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

2109 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

2110 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

2111 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

2112 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

2113 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

2114 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

2115 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

2116 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

2117 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

2118 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

2119 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

2120 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

2121 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

2122 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

2123 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

2124 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

2125 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

2126 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

2127 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

2128 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

2129 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Keep as redirects Until today most of these articles were redirects to their respective centuries until User:Voortle recreated them. This Afd should also be more properly called Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2123 (second nomination) , since you already proposed all these articles be deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2123. The result was keep/no consensus, with a general trend towards redirecting. Why not just revert to the versions before today? Dina 18:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Revert to redirects, as per Dina. No need for AfD mechanics here. SnowFire 18:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect all per above. --Czj 20:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Healing Project

The Healing Project (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable per WP:ORG, WP:WEB. WP:SPAM may also be applicable here, and portions of the article seem to be copyvio from the website which is the subject of the article.RJASE1 ^Talk 18:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beth Raines

Beth Raines (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I cant see the notability for this article, missing references but every single fact is unreferenced, does not meet WP:BIO. Tellyaddict 18:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kittendo

Kittendo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Kittendo does not exist, and does not need an article. --Xnuala (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• YES IT DOES> I already lknow it doesn't exist. If someone searches for it, they can get redirected to one or both of the games. It helps the companies too for sales ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toa Mario (talk • contribs) 18:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • We are not an advertising medium. --Dennisthe2 20:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and there is no need for a disambiguation page for something that does not exist ... this article is a mirror of Nintencats by the same author (who keeps removing PROD abd DB tags), and it should also be deleted ... see Talk:Nintencats. —68.239.79.97 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - The only place this game exists is in internet forums. "Wouldn't it be cool if they made a cat version of nintedogs?" Let it remain at that. Dr bab 18:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

• KEEP- you idiots need to read. I KNOW IT DOESNT EXIST. WHAT IF OTHER PEOPLE DONT?` IF SOMEONE SEARCHES FOR IT THEY CAN BE DREDIRECTED TO ONE OR BOTH OF THOISE PAGES. Toa Mario 19:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Lay off the personal attacks, and do not call us idiots. Just don't. --Dennisthe2 20:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I am certain that starting to insult everyone is not going to help your case. Please be civil. Dr bab 20:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

• Delete - No assertion of notability in the article. This article reads like a non-subject. I'm toying with the idea of afd-ing Nintencats. It would have been nice if the two had been lumped together in one nom. -- Ben 19:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment I originally was going to AFD Nintencats, but noticed that it had already been AFD'd so I db-reposted it. --Xnuala (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The author, Toa Mario (talk • contribs), keeps removing the CSD tag from that article ... I think it's time to get an admin involved for a time-out. --68.239.79.97 19:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as crystalballery. --Dennisthe2 20:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - an encyclopedia does not list things which do not exist without extremely good reason. --Haemo 20:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Dude, look at Cat. They, after all, are evidence that there are things in nature that have no purpose. =^_^= --Dennisthe2 20:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both as per discussion above. DES ^(talk) 20:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional nom

I am adding Nintencats to this nomination, as it is an exact duplicate of the current page under another title. It is not subject to speedy as a recreation, because it is not substantially similar to the previously deleted article. DES ^(talk) 20:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Shouldn't we give the article its own AfD? I mean, we're already well into this one. --Dennisthe2 20:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lolifox

Lolifox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A fork of Mozilla Firefox with no evidence of notability presented. A Google search showed quite a few hits, but I didn't see any secondary sources (such as reviews); aside from the software's homepage itself, most of the links were just mirrors. Since the article has no references, this fails WP:V and WP:RS. The result of a previous AFD was to delete, but there is no evidence that this is a re-creation rather than a new article under the same title, so marking for speedy deletion is probably inappropriate. NOTE: If the consensus is to delete, then the corresponding fair-use image should also be deleted by the closing admin. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doc Chopper

Doc Chopper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Person is non-notable, article is written by User:DocChopper (not a problem in itself), notability tag deleted. Only assertion to notability is a Press Release from a charity who auctioned one of the subject's bikes after it was donated by Cindy Margolis. My Google searches have turned up no notable or reliable sources to help back up this article. My recommendation is to delete. Siobhan Hansa 18:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete doesn't meet our notability criteria for biographical articles Gwernol 20:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I came across this article and echo her thoughts. I note from his talk page that he has created similar articles in the past that have been deleted or are currently under review. I have also had a quick search, again with no notable or reliable sources relating to this subject. I have noted that User:DocChopper has posted the below on the Doc Chopper Talk page.Suncloud 20:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The catagory of Art Vehicles begs an explanation. Doc Chopper and his kind, Custom Chopper Bicycle Designers are noteworthy as current events. Multiple format changes have been made to the article, and quotes from newspaper articles that have been archived by the source, are being prepaired. The Custom Chopper Industry is in its primary stage, yet does not need to be ignored. I fought to distinguish chopper bicycles from lowrider bicycles successfully, I think current information about an associated artist is noteworthy.

[edit] James Hart (Bassist)

James Hart (Bassist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This musician appears non-notable: no other pages (other than a disambiguation page and a user page) link to it, it contains few links out, and a google search for "James A Hart Jr" produces only six results (1 is this article, another is a wikipedia mirror, and the other 4 appear to be about other people. John24601 18:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Ramos

Tony Ramos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Previously kept as no consensus in a bulk nomination. Non notable wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete nn. janejellyroll 20:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Curve transformation

Curve transformation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Described by the original author as original research. Charles Matthews 19:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. "Here is presented a new type of curve transformations, developed by this author." makes clear the WP:OR nature of the article. Likely an encyclopedic article on standard ways of forming curves from other curves could be written but this isn't it and I see no reason to leave this in place in hopes that it improves. —David Eppstein 19:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - not only is this OR, but I really don't see why this is a notable mathematical concept. There are innumerable ways to generate Cartesian curves from other curves in the plane, so why is this particular method important? The article never really explains why, or cites anything. --Haemo 20:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as original research, and as per User:Haemo, the notability of this method would be dubious even if a WP:RS were cited. DES ^(talk) 20:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tees speak

Note: This debate has not yet been categorized. Please select an appropriate debate category and update the code letter in the {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} template.

Tees speak (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I question the notability of this dialect, if it can even be called that, is factual Computerjoe's talk 19:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I'd say transwiki, but...well, where would it go? --Dennisthe2 20:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Back F.C.

Back F.C. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article, about a Scottish amateur football club from the Western Isles, was originally speedied (as "Back Football Club"), but following discussion with the article creator there may be a claim to notability, so listing here instead. Oldelpaso 19:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, but I'm going to buck what I see as normal precedent and lay off the speedy - one, it was effectively overturned, and two, it actually asserts notability (while not citing it). I'm calling delete, though, largely due to semantics - as I see it, an amateur league, if they manage to cross the line into notability, pretty much has "gone pro", and in this case, they are only part of amateur tournaments in their locality. I can, of course, be wrong on this interpretation. --Dennisthe2 20:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Hot Corner

The Hot Corner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

A non-notable group of college students who support their college baseball team. They have had two passing mentions in the local press, so don't meet our notability criteria. Gwernol 20:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia - Chapter Epsilon Lambda

Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia - Chapter Epsilon Lambda (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Although well written, it appears to be a vanity page, and doesn't meet WP:ORG. Individual chapters of Fraternitites are generally not notable in their own right. Rackabello 20:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator Rackabello 20:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jingle Bells parodies

Jingle Bells parodies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This page is largely a collection of a few of the many parodies of "Jingle Bells". It is unsourced. It is highly debatable if thsi is a notable topic at all. An attempt was made to propose this for deletetion last December, but the AfD page was improperly formed. This was recently tagged as a speedy, but does not fit any of the criteria. I considered WP:PROD but several editors have contributed to thsi article, so i presuem its deeltion would be contested. But as it stands, this article contributes nothing to the encyclopedia. Delete. DES ^(talk) 20:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I'm seeing a total failure of WP:ATT here, which makes this whole article look like WP:OR. --Haemo 20:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Pointless but amusing article but is not encyclopedic. Again as with a lot of these cases, have the article on a personal website, not wikipedia --PrincessBrat 20:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dandelife

Dandelife (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Social networking site of dubious notability. Most likely fails WP:WEB. --Czj 20:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shane Dorr

Shane Dorr (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Completely nn high school athlete, mostly likely autobiography. This may require protection--the creating editor removed the speedy tag multiple times despite warnings on talk page and now an IP editor made their first edit the removal of the tag. Fails WP:BIO overwhelmingly. janejellyroll 20:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)