Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 12

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:39Z

[edit] Lawrence Gullo

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

Biography of non-notable artist "(also known as "Zan," "Wren" and "His Majesty")" who created a comic, the significance of which is not established.

• Delete. Non-notable Acegikmo1 05:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NN. Realkyhick 05:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom Selket ^Talk 07:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per nominator.--Toothbrusher 09:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing showing notability. NawlinWiki 12:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no reliable sources, probably written by the subject for self-promotion. --Aervanath 13:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, crucially violates WP:N & WP:RS. Causesobad → (Talk) 14:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N, JCO312 14:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If kept would need to be wikified, articles fails WP:NN and WP:BIO.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. MastCell 20:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:BIO — Deon555^talk_desk^{sign here!} 22:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ElinorD 12:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I'm sure this was written for self promotion.~~Magistrand~~ 18:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of Xiaolin Showdown characters. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:39Z

[edit] Pandabubba

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

This is a fictional character that is not significant enough to have its own page. All of the important, non-trivial information is already at List of Xiaolin Showdown characters. This article may have been created in violation of WP:POINT after a major character from the series was nominated for being unsourced. Jay32183 00:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ganfon 00:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to section at main list—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect.--Toothbrusher 10:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per Ryulong. He ain't exactly Omi. --UsaSatsui 10:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Julia 15:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not written in the expected tone of a wikipedia article and contains too much non verfied information.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Xiaolin Showdown characters. MastCell 20:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to section at main list. ElinorD 12:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep the rewritten version. - Mailer Diablo 01:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andromeda-Milky Way collision

Andromeda-Milky Way collision (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Very NPOV, unnotable, poorly written, tone bad, unreferenced etc. Carpet 00:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It sounds more like it's philosophical than scientific, and...well, where are the references that this is an established theory? --Dennisthe2 00:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless Actually sourced and completely re-written. Right now it doesn't sound very encyclopedic, and it's only source doesn't work. As of now, it just can't be kept. If it's true, and was well sourced, then I'd say keep. Ganfon 00:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There appears to be a reference now... science4sail ^talkcon 00:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The New Scientist reference is enough for me. The article requires major cleanup, though.
  • Sorry, bot added signature before I could go back and fix it. Selket ^Talk 01:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup -- Yes, it's true (see [1])--stargazing will be a lot more interesting in 4 billion years. However, the article definitely needs cleanup. Even at my optimistic I doubt that I "will also be able to see part of the collision occuring" ... in 4 billion years. I think the article was a good-faith attempt to add a significant (for astronomers, at least) theory/prediction/fact (whatever it is) to Wikipedia. Cheers, Black Falcon 01:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Cleaned up, fixed references. --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Ganfon. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 04:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as I just don't see this being expandable. It's covered by Milky_Way#Future_of_the_Milky_Way (and contradicted slightly by Andromeda_galaxy#General_information). --Dhartung | Talk 04:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, covered elsewhere, not expandable. Realkyhick 05:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Milky Way and/or Andromeda galaxy (if there's anything worth merging) and then redirect. There is plenty of high quality sources for this (predicted) event, but it's just not significant enough to have its own entry within a general encyclopedia. --Pak21 08:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. More sources are needed, but New Scientist is definitely a reputable third party source to start with. 23skidoo 14:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Milky Way#Future of the Milky Way: even with additional sources, there's really not that much to say about this topic. It doesn't merit it's own article. (Maybe in 3 billion years...:)--Aervanath 14:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I mean, my God! the Andromeda Galaxy and our Milky Way are going to collide? My question is, have you written your elected officials and asked them what they are going to do to prevent this? Their indifference is nothing short of scandalous! - Smerdis of Tlön 15:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: this is not a vote. Do you have anything to add to the discussion? --Pak21 15:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with the nominator it is very badly written and the adding of a ref is good but it unfortunately does not make it excellent, the NPOV issues are pretty bad as-well. Because it's so small and contains so little information it's probably not worth the trouble.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - It's written fine, and "NPOV" is what we're aiming for. If you meant POV, there is no hint of point-of-view in the current article. --Wooty Woot? contribs 18:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge per Aervanath. Icemuon 17:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep(and tidy) or Merge under Galaxy collision. Artw 18:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep new version. Artw 20:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Rewritten at this point with new information and substantial references (NASA, Harvard, Univ. Toronto, MSNBC, Discover Mag. etc.) Kevin Murray 19:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I've editied to remove NPOV issues, and added more information with several more references and clarification of one exisiting reference to clarify verifiability. --Kevin Murray 19:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• The new version is good, with good refs, so keep. Natalie 20:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep with the new refs establishing notability. Still needs work of course. MastCell 20:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, improve and source properly - although the New Scientist article is a good start ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 21:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — Valid encyclopedic topic; could do with linking on the Andromeda Galaxy page where the subject is already mentioned. — RJH (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The Milky Way is on a collision course with the andromeda galaxy and it's not notable!? Mind you I was under the impression that all the galaxies were racing away from each other at ever increasing speeds..... Jcuk 22:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The universe is expanding, but the Milky Way and the Andromeda Galaxy are close neighbours of the local galactic cluster. It'd be safer to say that all the different clusters of galaxies are for the most part racing away from each other. --Charlene 22:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Ah...thank you, that makes more sense now. Jcuk 22:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable galactic collision. --Charlene 22:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The scientists who are quoted clearly must have written peer-reviewed articles. This WP article will be very feeble if it can incorporate no references to peer-reviewed literature. (MSNBC.com doesn't count). Someone who looks up this issue on Wikipedia will figure that we are naive followers of everything published in the New Scientist. If appropriate references can't be supplied before the close of this AfD, I'm voting to delete. I'll watch the ensuing debate to see if anyone can remedy the situation. EdJohnston 22:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is a non-notable subject. No serious references are given to show that this "theory" is even being considered seriously by even a minority of the scientific community. It is idle speculation that was turned into a simple gee-wiz story. According to WP policy, notability is not the same as "newsworthiness". See WP:Notability. Beyond this major policy issue, I can not see how this stub can be expanded. There is just NO information that has been published. The proponents for keeping such an article should at least give a list of at least a few peer-reviewed articles demonstrating that serious scientists have published in this domain. The contents of this article could easily be incorporated into another article, and there is no need to have a redirect from this page to, say, Milky way Lunokhod 23:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All that needs to be said about this topic has already been said in Milky Way#Future of the Milky Way 12:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly notable topic with reliable sources. There is time to add peer-reviewed sources later. Capitalistroadster 01:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Still proposing a merge to Milky Way#Future of the Milky Way: While I like Kevin's re-write better, it's still a stub, and I highly doubt that there will be that much more information out there on this topic, peer-reviewed or not, anytime in the near future. Barring a whole horde of new sources and information, there is no still no reason to keep it separate from the Milky Way article.--Aervanath 02:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Still support Merge as per Aervanath. Icemuon 09:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The statement "In an article in the New Scientist, astronomers ... have predicted" is not referenced - the New Scientist link in Notes is to an article about NGC 520 and only mentions the collision in passing and does not name the astronomers making the prediction. Some existing links are unlrelated to article topic - "Andromeda involved in galactic collision" refers to a galaxy other than the milky way colliding with andromeda. "Busted! Astronomers Nab Culprit in Galactic Hit-and-Run" is about the galaxy M32 colliding with andromeda. Mentions milky way collision in passing, but does not reference source of prediction. Where is the original peer-review article of this theory? The topic is not notable enough for a seperate article, only deserves (brief) mention in Milky Way and/or Andromeda article.--mikeu 04:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Can someone point me to the WP guidelines which call for peer reviewed articles? Why is mikeu not discussing the references to U of Toronto research and NASA. I put some of the critisized articles in the bibliography for additional background to demonstrate the breadth of recognition. --Kevin Murray 04:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the article needs a peer-review reference to keep. It is just that the reference links only mention the original theory in passing. I'd like to see that original publication to judge the merits of the prediction. The Toronto reference looks more more like a generic computer simulation of what might happen if the galaxies collide rather than something based on telescope observations of the galaxies aproaching each other. The opening statement of this article is likely incorrect. It does not appear that the authors of the Toronto and Harvard links were the ones proposing this theory.--mikeu 05:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: the primary source for the information we have here appears to be Sky & Telescope: see the ADS record. While John Dubinski is a researcher with many peer reviewed publications, this article was published in a pop-sci magazine rather than a peer-reviewed journal, which would lead me to question whether this is "serious" research or not. Cheers --Pak21 09:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable topic. ElinorD 12:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep could be cleaned up, but still should be its own article Branson03 17:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Either keep or merge with Andromeda Galaxy#General information section. I prefer keep, or otherwise the Andromeda Galaxy article becomes a giant. Unless the information is decidedly fringe science, I don't like information to be lost. A link from Andromeda Galaxy to Andromeda-Milky Way collision and one from Interacting galaxy to Andromeda-Milky Way collision would be appropriate. Rursus declamavi; 22:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 07:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; the links given in the article clearly indicate notability. Everyking 07:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/galaxy/2002/09/ ~ trialsanderrors 08:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the key word here is may. Icemuon 10:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Point being? ~ trialsanderrors 17:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry, forgot that the article is on a proposed theory. Still, this link doesn't convince me that the article should stay. As Dhartung mentions, this is already covered in Milky_Way#Future_of_the_Milky_Way. Icemuon 17:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
        • It's a content branch for two articles. So to avoid duplication keeping it separate looks like a prudent idea. ~ trialsanderrors 20:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; It's already been fixed up nicely, and there's a good bit of room for expansion in going into what the implications of this are really.Arturus 18:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:40Z

[edit] List of deceased cardinals

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

List of notable deceased cardinals (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Cardinals (1913 List) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Given the size and scope of the Catholic Church, there are literally thousands of cardinals who could be listed here. The inability to maintain such a list, as well as the list's uselessness(List of cardinals includes all living cardinals, so by definition any cardinal not listed there is deceased) clearly qualifies this article for deletion. Hemlock Martinis 00:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ganfon 00:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. This list will be almost impossible to maintain, not to mention the magnitude of Catholic Cardinals in the very long history of the church making this also nearly impossible to complete. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 00:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete gigantic, probably impossible to update/build. science4sail ^talkcon 00:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The reasons have been well laid out above. Selket ^Talk 00:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Categorise into Category:Cardinals and subcats, then delete. As Hemlock has stated, there are thousands of possible entires, and the list will continue to expand for as long as the Catholic Church exists (and beyond, as the last ones fall). -- saberwyn 03:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This reminds me of the recent discusson about Dead Playboy Playmates. Basically, if you're dead, we don't like you. :) Just kidding. YechielMan 04:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No, we have nothing against "you," we just don't want a list of other dead people who were like "you." -Selket ^Talk 09:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Otto4711 04:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Realkyhick 05:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. All of the individuals listed seem to already be in Category:Cardinals or Category:Cardinals by nationality. -- Black Falcon 07:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Update. I checked and all except two were already in the two categories noted above (whether correctly or not is a different matter). I added the two that were missing, so I think this list can safely be deleted now. -- Black Falcon 07:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Any list of dead people is most likely going to be unmaintainable. --UsaSatsui 10:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomJulia 15:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article does not meet WP:NOT#INFO.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT and the general problem with "List of dead [fill-in-the-blank]" articles. MastCell 20:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unmaintainable list Resolute 23:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Use category instead. Argyriou (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No need for such a list. (And difficult to manage.) ElinorD 12:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Would be a huge list if complete, which is probably impossible. Gimmetrow 20:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:41Z

[edit] Grand Prive

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

Spam article. Created (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Prive&oldid=70971294) for spam purposes. Created by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/209.212.105.164 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Webnetservices Both users (the same person) have only edited this page and have put in such nefarious spam as editing the link to the casino group to read "Online Casino Group Official Site", and inserting other spam. The IP reverses to South Africa, home of Grand Privé group.

There are about 90 microgaming casinos owned by dozens of companies (casino list here: http://www.microgaming.com/pjncasino.php). All the 90 casinos are almost identical apart from colour schemes and different websites. There is therefore no cause to comment on any one particular group unless special notability can be established - this article says *NOTHING* that isn't true of other microgaming casinos, and is therefore a redundant article. This company is privately held, non-notable, nothing useful to say other than act as SEO-bait for this company.

Nssdfdsfds 22:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 00:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as spam. Nothing more notable about this apparently. --Dennisthe2 01:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Lacking independent secondary sources- every potential source just loops back to the company. --Wafulz 04:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above, and, again, as spam. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 04:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. JPG-GR 07:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: we don't allow advertisements.--Aervanath 14:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not relevant.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 16:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as spam, consider speedy. MastCell 20:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as spam and as lacking independent sources. ElinorD 13:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:42Z

[edit] Jackpot Factory

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

Clearly spam. User has added this casino group with obviously spam/marketing company text, and also added it to the Microgaming page. User has added multiple links to the company's casinos. Without doubt added by an employee or agent of the subject of the article for SEO purposes. Nssdfdsfds 22:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

not spam at all. the jackpot factory group is a using microgaming technology, therefor the link from the microgaming page is legit as well as the text published. i can see no difference between this page and other group of casinos that are linked from the microgaming page. Niv.

You're a spammer. Spammers don't get a vote: [2] [3] And an Israeli IP address too. The same Israel where Jackpot Factory is based: [4] Hmmm. Nssdfdsfds 07:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey - no one is trying to hide anything, i'm not sure why are you calling me a spammer though: all i said is that there is no difference between this page and other Microgaming's groups pages. if you think it is for seo reasons you can always delete the links to the 4 casinos, either than that, it is exactly like the other pages, therefore, in my opinion, not spam at all.

I'm calling you a spammer because the two changes I listed above were spam. That makes you a spammer. Clear?

There *is* a difference between this page and the other Microgaming groups: Fairground Gaming is a PLC quoted on the stockmarket, and intrinsically more notable. Grand Prive is also up for deletion. Fortune Lounge is notable because it caused a major spam controversy. Carmen Media is marginal, but slightly more notable because it has at least some profile as it is a Gibraltar-licensed company with a degree of openness. Jackpot Factory doesn't have that. Perhaps if you can think of something that makes Jackpot Factory notable, then it can stay, perhaps if you could find some 'Inspirational Stories' [5] about how Jackpot Factory casinos cure cancer, then that might establish notability. Nssdfdsfds 10:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I edited the article to try and meet everyone's concerns. (1) Notability: I added a section on the awards that Jackpot Factory and its component casinos have won. Surely, an organization's being recognized as the best in the world in its particular field is notable. It is far more notable than such trivial accomplishments as being quoted on the stockmarket or being licensed in Gibralter. (2) External Links: I deleted all external links except for the link to the Jackpot Factory official website. I thought they were helpful but, for some reason that I do not understand, they seemed to bother people. For the sake of peace, I got rid of them. Peter54 15:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Best in the world? Are you for real?

Casino awards have no value whatsoever. They are based on payments to the awarding body. I mean come on, "Top Gambler: Best Online Casino Graphics 2006 – First Web Casino". Best Online Casino Graphics? They are all the same!!!! There are nearly 100 Microgaming casinos, and the graphics are the same in every casino. How can anyone think these awards have value. These awards are just BS for casinos to use in their marketing (as you are doing here). Apart from payments to the awarder (to be casinomeister-accredited you have to pay casinomeister), where these awards are supposedly based on reader votes (not sure that any you have listed are), these are spammed by the casinos '$50 bonus if you vote for us', and so on. Casino awards are worthless. It's absolutely laughable that you even suggest that your casino group is 'recognised as best in the world'. So aside from those silly awards, there's absolutely nothing in the article that's notable, as everything that's listed there is just general 'Microgaming casino' stuff.

Please stop talking about other articles. They might not be notable either. You need to satisfy the notability criteria for *this article*, with reference not to other articles, but to the notability guidelines, which you'll find here: WP:ORG. Nssdfdsfds 16:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) What is the evidence for your assertion that awards are granted on a corrupt basis? Jackpot Factory casinos have been recognized as the Best Online Casino by Top Gambler, Gambling.com, and Got2Bet. That is why I say Jackpot Factory has been recognized as the best in the world in its field, which is definitely notable. If there is evidence that the awards are corrupt, I would be interested to know what it is. (2) The best way to understand a rule is to see how it is applied in actual practice. It is ridiculous to say that the Notability rule allows articles on Carmen Media, Fairground Gaming, Fortune Lounge Group, and Grand Prive, but does not allow an article on Jackpot Factory. If a rule is to make any sense, it must be applied in a consistent manner. Peter54 07:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Grand Privé has been nominated for deletion. If you think the other sites don't meet WP:CORP, you can nominated them for deletion as well. Evidence that the awards are corrupt? Hmm, how's this for you:

"Will you be voted top the Gambling.com Member’s Polls? List your site on the Voting page and look out for the Results at the end of each month." "Once your listing has been approved, you can then manage your cpc bids from as little as 20c – your bid price will then determine the position your site appears on the individual Voting Category pages, with just the TOP 20 being displayed. Members will visit these pages to cast their votes – so the higher you are listed, the more likely you are to receive their vote!" "Each member is able to cast up to 3 votes per month per category [Subject to the standard voting rules] Votes are weighted in terms of 1st, 2nd, 3rd. You may wish to encourage your visitors to vote for you by using the following ‘Vote for Us’ graphics on your site." "Even though these awards are dated monthly, ie March 2005 – you can continue to host them indefinitely, therefore if you finish 3rd in February and just outside the top 5 the following month you will still be able to display the February Award if you wish." Nssdfdsfds 10:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep per the external links/recognition, but it has to read less like an advertisement. Just H 10:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

None of the links satisfy the "independent, verifiable, and credible online sources" criteria. Nssdfdsfds 11:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete; subject certainly seems to have some notability within its field, but its general notability is not sufficient for inclusion here. As a side note, however, Nssdfdsfds, you could do a LOT to improve your tone here. Chances are that this deletion nomination will succeed regardless of whether you come out with guns blazing. So why not tone down the attacks and be polite? --Sneftel 16:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Notable enough to be included here. The total number of Microgaming casinos are irrelevant; this article is about a company which operates a group of Microgaming powered casinos and should be included. (The article does need to be cleaned up though.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rray (talk • contribs) 17:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Does operating a group of Microgaming casinos make a company notable? I wouldn't have said so. Microgaming itself is notable, but there doesn't seem to be anything interesting to add about the individual companies - they all have the same games, near-identical graphics, same software, and mostly are offshore companies with no solid enyclopedic info available. Nssdfdsfds 20:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It does if you're interested in knowing which offshore companies own Microgaming-powered casinos, sure. Rray 22:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

But there's nothing encyclopedic to say about these offshore companies. There's no useful info to add. You'd have articles for Fortune Lounge, Vegas Partner Lounge, Trident Entertainment, Casino Rewards, Grand Privé, Jackpot Factory, Ashanti Entertainment, Casino Action, MiniVegas, Roxy, and all 10 articles could be created using a search and replace. E.g., "Trident Entertainment is a group of Microgaming casinos. All of its casinos are certified by eCOGRA. It won CasinoPlayer's Best of Gaming award in 2006. It owns the following sites'. The same content, with a different spurious award found off some obliging website (trust me, every casino on the web has won a 'World's best casino' award *somewhere) would work for the other articles. There's nothing there that extends what Microgaming already says. A private group that owns a few of the 100+ identikit Microgaming gaming sites is not of itself notable. Nssdfdsfds 01:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I indented your reply so that it would be clear it was a reply to my last post. And regarding the rest of your post, I disagree. I think it's notable and should be included here. Rray 02:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - As much as I dont care for Nssdfdsfds method of argument I cannot see a group of semi-notable casino companies warrent their own page. The "awards" listed only seem to be online voting results, not "awards" per se, and hardly come from well known websites or sources. I do a fair amount of online gambling and have heard of none of the mentioned sites. It all seems to be a bit of an advert to me and contains a number of unneccessary links. TSMonk 13:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 00:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, but I'm also working on the grounds that I'm not sure a gambling or online gambling journal would be considered a reliable source. The article feels a little spammy, so that's what I'm hedging on. --Dennisthe2 01:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Can't find much info, as above. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 04:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, self-promotion, borderline spam, non-notable. Realkyhick 05:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: no advertisements.--Aervanath 14:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:42Z

[edit] Raymarine Marine Electronics

Raymarine Marine Electronics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Page devoted to single company, containing no information beyond wikilinks of their product types and a link to the company in question - Davandron | Talk 19:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - notability has not been demonstrated; independent third-party sources are needed to show that the company is notable. (WP:CORP). Walton monarchist89 15:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 00:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the article is weak, but the subject is strong. This company is a significant player in the consumer electronics field for yachts and boats. It is the result of the spinoff of Raytheon's consumer division and merger with other notable manufacturers of navigation gear. As a dominant and influential player it is notable, but we need to expand the article. --Kevin Murray 02:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. More information would make me feel a lot better about it. Realkyhick 05:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete until/unless properly sourced. -- Bpmullins | Talk 16:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comments

• Bpmullins makes an interesting point. However, guidelines don't call for the deletion of notable topics due to poor sources or inadequacy of the article, except for bios of living people. Here are verifiable links to help establish notability [Google Finance Profile] [Reuters]. More work to do. --Kevin Murray 17:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• 1.6 million G-hits show that this is probably notable; however, the curse is that there is so much chatter out there which makes it tedious to find independent sources worthy of WP standards. Need to spend more time, but should not delete the article. --Kevin Murray 17:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Perhaps this should be renamed "Raymarine" wiht a redirect from the present title.

• Keep one of the largest global manufacturors and suppliers of marine electronics. A couple more references added. Nuttah68 20:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Enough independent refs to establish notability, now we need to use some of that information to make the article better. MastCell 21:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A substantial company, though the article isn't very interesting. There are enough resources out on the web to allow this article to be maintained and improved if someone takes an interest in it. EdJohnston 03:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:44Z

[edit] Mastacraft

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

Image:Mastacraft1.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Thefixtape.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Illmannered.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Unknowncover.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Mastacraft4.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Non-notable. It certainly cannot be verified. Proposed deletion deadline was passed yesterday Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 00:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me} 00:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- as I said when I placed the prod template, the citations do not do anything to verify the claims of notability, and the albums appear to be unpublished. –Sommers ^(Talk) 01:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Dlete. No independent reliable sources to verify claims; doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. --Wafulz 04:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Reads like a press release (and a bad one at that), fails WP:MUSIC. Realkyhick 05:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete This article was an uncontested, completed, time served prod [6] until User:Lajbi replaced it with an AfD. Nuttah68 20:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No reliable sources, no reviews, reads like an advertisement. The linked web site mastacraft.com does not open. Other citations simply point to the main page of rapmusic.com and don't reference his music. EdJohnston 03:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 12:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jon morris(comedian)

Jon morris(comedian) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fixing incomplete deleion nomination by an IP user. No stance at this time -- saberwyn 01:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per WP:CSD A7: no assertion of notability. –Sommers ^(Talk) 01:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete non-notable. anyone who can't be bothered to capitalize doesn't deserve self-promotion. Wavy G 04:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, borderline speedy. Doesn't meet WP:BIO, WP:RS, or WP:V. Claims about internet forum "notoriety" and success in the gay underground are weak at best. Since when is being gay the same as being part of a scene? --Wafulz 04:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Ah wish ah knew how to quit him...oh wait, I do! DELETE! Otto4711 04:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD A7, plus it's horribly written. Realkyhick 05:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Does not assert notability. Maxamegalon2000 06:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Tae Bo. - Daniel.Bryant 08:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taibo

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

Just a disambiguation page of misspellings of 2 things. Does this warrant a page on Wikipedia? Montchav 15:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect This should be a redirect to Tae Bo, as the 2nd misspelling does not appear to be phonetically probable. SkierRMH 01:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The link for Li Bai is not exactly a misspelling; it's the correct romanization of a mispronunciation committed even by native Chinese speakers. The character 白, typically read as bai2, could also be read as bo2 on occasion; in fact, Li Bai's name (same 白 character) was typically read as Li Bo in the past, which makes people think Tai Bai should be read as Tai Bo. But anyway, I thought hatnotes were preferable to dab pages in the event of only having two items to disambiguate? cab 15:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 00:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Replace with a redirect to Tae Bo. I think if people are likely to encounter the Tai Bo spelling of the philosopher elsewhere and come to wikipedia looking for him then Tae Bo should have an other uses link. I think that is unlikely given this google test. Selket ^Talk 01:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tae Bo per User:Selket. The poet himself is actually quite famous, but I think it would be problematic if we created a redirect for every misspelling of a name. Moreover, Tae Bo is phonetically the same as Taibo, so I think most people searching for "taibo" will be looking for the martial art rather than the poet. -- Black Falcon 02:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect Tae Bo. Pretty obvious. Wavy G 04:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tae Bo, but addd a hatnote for Li Bai/Tai bai/Tai bo/Li bo at the top of the Tae Bo article. --Aervanath 16:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tae Bo and add {{distinguish}} or other similar template at the top of Tae Bo to cover the other usage. MastCell 21:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:45Z

[edit] Kevin Wilson (writer)

Kevin Wilson (writer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person. Had a non-speaking role in Shaun of the Dead. Article is unferenced and illustrate no level of verifiable notability. IrishGuy ^talk 00:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't seem to meet WP:RS or WP:V. Bare bones imdb profile doesn't look promising. Given how common his name is and how lacking his article is, a Google search hasn't brought any information to light. --Wafulz 04:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NN, WP:V, WP:RS. Three strikes, you're out. Realkyhick 05:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO and WP:V by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as this fails our most basic policies. (jarbarf) 17:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable. Natalie 20:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:45Z

[edit] Nicholas Wilson

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

Non-notable person. Had a non-speaking role in Shaun of the Dead. Article is unferenced and illustrate no level of verifiable notability. IrishGuy ^talk 00:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Though he's probably quite notable to his friends and family. Just not a Wiki-Notable. --Action Jackson IV 03:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, same as Kevin Wilson AfD. Realkyhick 05:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO and WP:V by end of this AfD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alf photoman (talk • contribs) 15:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete No real noteriety and having a non-speaking role truely isn't notable. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:46Z

[edit] Louis Sauer

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

I'm not sure this should be deleted, but it definitely should be cut down in length. The author is the Mr. Sauer's wife (see the talk page), and a Google search confirms that Sauer has been active in architecture. What do you think? Does he meet WP:BIO? YechielMan 17:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:NOT a place to put a résumé, which is what this looks like; even the monograph link provided in the article has better and more detailed information on the person. Also, with apologies to Mrs. Sauer, even her own comment on the talk page makes it clear that the point of this article is to raise Mr. Sauer's internet profile and notoriety which, again, Wikipedia is not for. Roadmr (t|c) 18:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article is definitely a work in progress and needs to be rewritten, but Sauer appears to have been a pretty big deal architect. For instance, in this pdf if you search on his name you can find a mention of an article on his work in an Italian architecture magazine. He is also prominently mentioned as a mentor or authority in many places on the web. I think he will end up being notable enough, after a bit more work on the article. --Brianyoumans 23:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wiki's are not places to put up resumes or to generate press about a person. That's what myspace is for. meshach 05:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• strong keep Design Fellow in the US National Endowment of the Arts? that's notable. Architect for Penn's landing, Reston, Virginia, etc. etc. -Professor and Head of the Department of Architecture at Carnegie-Mellon University . Professor at the Universities of Pennsylvania and Colorado (Boulder, 1985-89) and a visiting professor at M.I.T, Yale 5 professorships. Architects are judged by their buildings, as reflected by what is written about them. Two books have been written about him. That is enough by any WP standard of N. --I doubt its advertising, as he's semi-retired. -- True, whoever wrote the article doesn't know how to write a WP bio. DGG 06:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 01:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The major architectual accomplishments are numerous. It needs a re-write to Wikiform, but not a deletion. --Oakshade 01:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. The individual in question most certainly passes WP:BIO. The article needs a rewrite, not deletion. I've tagged it with {{likeresume}}. -- Black Falcon 02:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets notability per WP:BIO. I've added some refs, moved a large chunk of his writings to the talk page pending integration, and made some significant copyedits. Still needs significant work, but I think its workable at this point. -- MarcoTolo 04:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, give it a major overhaul, and politely inform the subject's wife about WP:COI issues. Realkyhick 05:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 05:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep , problems with WP:COI should be solved though Alf photoman 15:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• STRONG keep note worthy achievement. We are to delete him just because his wife rather than a stranger or hired editor, or friend, or collegue wrote the article? Not everyone who stumbles upon Wiki and has the right intention of adding valuable content knows everyone rule on Wiki. Politely inform subject's wife, leave article intact.Julia 15:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep since the subject meets WP:BIO and resolve any conflict of interest issues through the normal editing process. (jarbarf) 17:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as notable, tag as {{autobiography}} or somesuch, and improve with independent sources/information. Likely needs a significant shortening as well. MastCell 21:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. John Vandenberg 21:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:47Z

[edit] Gizmo Logic Studios Inc.

Gizmo Logic Studios Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Image:GizmoLogicStudiosInc.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Deleted as A7 twice by two different admins, but contested. Discussion about whether the company met WP:CORP started on my talk page, where I was provided with these links. However, the links consist merely of directory entries, links to online stores where the companies products are being sold, and press releases. None of the links provided were non-trivial. Article was created by User:Scot Lemieux, who according to the article is one of the company's founders. WP:COI case for a non-notable computer animation studio.

Worth reading is the article's talk page, where User:Lexein gives a very detailed response to the article creator's {{hangon}} reason.-- Steel 17:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per lack of verifiable notability at this time, per talk page. No reliable third-party sources...need to have them in order to back up claims of notability (which aren't even made at all in the article!). DMacks 18:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 01:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 04:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The vehement opposition to the article's existence, on its talk page, confirms my intuition. YechielMan 04:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wow! That's the longest-winded deletion discussion I've ever seen on a talk page. But [WP:RS]], WP:V, WP:COI -- three strikes, buh-bye now. Realkyhick 05:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 20:54Z

[edit] David Joyce

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

Disputed speedy and fails WP:BIO, there are no sources to show how he was notable. In the article it is claimed that his fortune created the Joyce Foundation, however, in Joyce Foundation there is no mention of David Joyce RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I hesitate because it has references, but I agree that it's not notable. YechielMan 04:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - He is one of the "lumber barons" mentioned in Clinton, Iowa and Lyons, Iowa Lumber History which seem to have been regarded once as the "Lumber Capital of the World." The latter entry also has inside another bio of him, so I'd say he has has made his impact but the two bios should be merged and cleaned-up. As far as I sse the foundation was founded by his heiress. If this is kept it need to be sourced. Tikiwont 11:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well all mentioned articles have been mostly written by the same author and while there are sources there are no specific citations. However, I found inside this [7] a small summary of the reference "Timber Connections" and stick with keep. Tikiwont 12:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, references dug out by Tikiwont should assert notability, but if not included into the article it does not help Alf photoman 15:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• The book Timber Connections was already included by in the article. I merely added above electronic summary for those of us who don't have it in their bookshelf. Tikiwont 16:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I dug out my copy of Timber Connections and also found this biography on the Texas Transportation Archive. It's harder to find sources for older subjects, but I think BIO has been met in this case. I will commit to improving the article a bit more if it is kept.--Kubigula (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable and verifiable. John Vandenberg 05:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:48Z

[edit] Conspiracy realist

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

As another editor pointed out on the talk page to this article, the article itself is a POV violation, granting credit to those named (on uncertain grounds) as "conspiracy realists," and leaving all those unnamed to be regarded as supporting so-called "baseless theories." The article is sourced by a single link to a message board. Without reliable, third-party sources to document the existence of "conspiracy realists," this article should be deleted. janejellyroll 01:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete. POV fork of conspiracy theory, no reference in a reliable source, neolism, etc. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. POV fork, no reliable sources, neologism. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above. No reliable sources, just an arbitrary distinction for POV purposes. If there are documented uses of "conspiracy realist" in credible sources, it can possibly be mentioned in Conspiracy theory. -SpuriousQ (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for reliance on dubious sources, not verifiable. PlusWikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day and the official cabal decree, WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself.. Propagandists! Realspeak! Orwellian!  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 03:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FORK, WP:RS, WP:NEO, and possibly even WP:NOT#DICT. The term does have some use (see [8] and [9]), but they are mostly on message boards, which do not meet WP:RS. Oh, and apparently, it's also a myspace account name. Finally, a personal comment: to distinguish between a "theorist" and a "realist" in the way this article has done implies a complete lack of understanding as to what a theory really is (the "common usage" of the term is horribly wrong; crazy notions are just that--crazy notions--they are not theories). OK, I'm done. -- Black Falcon 03:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism--Mmx1 03:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Double-plus ungood delete - POV fork, others above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Unreferenced neologism, POV, but a very good laugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Please. --Tbeatty 04:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Yours, Famspear 05:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, POV fork and other dubious achievements. Realkyhick 05:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nn neologism. --Hyperbole 06:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - I personally prefer the term "Conspiracy Idiot" - at least the theorists get their results through sheer easy ignorance! --Action Jackson IV 07:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--MONGO 07:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Doczilla 07:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as nominated and per Black Falcon. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 12:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletions.
• Delete per above GabrielF 14:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT a soapbox Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete NN and is not verifiable --rogerd 14:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Article creator has been blocked for 3RR repeatedly re-adding pointers to this and the related category to an article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. --Aude (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to "List of ridiculous terms coined by conspiracy theorists to present their views in a more favorable light". On second thought, delete per the Knights Templar (oops, I've said too much). MastCell 21:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Just over 1000 Google hits, but most appear to be people's self descriptions, as a distinction from "conspiracy theorists." As a neologism, it does not appear to be used in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not for terms made up while wearing a tinfoil hat one day. Inkpaduta 21:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, delete, delete. There are several violations here, already discussed, but I will add another: the term "conspiracy realist" is an oxymoron. If you look up "oxymoron" in the dictionary, Mr. Webster probably used "conspiracy realist" as an example. Dino 00:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, neologism and no reliable sources. --Dual Freq 02:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Inkpaduta said what I wanted to say best. ( I now return to my secret lair where I will receive a colossal fee from our secret masters for stifling this discussion. ) ( To the literal minded: the previous sentence was a joke. ) WMMartin 17:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:48Z

[edit] Neobee

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

Serbian ISP. No assertion of notability made, and it does not appear notable. And just because the company is an ISP (of course, we all love the Internet) does not make it notable. Wehwalt 18:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 01:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no assertion of notability. -SpuriousQ (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete can be A7'd. Dionyseus 06:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -Selket ^Talk 09:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. non-notable. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 03:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:49Z

[edit] Realmlist

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

Orphaned article, not so important Htmlism (talk · contr) 18:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• 51400 Google hits outside Wikipedia. Not hoax. Merge with a page about games. Anthony Appleyard 18:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Just to expand on my thoughts... The concept isn't very deep. A realmlist is a list of realms, and realms are servers. Personally, the only game I know that has this is World of Warcraft. I'm sure there are others, but I don't feel it merits either an article or any mention in any other articles. Other than maybe that Warcraft servers are called realms.--66.192.34.8 22:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 01:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Kind of a pointless definition: "A realm list is a list of realms." Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Wafulz 04:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. Resolute 06:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:50Z

[edit] Zydeisland

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

Image:Zydeisland-Dongio.gif (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

A search on Google for "Zydeisland" returns 176 hits. "Zyde Island", the phrase, returns 59 results. Most, if not all of these, are self-promotion on web forums. The article claims the site had 16,000 users at its peak, and I would imagine that 16,000 users would account for more Google traffic. The article is mostly the work of one user (User:Ikahootz), and features such elegant prose as "The game won many awards and a quick google search of "ZydeIsland" will show you this and the amount of fans it did have." and "There has always been rumur it may return some day...". Has anyone else even heard of this? Action Jackson IV 01:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete could not find anything on LexisNexis or Newsbank either. But it is a very sad tale of what can go wrong without backups. -SpuriousQ (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, lack of sources indicates vanity/hoax. Kafziel ^Talk 20:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable and possible hoax. MastCell 21:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:51Z

[edit] Survivor 16

Survivor 16 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

User:TeckWiz gave the following justification for the deletion of Survivor 15 in June 2006, before any information was available for the season:

Survivor 15 is not even guarranteed to happen. It hasn't been announced and applications aren't up yet. Unlike Survivor 14, which is definatly happening since there are applications for it on Survivor application page on CBS.com, Survivor 15 may not happen, which is why I'm proposing this page for deletion. The entire page is one sentence: CBS Has Ordered Survivor 15, It Should Premiere In Fall 2007. I would not even put an expand tag because it hasn't been ordered, so it's wrong info, and "it should" sounds like the person that put it in really wasn't sure. See Wikipedia is not a crystal ball If there is a Surivor 15, I will re-create the page with the basic info that you find out from the application form on CBS.com. To see what the basic info is look at Survivor 14, which I created. All info is from the application form.

TeckWiz^TalkContribs_Guestbook 23:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Essentially the same argument applies here. The entire page this time is two sentences: "This season will begin in February of 2008. If there is a season or two after this, then Jeff could retire or host until the show finally is cancelled." Neither statement is sourced or anything beyond speculation. Survivor 16 wouldn't start filming until November 2007, and wouldn't air until a year from now. Survivor 14 just started airing last week. It's just too early for this article. --Maxamegalon2000 01:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Current justification is sufficient. This article is unsourced speculation. WP:CRYSTAL. janejellyroll 01:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: I nominated the article with a temporary justifaction until I could copy and expand on the AfD for Survivor 15. I feel like if I don't give a longer explanation than "Pure crystalballery", Survivor fans will claim that a 16th season is a certainty. --Maxamegalon2000 01:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete-Delete per my reason posted by Maxamegalon. --TeckWiz^ParlateContribs_@ 01:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, crystal blue un-persuasion. Realkyhick 05:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Gogo Dodo 06:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. -- Black Falcon 07:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and the lack of information about the show. ShadowHalo 06:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. - Daniel.Bryant 08:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shred metal

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

• Delete This article has been disputed at {{prod}}. Reprodding was attempted, but that is improper. AfD is appropriate instead. See article talk page for further on dispute of validity of article.} TonyTheTiger 18:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There appears to be plenty of evidence that many people think shred metal exists.[10] If there is a major controversy over whether it is a valid genre, that could be put in the article, but I have to say that I found little evidence of such a dispute. --Groggy Dice T | C 19:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and possibly redirect to shred guitar. Despite what the article claims, this is not a musical genre according to any reliable sources, and it is unverifiable and non-notable as a term. Prolog 21:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Prolog. Punkmorten 12:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Shred metal is a distinct concept from speed metal. However, the article should be extended nonetheless. The Wiki Priest 05:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is that your description or can you provide sources? I have not been able to find any and it does not seem like this article can be verified. Prolog 16:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No sources, not even 600 results on google... I do not think this genre exist, and even if it does, it is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 16:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment How do you come up with "not even 600 results?" I get 25,000, and when I added Malmsteen to cut down on the false positives, I still got two or three times that. --Groggy Dice T | C 19:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 01:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep "Shred Metal" + "Music" has over 20,000 Google hits, and I've seen the term used in print publications. A shred guitarist may or may not play shred metal, and I could even imagine a shred metal band with, say, reggae rhythm and ethnic instrumentation. However, I have difficulty drawing the line between speed metal, thrash metal, punk metal, and shred. I have heard the terms used interchangably. It's my hunch that bands described as "shred metal" can also fit into one of the above categories - but that alone wouldn't negate the importance of "shred" as a category (think: there's comedy movies, dark comedy movies, and satire, and possibly libel if you want to go that deep). The article definitely needs expansion, however - as it stands it's a useless article. --Action Jackson IV 03:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• I'm going on a weak keep here. It's a distinct style, but just enough where it warrants its own article. Expand it. --Dennisthe2 03:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - a number of bands/guitarists describe their musical style as "shred metal". most notably The Great Kat and Joe Stump[11]-from K37 06:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, bands refer to themselves as this and a huge number of google results for this subject are all indicators that this should be kept. Mathmo ^Talk 10:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blend corp.

Blend corp. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

New label, no indication of artists beyond the one listed, website is empty, no sign of any releases. Lack of independent reliable sources doesn't help. Has been edited a couple of times (along with some related articles) by User:Bevincampbell, while the label's founder is one "bevin campbell" Chris cheese whine 01:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Clearly vanity, NN, etc. --Action Jackson IV 01:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Only signed artist appears to be strictly on a regional distribution basis. Only album claimed to have been released was actually released on another label a year prior. Also a violation of WP:COI. Caknuck 01:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 20:55Z

[edit] List of clubs and societies in Liège

List of clubs and societies in Liège (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Just a list of clubs in a small city- is wikipedia supposed to be the yellow pages Peter Rehse 01:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. Also, for future references, it's a good idea not to treat the nomination as a "delete" !vote (if you nominate an article, we're pretty sure you want it deleted). --Wafulz 04:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Useful and allowed by WP policy:

Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information is welcome for inclusion into wikipedia in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included.[12]

The way I see it, the page will evolve over time from a list of external links into a much shorter list of internal links as a result of each section being covered by an article. Pgr94 08:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• • The "chapter information" thing applies to something like "list of scouting troops" or "list of flag-twirling brigades" or something similar. It doesn't apply to "list of things in a city". Also, that criteria applies to non-profit organizations, which are clearly not the majority here. --Wafulz 15:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Pgr94. Mathmo ^Talk 10:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. My understanding of the source posted by Pgr94 is for lists of chapters, e.g. the Liege chapter of Hells Angels could agreeably sit in a List of Chapters of Hells Angels in Belgium, but not in a list of clubs and societies in Liege. If my understanding is flawed, please let me know, as I'm keen to continue to develop my understanding of WP process. --Dweller 15:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I fully understand what you mean. If you're saying it's ok to group by subject but not to group by location, then by my reading the policy doesn't actually appear to say that. PS interesting choice of example :-) Pgr94 15:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

lol. I don't know many organisations that call themselves "chapters" other than HA, lol. I think it's an Americanism. Anyway, I think it's arguable either way. --Dweller 15:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as violating WP:NOT as an indiscriminate list. The policy quoted User:Pgr94 is intended as, for example, The Boy Scouts of America article can have a list (in the main article or seperately depending on how long the list is) of local branches that are not notable in themselves. Nuttah68 20:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Although a lot of work has gone into this, it doesn't appear to be salvageable. Perhaps it could be put on a Web site. The authors could easily go to a free blog service like Google's and set it up as one or more blog posts, then revise as needed, although the real work would be in getting people to that Web page. Pgr94, the use of the word "Individual" in the quote you cite clearly indicates (although it doesn't explicitly state) that the rule concerns individual chapters of organizations within a list of chapters of that organization. If the word "Individual" were not there, much less the first word in the sentence, you'd have a better case. "Individual" clearly is used to emphasize the difference between local chapters and national/international organizations.Noroton 05:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC) (edited)
• Delete As some have already noted it violates WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Even if it was improved and enlarged the fundamental problem would still exist. Pax:Vobiscum 18:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This list covers too many non-notable entities. John Vandenberg 05:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:52Z

[edit] Dreigen Uchiha

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

Image:112sasuke3lh.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Some person's Naruto fan character. Not a character that appears in the series, so fails WP:FICT notability guideline. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No Google hits. User goes by same name. --Alksub 02:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons mentioned above. --Action Jackson IV 07:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a place to brag about your crappy made up Naruto characters that you created for the purpose of inserting yourself into the story. Also, check out the kana for his name, it reads "Uchiha Sasuke" not "Uchiha Dreigen". --Candy-Panda 10:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Hi im "Dreigen Uchiha", delete it it doesn't follow wikipedia regulations and you should just delete it. By the way sorry.

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

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

The result was keep. Yuser31415 01:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] K9YA Telegraph

K9YA Telegraph (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

The article does not meet the criteria for notability. --- LuckyLouie 02:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The article reads like spam, but it seems there may be a chance that this is a notable publication within the subculture it serves. --Action Jackson IV 03:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Within the amateur radio subculture, the two major amateur radio e-zines, www.qrz.com, and www.eham.net do not have Wikipedia articles. The K9YA Telegraph is relatively non-notable by comparison. --- LuckyLouie 03:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment www.qrz.com and www.eham.net are not e-Zines. The K9YA Telegraph is a subscription-only based publication, delivered as a PDF file attachment to e-mail. The K9YA Telegraph is not a website as in the aforementioned URLs.

• The K9YA Telegraph is read by radio amateurs in over 100 countries. The K9YA Telegraph is staffed entirely of volunteers, offers free subscriptions and has no advertising. The K9YA Telegraph contains original--never before published articles, photographs and cartoons relating to amateur radio.

• Each month, a ham radio cartoon originally published in the K9YA Telegraph, is reprinted in RadCom, the UK's Radio Society Magazine <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radcom>. The K9YA Telegraph is referenced in every issue.

• K9YA Telegraph articles have been referenced in the Contester's Rate Sheet, a publication of the American Radio Relay League <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARRL>.

• K9YA Telegraph content has been reprinted and referenced in the Keynote, the journal of the International Morse Preservation Society <http://www.fists.org>.

• Cartoons and illustrations originally appearing in the K9YA Telegraph have been published in, "HI HI--A Collection of Ham Radio Cartoons" by Dick Sylvan, W9CBT. (ISBN 1-4116-6195-8).

• The 5th edition of, "The Art & Skill of Radio-Telegraphy" will contain original content from the K9YA Telegraph. --- User:Finley Breese 11 February, 2007

• Keep per Finley's notations, with a strong admonition to put the references above into the article if you haven't already done so. --Dennisthe2 06:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable among radio amateurs, but can't blame a non-HAM not knowing that Alf photoman 15:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Cites appear to establish it exists, and that it has multiple references in other reliable sources which reprint its content. Does not appear highly notable outside morse code radio enthusiasts and radio hams, but seems to barely satisfy WP:N. Inkpaduta 21:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:53Z

[edit] SCUBA Tag

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

Obscure, nn diving game. Alksub 02:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: No sources to establish notability. Heimstern Läufer 05:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:NOTE and possibly WP:HOAX --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 05:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• weak delete: smells like it may have been made up in (diving) school one day. i kan reed 19:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for all of the above reasons. MastCell 21:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete' Wikipedia is not for things made up at Scout camp one day, including a variant in the article called "scuba grab ass." Inkpaduta 22:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete as "made up in dive school". WMMartin 17:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-16 02:53Z

[edit] Alma Saraci

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

Actress appearing in an unreleased film, no indication from third party sources that she meets inclusion guidelines for humans. brenneman 02:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Weak assertion of notability, no evidence of verifiability. ShadowHalo 09:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Sadly, too little notability to stave off the axe: only 127 Ghits, and most seem to be for someone at the Albanian National Agency of Energy. A ways down the cast list on her upcoming film, too. --Groggy Dice T | C 09:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable unknown actress. NawlinWiki 12:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to Fairfax County elementary schools. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 20:59Z

[edit] Clifton Elementary School (Clifton, Virginia)

Clifton Elementary School (Clifton, Virginia) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

It's an elementary school, in Fairfax County, VA. I don't see much of a claim of notability here, nor in any of the other articles on elementary schools in Fairfax County that I will be adding here. Brianyoumans 03:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC) I have added to this AFD the following Fairfax County elementary school articles:

Colvin Run Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Floris Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Greenbriar West Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Herndon Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

McNair Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Mosby Woods Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Sunrise Valley Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Union Mill Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Union Mill Elementary School (Clifton, Virginia) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Brianyoumans 03:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It's a cute class project, but more appropriate elsewhere. I'd pretty much extend this vote to any and every elementary school and junior high. --Action Jackson IV 03:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge all of them into a school district page. BJ^Talk 03:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable elementary school. --Holdek ^(talk) 05:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge seems like an excellent idea here. Notability in numbers, or something like that. Realkyhick 05:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge all I don't think they need their own article but would be better on a combined page. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The Fairfax County Public Schools article already lists all the schools and their grade levels. Brianyoumans 19:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all - In that case, delete all. Elementary schools and junior high schools are generally not notable. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 19:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all per lack of notability. DMacks 19:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Some some have notability and i am working on notability for Union Mill ES. A few have no use but some are notable. Floris is I belive the oldest public school in Fairfax county and Clifton is one of the oldest in Northern VA, although not public in the begining. Union Mill is named after this mill on Bull Run creek that supplied stuff for the battles of Manassas in the Civil War, and has a grindstone from the mill (see photo in article) on display in front of it. I have no notability for Herndon, Sunrise, or Mosby, however. KeepOnTruckin 21:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, remember Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_subjective and (citing guide to deletion here) "the fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth" KeepOnTruckin 21:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. I believe the major problem here is likely the absence of references in this articles or a plethora of relevant links that could help establish a more fine-tuned and reliable article. I believe that if enough information can be presented for an independent article, then in the terms of public schools, the school should receive its own article. The main reason behind notability guidelines is to allow for sensible articles that are not commercially representing or self-representing. If an article is able to provide a good deal of substance that is backed by reliable references then I support it. However, for the meantime, since this article does not adequately meet all of these guidelines, it should me merged. Another option is tagging the article with clean up tags and need references tags to see if that information is actually available. Sukh17 ^{Talk | Contribs} 22:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • A similar AFD on other Fairfax county public schools is located here, note that AFD was also started by User:Brianyoumans. KeepOnTruckin 00:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, that is one part of the middle schools; the rest of them are at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Carson Middle School --Brianyoumans 00:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • As to a merger: these schools, what grades they offer, and what "cluster" they are in are already listed in the Fairfax County Public Schools article. --Brianyoumans 00:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all per KeepOnTruckin. Fairfax County Public Schools is a notable school district in the US. For example, Sunrise Valley Elementary School has been cited in several news reports, such as [13] for its educational program. It also has a gifted program cited in this news report [14]. I believe the above blanket "delete" votes are flawed as they have overlooked at least one notable case in Sunrise Valley Elementary School.--Vsion 06:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The first citation you give is a short mention in the article; the article is not about Sunrise Valley, it is about efforts to teach children about finance. The second article is in a Fairfax County community paper and is a short news note. Brianyoumans 06:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Are you aware of these references before nomination? If not, I hope you could offer the courtesy not to WP:TROLL, these are new information for other editors to consider. Also, you have misread the Denver-post/washington-post article, the first half of the article was devoted to Sunrise Valley, more than a "short mention". The article clearly satisfies the criteria of having multiple reliable sources. Also there are now strong claims of notability. I wish to note also that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Carson Middle School, the notability of another school was overlooked. Again, I'm troubled by this mass nomination and blanket "delete" voting. --Vsion 07:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I was merely giving my impression of the sources that you came up with. I certainly intend to "discuss" and not "troll". Surely we can disagree without resorting to personal attacks? --Brianyoumans 07:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I apologize if you feel this is a personal attack, that's not my intention. But I have to note that your arguments were being selective, e.g. you noted that the 2nd reference is of a "community paper", but failed to mention that the first reference is from the nationally-distributed "washington post" posted in Denver. Of course, this bias is probably unintentional on your part, but to avoid further nick-picking, I suggest we just move on, and not to challenge each other's argument unless there is gross error or something significantly new to add. --Vsion 07:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Agreed. I had noticed the first source was from the Denver Post, I guess I figured everyone else would who bothered to hover their cursor over the link. The second link was somewhat more ambiguous unless you clicked it and saw where it went. --Brianyoumans 08:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete all Some have nothing at all to say, and the others would fit into a section of the general article:

This particular one, Clifton is "smallest school in the country." & nothing more; But Greenbriar isn't even that, and fills its space with a list of the other schools, Colvin Run' doesn't even have such a list, Herndon has a French class, Mosley woods has a central hallway, Sunrise has a field day, Union Mill a millstone (not having any actual connection with the school). McNair is distinctive, for it has a well written article--although the main point is a local family, not the school. If any of this is notable, the material can go in the general article until there is enough to make a strong case for that particular one. Alternatively, we go one at a time and it takes forever & will probably be inconsistent as well. DGG 06:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There is nothing in this article in its present form which suggests that the school is in any way notable. The content is entirely trivial and non-encyclopaedic. Dahliarose 09:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability neither asserted nor shown. WMMartin 17:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

When I say that I mean for All, of course. WMMartin 17:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment As to a merger, the Fairfax County Public Schools is turning into a list. Merging every elementary school into that article (FCPS has 137 of them, although there arent than many on wikipedia, people might add more)would make that article extremley long. There is nothing wrong with having articles on elementary and middle schools, and if there is a problem with any of the articles, IMPROVE them instead of blanket deleting them all. --KeepOnTruckin 18:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, then merge them into a Fairfax County elementary schools and so on. BJ^Talk 23:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I think these can be merged back in as a table that lists some of the school data - grade range, perhaps what school it feeds, town it is located in, and the school website. We can lose stuff like the principal's name, the school mascot, what the names of the grade 3 "teams" are, etc.--Brianyoumans 23:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All A big load of non-notable schoolcruft. Soltak | Talk 20:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral Unless there is something noteworthy about this school in particular, it should be merged as previously recommended. I do not support deleting it, however. --Ozgod 23:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment All schools are notable to me, and I am happy to read an article on any school on wikipedia, regardless of district. Brianyoumans, you have consitently stated that the reason you want these articles deleted is because they have no assertion of notability/they arent notable enough to be on wikipedia. Let me say this again, citing the guide to deletion (my apologies if I am making the same argument twice) "the fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." "Lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion, because (among other reasons) this isn't specifically stated in the deletion policy; and since Wikipedia is not paper and has no size limits [except those of the server...not important here], there's no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't include "everything" that fits in with the other criteria, such as WP:Verifiability and no original research". If these schools are such a non-notable topic, then people wont search for them. They arent harming Wikipedia, but they are helping anyone who read them. In fact, if "we delete articles solely due to their obscurity, currently obscure, or seemingly obscure, subjects may gain more popular interest at a later date. In such a case, deleted articles will constitute a loss of valuable (and perhaps, in the transitory world of the internet, irreproducible) information." "Non-notable" is a non-NPOV designation, therefore not abiding by policy. The person who authored the article probably believes that the topic is notable enough to be included. "Writing 'Delete, non-notable' is not about whether the articles should be in Wikipedia, but rather that it is a quick phrase that does not tell everyone else why the article is non-notable". Brianyoumans, you need to prove that all these school articles aren't notable. KeepOnTruckin 04:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• I feel no need to demonstrate their non-notability. I think you are confusing "notability" and "verifiability". I'm not sure where you are quoting from, but my fundamental objection to these articles is that, since they are not (in my view) notable, they then fall under "Wikipedia is not a directory" and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" from WP:NOT. If you come up with something notable on one or two of these schools, the articles can always be recreated. But how likely is it that ALL these schools are notable? This isn't Lake Wobegon, where "all the children are above average". :-) --Brianyoumans 05:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• KeepOnTruckin has misunderstood the instructions on the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion which clearly states that the need to check for sources is part of the nomination process. We can therefore assume that the person who nominated the article was unable to find any suitable sources to justify the notability of this particular school. The onus is not on the people involved in the deletion debate to find such sources. We can only judge the article on what is written. If there are sources which prove the school's notability then it is up to that article's editors to do a re-write and include suitable references. As the article stands there is nothing in the article to indicate that the school is in any way notable and it should therefore be deleted. Dahliarose 20:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as not notable — MrDolomite • Talk 18:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Fairfax County Public Schools or Delete. Vegaswikian 01:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shwaka

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

DicDef that has already been Xwikied to Wiktionary. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If it's already been transwikied, it's speediable (A5). See {{db-transwiki}}. I guess A5 only applies to pages that were already AfD'd? Anyway, wikt:shwaka comes up empty for me.cab 03:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

  Delete never mind me, found it wikt:Transwiki:Shwaka ... cab 04:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. - grubber 16:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Chairboy, no assertion of notability (CSD A7). BryanG^(talk) 06:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Mitchell

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

This article is autobiographical self-promotion as per WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Also fails WP:BIO Planetneutral 03:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - db-bio, such tagged. BJ^Talk 03:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - non-notable by a mile Johnbod 04:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:08Z

[edit] Urban housework

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

Urban Housework (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

This page lists not one source, has just over 2000 ghits with the 2 of the top 5 being wiki pages. BJ^Talk 03:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:HOAX and WP:NOTE. --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 05:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. They're kidding, right? WP:HOAX. Realkyhick 05:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• BJAODN. This is easily inspired by Monty Python, and a clever idea, but doesn't belong outside of the BJAODN posts. --Dennisthe2 06:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Funny but delete Paul 22:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sources are found. Very intersting topic though ^^ Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 10:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Alphachimp. Can someone add this to Wikipedia:Protected titles/Deliberate redlinks as it's been deleted 7 times already. MER-C 09:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Random Article

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

Article explains what Random Article link does on Wikipedia. Does this warrant a page? lightspeedchick 03:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No, no it doesn't Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 04:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Doesn't belong here; covered by Wikipedia:Random. Pomte 04:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above, redundant. Meanwhile, Help:Random_page seems to have a couple of problems, but it's propagated from Meta, which seems OK now. Just a heads-up for anyone with jurisdiction. --Dhartung | Talk 04:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Pomte. Maxamegalon2000 06:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. It does exactly what it says on the tin - we know that. --Dennisthe2 06:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, positive assertion of nonnotability. NawlinWiki 12:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alionnoob

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

Suspected violation of WP:NN. Little information establishing notability lightspeedchick 04:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: "trying to become well known on Youtube", as the article says, looks to be all they've accomplished. Less than 150 Google hits [15]. Heimstern Läufer 04:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable desperately seeking publicity. Sorry, not here. Realkyhick 05:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - it'd help if they were even mildly amusing. --Action Jackson IV 07:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, no assertion of notability whatsoever. WarpstarRider 11:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:08Z

[edit] Curt Thomas

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

Fails WP:BIO. As a website designer, he was involved in a couple of minor incidents, but nothing that was ever covered in the press, as far as I could tell from a web search. The fact that it's an orphaned article doesn't help its case. YechielMan 04:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: unverified and with insufficient notability. Heimstern Läufer 04:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No sources for any of the information. Don't see the notability.--Getaway 14:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. John Vandenberg 05:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:09Z

[edit] Blessan Samuel Classic

Blessan Samuel Classic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN local basketball tournament; self-promotion _SUBWAYguy 04:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, advert, non-notable, likely COI. Realkyhick 05:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless sources are provided to establish notability. Very few Google hits suggest this is unlikely. -SpuriousQ (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. John Vandenberg 05:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:09Z

[edit] Vertigo Games

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

Image:Vertigologo.png (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Vertigo games (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

De-proded. No notability established to meet WP:WEB. Only 163 unique Ghits for "Vertigo Games" and 95 for "Mr. Chubigans". -- Scientizzle 04:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This article, while containing some non-sense is mostly fact about a real game developing company headed, as the article states by a person with the screen name of "Mr. Chubigans" and therefore should be edited, not deleted. The link to this article has been there for a long time, he did not write this article the non-sense was probably added in by a crazed fan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cpicon92 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete per WP:SPAM. Outside of this article containing factual nonsense, Mr. Chubigans started on the Internet when his company gave him a computer to make a website (later this company went bankrupt). Then Mr. Chubigans bought the Half Life series together with Opposing Force., a visit to this guy's website shows it has a link to the wikipedia article on his main page [16]. Mitaphane _?|! 05:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Spam. The article asserts that the company's founder "may get a job making games for a living." Maxamegalon2000 06:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Searches for this title might bring up old references to a series of boardgaming conventions named "Vertigo Games" held in the Chicago and Philadelphia areas. These were small housecons for the Diplomacy (game) hobby that weren't related to this company nor to its computer games. Those conventions received coverage only in game 'zines that didn't meet WP:RS, so we won't need a disambiguation page. Barno 20:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Sandbox of God is pretty damn good. It may not be notable, but I implore you crazy wiki guys to download it! --Perfection 10:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to List of Saw characters, except Amanda Young. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:12Z

[edit] Lynn Denlon

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

Also nominating the following related pages:

Adam Faulkner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Lawrence Gordon (Saw) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Detective Eric Matthews (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Jeff Reinhart (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Amanda Young (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Delete all - Wikipedia is not the place for detailed plot summaries masquerading as articles about the characters. Otto4711 04:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete all My favorite type of AfD! There are far too many of this type of article. A character in a movie is not an actual subject unless they are covered in some non trivial manner outside the film. Personally I don't even like merging into a list of characters page as all we end up with is a list of encyclopedic character specific plot summaries. --Daniel J. Leivick 05:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Stronger delete all Daniel J. Leivick is dead-on. I'm hard pressed to think of many memorable characters from the last twenty years of cinema and television - but art crit aside, who cares? Why would anyone care? Start a fan site or something! (this same sentiment extends to the billions of Simpsons spin-off articles, in case anyone was wondering) --Action Jackson IV 05:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I am with you on those Simpsons articles. I would nominate a slew of them, but it would be too tough a fight. --Daniel J. Leivick 05:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Even stronger delete all per nom. Realkyhick 06:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete These articles are nothing more than plot summaries. There is nothing to justify their existance apart from the movie articles. janejellyroll 05:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, that's my deletion reason. MER-C 09:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge I suggest merging the useful information into the List of Saw characters page, with the exception of Amanda's page, as there is info in there that has to do with 3 films and comic book, as well as behind-the-scenes developement and the history of the character that was unexplored in any of the films. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 06:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge all except Amanda. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 09:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per Janejellyroll. Completely unsourced. MER-C 09:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All, because of the motives of the delete voters! Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Consider instead the harm to benifit ratio of deleting, is easily in favour of keeping. Mathmo ^Talk 10:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOT, which says in relevant part: "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." Otto4711 13:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge all, except Amanda Young - these articles say nothing that the summary article can't put together. Less noteworthy than the mass of Gundam-related mobile suit articles that was deleted last month. Iceberg3k 15:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all except Amanda Young - As Amanda appears in multiple films, her complete character information cannot be found in any of the three film's individual articles. Mcr29 16:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Amanda Young - Stoph 17:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Merge, Redirect the nomination says it well. Unless the article on the series becomes bloated the character info should be there with a redirect, and only when the article exceeds a reasonble length should major charachters get articles. --Kevin Murray 17:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all, especially Amanda Young First off, I'd like to thank Otto for notifying me about the AFD nominations, as most people would have done. (I'm being sarcastic, for those who don't know, as he completely neglected to do so). If any of them stay, Amanda should as she has appeared in all three films as well as a comicbook. As for the others, except for Lynn and Jeff, all of them have appeared in at least two movies. If we're going to delete these articles, we might as well delete 90% of the other fictional character articles.--CyberGhostface 18:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge all, except Amanda - Unless each article has significant out of universe information, they should all be in one large "List of Saw characters". Amanda is like Jigsaw, a major componant of each film, although that it is unknown until the third film. Research needs to be done to find out of universe information for her and Jigsaw, but the character should have her own page. The rest are minor and not too much out of universe info will probably be found about them, though that isn't suggesting that it shouldn't be tried. But I agree with Otto that we shouldn't masquerade expanded plot summaries as character descriptions. Wiki isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, but that doesn't mean we can't make these characters encyclopedic. One list, contain casting information, person reflection by the actors on the characters, and a bried description about who the character was in context with the film.  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  18:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all except Amanda Young - Amanda is a major character in all three Saw movies, and there is other information on her page, including character development/history. Xxxmidnightxxx 19:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I would also like to note that these articles aren't 'detailed plot summaries masquerading as articles about the characters.' Each of these articles focuses specifically on a certain character's arc goes into more detail on their characters than the others involved.--CyberGhostface 21:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Could you point out in each of the various articles where the "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance" is please? Otto4711 21:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you point it out in 90% of the fictional character articles? And its not a 'work' like a film or novel. Wikipedia also states that "If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article." Going into detail about the entire character's life would make the film articles too wieldy.--CyberGhostface 21:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• 90% of the fictional character articles are not under discussion here. These articles are. "Some other shitty article exists" is not a justification for more shitty articles. If you find articles that you feel are of the same poor quality as these charcter arc plot summaries, nominate them for deletion. Otto4711 21:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Good job on responding to my other point.--CyberGhostface 22:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• WP:FICT is a guideline. Articles created under FICT still have to pass WP:NOT, which is a policy and supercedes FICT. These articles do not pass NOT because they are nothing but character-specific plot summaries. How's that for responding to your other point? Otto4711 19:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Not that good. As for real world context, I can very easily find interviews with the actors and writers concerning their inspirations. The case of Amanda Young (which I doubt you even read before nominating it for AFD) details her actress's inspiration for the character as well as works of literature that helped her further her role.--CyberGhostface 20:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• If you can find the reliable sources, then please do find them and add them before the AFD closes and then we can all see if they now pass. While you're at it, try trimming some of the minute-by-minute stuff out of the plot summaries. Otto4711 20:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge all but Amanda Young, per WP:FICT. Most of the articles lack references, and could be included in the article on Saw. The Young article has a few references, but I wonder how to determine if they are reliable [WP:RS]] and independent? Radiofree.com? Crave.com? Are they fansites or do they have a more substantial basis? Inkpaduta 22:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

They're both professional websites that have interviewed Shawnee Smith on her character. Frankly, I wouldn't mind everyone but Amanda being merged if it has to be done. If anything, thats what Otto should have done in the first place instead of attempting to eradicate everything from the wiki.--CyberGhostface 22:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge all, except Amanda Young - Amanda is one of the main characters in the Saw films, right up there with Jigsaw himself. The others should be merged though. - Gadgetfusion 17:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect, except Amanda Young I don't see why this content should be merged. JuJube 02:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all All characters are a lot more intricate then could be explained in a simple plot summary on the main articles. TheWikitruthisOutThere 05:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Enlighten me, how are they more complex than "this character did/thought/said this thing that made Jigsaw think he/she was worthy of death"? They're horror movie victims. Iceberg3k 18:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • You've obviously never seen the films, or else you wouldn't have made such an ignorant statement. There ARE characters in the Saw series who would fit your viewpoint, the ones who appear in one scene and are dispatched gruesomely because they go against Jigsaw's life philosophy. If you have confused these characters with the ones in these articles, then you are grossly mistaken. All of these are complex characters with their own motivations, histories and secrets, many of whom have appeared in more than one film. Calling characters like Jeff and Matthews mere horror film victims in the same line as the horny teenagers from the Jason films does them a great disservice.--CyberGhostface 20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Nope, wrong again, I have seen the movies. They're just horror movie victims with more screen time and slightly better backstory. Their profiles might be high enough to justify a larger mention on a fansite, but WP isn't a fansite. These characters fail WP:NOTE one and all, with the possible exception of Amanda. Iceberg3k 05:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
        • All of them were the protagonists of their respective films. You'd be better off classifying characters like Xavier as 'horror movie victims with more screen time' as it doesn't fit these ones at all. In the case of Adam and Lawrence, the entire first film revolved around them.--CyberGhostface 18:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep at least Amanda and any others that have WP:RS, and redirect the rest, keeping the history. John Vandenberg 06:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge All, but keep Amanda and Jigsaw 87.118.102.154 10:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus. ~ Arjun 03:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tan Kim Peng Clarence

Tan Kim Peng Clarence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Army officer. Fails to establish notability. mandel 14:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Aarontay 20:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. He seemed like a nice guy. Did his job. Got promoted. ... --MRoberts <> 00:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Pioneer who helped build up an army, --Vsion 03:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The onus, I think, is on the article writer to show his notability. Mandel 15:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Do any of the relevant non-English Wikipedias have an article on the guy? If so, they might have some good sources, and if not, that might reinforce the contention of non-notability. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Only found in English Wikipedia. Mandel 18:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This article is about a man who was instrumental in building up an elite military unit. Given the sensitive topic nature, and contemporary security situation we have now, it is unlikely that there will be many publications on these elite units, let alone the key people behind them. It is difficult to find good sources, but notability isnt based on how many good sources there are in cases like this.--Huaiwei 01:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, and the article explains why. I would most appreciate if the nominator and those who vote delete at least explain why he is not notable based on the article content. I was the original author by the way.--Huaiwei 01:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Article does not show how he was instrumental in 'building up an elite military unit'. Four of those voted have already indicated that, from their reading of the article. The onus is now on the article writer, not the nominator/voters. We obviously can't explain why, not knowing the guy. Based on the article, I only see a fairly high-ranked officer regularly promoted. Mandel 13:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Are we on the same page? It's right there :"1967, he was tasked to begin recruiting eligible candidates for the new Singapore Armed Forces Regular Battalion, the precursor of the 1st Commando Battalion"... CO from 1971 to 1978. Your misrepresentation of the article and my comment is rather strange. --Vsion 14:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• I was responding to Huaiwei, not you, Vsion. Recruitment of soldiers is neither surprising nor by itself notable. In fact, every battalion has to do some recruitment, or they would have zero man. I do not represent or misrepresent the article; the article is open for perusal. I have not edited it in any way. Mandel 15:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Again, the missing of important fact in your comment is appalling. "every battalion has to do some recruitment", well true, but you forget to mention that the battalion (and in fact the whole army) didn't exist at the time. --Vsion 15:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• You are making points with no meaning. I said every battalion; new or not makes no difference. Please stop the ad hominem attacks and stick to the article. This govt site states 1969 was the year the Singapore Commando battalion precursor unit was formed.[17] By then this officer was already posted elsewhere. The article said he was tasked to recruit battalion members, it does not show us how he 'built up' the Commandoes - or that he was doing something extra or special beyond his job. If you have constructive comments to make, do; otherwise, please stop attacking someone just for posting an AfD. Mandel 16:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• I was commenting on your comments, nothing personal, take it easy. He was the CO from 71 to 78, Commandant 81 to 88, he was thus involving in recruiting, training, and establishing the doctrine of the formation. Clearly, he is a founding pioneer. I think there is some misunderstanding over the word "recruit", it does not mean handing out application forms and conducting desk interviews. --Vsion 16:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• I fail to comprehend your arguments on his non-notability, a man who was largely responsible for helping to setup an elite military formation for an entire country. A man who was one of the first two Commando-trained soldiers in the country. A man who came up with the first training programme for the Commando formation. If being the first man to be trained to be an elite soldier isnt "doing something extra or special beyond his job" (at least during his time), then just how do you justify articles like Bill Gates, when all he did as a Computer programme company founder is to, well, sell computer software?--Huaiwei 15:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• I fail to see why you should get offended by "ad hominem attacks" when you are clearly turning this into a personal affair by telling someone off for voicing out when he has every liberty to.--Huaiwei 15:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• 'Telling someone off'? I was asked by a fellow Wikipedian Huaiwei for my opinion and I merely gave it. As nominator I explain myself. I was telling off someone for ad hominem attacks, which disrupts VfD. A valid point is never retorted. The discussion topic revolves around the article subject, not the nominator. Are you alleging ad hominem attacks are all right?
• I have no agenda against Tan Kim Peng Clarence. I do not know him. Nor do any of the three who voted delete, I believe. Mandel 16:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• C'mon, your comments were projecting Tan as merely a high ranking officer, or HR recruiter. It's ok to make mistake, that's fine, but I'm entitled to point out the problem with your comments and clarify the facts. Please don't cry victim of ad hominem because of that. --Vsion 19:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Are army officers generally notable? This is open for discusion. There is no directive on this. Don't crucify me for saying no. Mandel 20:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
• Continually saying 'you', 'your comments' is ad honinem. I think it does not matter who says it as long as it makes sense. I am merely defending myself. If one would please, stick with Mr Clarence Tan. Mandel 21:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Good that this is on record, that you, erhm ... (pardon me) someone consider the "continuous" use of 'you', 'your comments' as "ad honinem". It is indeed illuminating. Btw, why are we (I hope "we" is ok) using Latin, this is an english wikipedia.--Vsion 21:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stick with Mr Clarence Tan. Mandel 21:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Of course we know what you are doing. The question is if no one else can come into the picture and make comments on your responses to my queries? We arent accusing you of having "something" against the article in question. I do have, however, an issue over whether you have something against the editor(s) in question.--Huaiwei 12:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I have nothing against you Huaiwei. We have never been in a dispute before. Pls assume good faith. I don't know any other editor of the article. Let's shake and allow discussion to proceed genially. Mandel 15:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 05:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Metacomment: I previously closed this debate as "delete" on grounds of lacking reliable sources, esp based on Huaiwei's comment it is unlikely that there will be many publications on these elite units, let alone the key people behind them. It is difficult to find good sources, but notability isnt based on how many good sources there are in cases like this. But I'm willing to entertain more input on the issue of sources so I'm re-opening debate. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-12 05:14Z

• I think redirect/merge to Singapore Armed Forces Commando Formation is the way to go here: the subject has borderline notability, and only due to association with one particular organization -- classic merge scenario. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-12 05:14Z
  • As nominator, I agree. I think my main purpose for throwing this out is to get some directives on army personnel. At present Wikipedia is pretty blurry over their inclusion/deletion. I'm not so concerned about this one particular officer. As a LTC, he is right smacked in the middle of the Singapore officer hierarchy - though I'm less concerned about rank than with genuine contributions. Mandel 16:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Maybe I've missed something, but I am curious as to how these editors know about the man if there are no publications - word of mouth and reputation? Can the book reference in the article be used to cite any of these claims? Pomte 05:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Question Does the book cited have an ISBN number, or publisher information, or a copyright holder? The subtitle gets zero non-wiki GHits. [18] The title has 154, and none of them seem to be about the book. [19] cab 06:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - my neighbor's friend's uncle totally recruited some people for this army this once. This makes him important and notable! Source: Generic Titleword: The Life and Times of This One Dude (sorry no ISBN) --Action Jackson IV 07:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Sure. I believe there are plenty of recruiters out there. The question is if your neighbor's friend's uncle Charles Beckwith or David Stirling?--Huaiwei 07:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Thank you very much for allowing more air time on the above matter.
• I believe my statement has caused some misunderstanding there. I was actually refering to the lack of a high number of courses, but not on the non-existance of any source. The book in question was published by the Singapore Armed Forces in 1995, and available from the National Library, Singapore/SAFTI library. I am not sure if this link will work, but here is the book's entry on its catalogue [20]. The book was a special commemorative volume produced to mark the formation's 35th anniversary, and was previously not readily available for public viewing until the tie-up between the military and national libraries. Such is the difficulty of obtaining information on otherwise "classified" information, and the difficulty in looking for sources as I earlier alluded to. Hence, it is not always feasible to use google searches to establish notability on certain topics.--Huaiwei 07:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per some of the points mentioned above. The article at least claims notability. And he is a Lieutenant Colonel, which is not super high up the ranks it is still nothing to sneeze at! That is staff level. Hmmm... arguably all staff level officers are notable? Heh, perhaps not. But still, it does make it more likely. Mathmo ^Talk 10:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Assuming good faith there is a reference given, but there should be two sources to meet the "multiple" criterion. I think that it should be kept and tagged for more sources which validate notability, which comes from creating the commando group. --Kevin Murray 21:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There appears to be only one book describing his work, and that is not suficcient to meet the requirement of multiple independent and relaible sources. He is mentioned in the article on the commando forse, and perhaps that mention could be expanded to a paragraph. Lt. Col. in a small military organization is not inherently notable. Doing your job well, even in the military, does not bypass other requirements for demonstrating that a person has notability per WP:N. Inkpaduta 22:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • As per [21], there was actually a second source found on the web at [22]. As I mentioned earlier, there is little literature on elite military forces in Singapore for obvious security reasons, and hence I do not feel quantity of sources should be used as a primary criterion for deletion.--Huaiwei 16:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge This article has merit in that it describes someone important to the Singapore Army, but he did not have much worldly recognition, beyond those who had to study his history for their mandatory service in the Singapore armed services. The US military trains a lot of personnel from other nations, to a variety of degrees; his training would have been sponsored as part of a larger military training program to act as a general counter-point to ongoing cold-war fears at the time. In fact, I am not clear what active duties he participated in. Other military pioneers were usually involved in some active duty.--Shakujo 05:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is he probably isn't notable either in Singapore. Aarontay 07:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Singapore does not have a culture of glorifying personalities, and that includes military personnel in general.--Huaiwei 16:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

So you basically agree he is not notable even in Singapore? Okay. Aarontay 17:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, the average Singapore Joe/Jane doesn't know that many people outside his or her select band of notables. A person well known to one Singaporean may not be well known to another. You are talking about some who have problems remembering their MPs, the Minister for Environment, the CoA etc, let alone a LTC for a Battalion who seldom hog the news. Ironically, if he murdered or was killed, he'll be remembered. We know Huang Na and Mr TT Durai. Just a general observation. I'm saying notability in Singapore is a very vague notion. No one agrees exactly who is important, other than our PM. Mandel 18:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Notable is a very vague notation anywhere. But there are certainity degrees of it. This fellow is definitely on the very low side even among active military soldiers. I wonder how notable he is if he doesn't even appear in an search of the ST archives for the last 50 years. If I didn't know better, I would have thought your coment about the Average Singapore Joe is meant to be insulting to the rest of us. Anyway I think the fact that the sources aren't independent coupled with the lack of real world notability (even taking into account how ignorant people who aren't wikipedia editors are :) ), makes me wonder why anyone would support keeping this article. Excuses about military secrets can only go so far. Otherwise people will start creating articles about Joe X that nobody can verify and use the same execuse. .Aarontay 18:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or back up the article with independent sources. I don't believe the one cited is enough. If I saw better sourcing, I'd switch to "Keep". Noroton 05:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Seems to be the best compromise available. Delete, I just looked at the Singapore military leaders category, it's pretty amazing to see that this Clarance fellow is listed, when There are probably more relevant leaders than him. Seems a bit strange to list one LTC however accomplished, when most of the past Chief of armies etc are not! To add, I'm Singaporean (though I don't edit the singapore sections at all), to be honest I have not heard of this person. Not that this means the average Singaporean has never heard of him of course. Just one data point. Aarontay 06:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Except for Lim Kim Choon and Ng Yat Chung (both of which are stubs) all other entries listed in that category are much more known for their non-military careers. As a Singaporean, I thought you would have noticed this easily.--Huaiwei 16:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Exactly my point! Aarontay 17:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Seems to meet WP:V, but there don't appear to be any mentions in sources independent of the Singapore Armed Forces (One was a Ministry of Defence webpage, and the other was a book published by the Singapore Armed Forces), so notability isn't too clear.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by CaliforniaAliBaba (talk • contribs) 06:50, 14 February 2007.
• Keep. He is one of eight in Category:Singaporean military leaders ; he may be the least notable amongst them, but he is more notable than all of the other military leaders that do not have articles. John Vandenberg 06:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to This Divided State. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:17Z

[edit] Bryan Young (filmmaker)

Bryan Young (filmmaker) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable filmaker, possibly vanity page. Holdek ^(talk) 05:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete - the SunDance documentary is the one thing making this "weak". Even so - this would be better on imdb.com. --Action Jackson IV 07:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't really seem notable within the entertainment industry. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• KeepHe's notable in the Salt Lake film scene and all of the news articles check out.--67.182.213.82 00:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I wrote the article, so obviously I thought he was noteworthy enough to write an article about. The anonymous guy above is right in that he's notable in the Salt Lake Film Scene, which I'd like to try to document on wikipedia. I worked hard to keep up on all the articles and his forthcoming film, which he's producing that can be seen here. So... There's my defense. And as far as the Sundance stuff, I actually saw the documentary and it's also on the IMDb and all of that info is fairly easy to find on google. Would citing more newspaper articles and other sources make this qualify as more notable? Also, the fact that both he and all of his films are on IMDb denote notabilty to me, their vetting process is quite extensive...--Utahfilmmakers 03:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, it would be a good idea to include links to newspaper articles on him (because of WP:N doubts). Also you should write Keep instead of Don't delete. Mathmo ^Talk 10:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, most of the sources on there are newspapers and news sites, but I'll see if I can find more. And I'm new to the wikipedia thing, so "keep" and "don't delete" seems tantamount to the same thing to me. I was just following suit with the dude above me.... Also, there have been a lot of recent articles that mention the film he's producing, but not him specifically, are those links worth adding?--Utahfilmmakers 03:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I came to add a few more sources, but it seems as though the dude with no profile and Cool Hand Luke the admin did some of that kind of stuff for me.--Utahfilmmakers 02:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to This Divided State; with only one film that has had only minor success it feels like it is too soon. There are insufficient independent sources. John Vandenberg 06:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Rename to Motorola 6800 family. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:20Z

[edit] 68h

68h (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

As I noted on the talk page:

The deletion debate seemed pretty bogus to me… there is no "68h" series except for in this article. The debate was carried out carelessly with most of the keep comments coming from folks who obviously didn't follow the links, or have no prior knowledge of these chips. ... Check these google results: 68h microprocessor 6800 6502 -wiki -wikipedia gives 79 hits but the first few obviously mirror us. 6800/6502 gives 342 and 6502/6800 gives 801 (which says something about the relative popularity of the original :vP ).

The term 68h is not used outside of Wikipedia. When people talk about the similarity between the chips they invariably use "6502/6800" or occasionally "6800/6502." The other Wikipedia page referenced in the debate used 68h to refer to the Motorola series only, not the 6502. Indeed the derivation would seem to be an adaptation of 68k; where k is the SI suffix for thousands, h is for hundreds. In this case this should be a redirect page to 6800.

There is almost no activity at this page. The most significant edit since the last AfD was a tag disputing factual accuracy.

Besides the list of processors, this article only asserts that the processors form a family. Although there is no article on microprocessor family, the term generally implies source code compatibility and not merely a shared design team. This article's assertion is analogous to saying the AMD K5 and successors are part of the AMD 29000 family.

My vote: Redirect to Motorola 6800. Potatoswatter 02:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: This AfD was incorrectly made and orphaned, accounting for the date discrepancy. Potatoswatter has just added this to the listing. Abstain from me. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 05:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• This was posted on the talk page: - I agree. This is not an article... delete it. Matan 03:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Potatoswatter 05:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Most of the editors in the prior AFD discussion wanted the article renamed to Motorola 6800 family, and the 65xx content cut out and pasted into MOS Technology 65xx. Rather than simply doing that, which requires no more than the ordinary editing tools that ordinary editors have, and that entirely addresses the above argument that the two familes should not be intermixed, you have brought the article back to AFD for a second time. Fixing the article in a way that addresses your concerns is entirely within your reach using the editing tools that you yourselves already have. It does not require AFD. It does not require administrator intervention. Speedy close. Uncle G 10:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Was that the consensus but nobody took up the task? = grubber 16:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Two separate editors, out of the four that expressed opinions that it should be kept, suggested it, and nobody took up the task. Uncle G 02:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The result of the debate was "keep". That was one suggestion by user:AJR which did not spur particular discussion. In any case, there is already a category for the Motorola 6800 processors and this article doesn't contain significant content to start something better. Potatoswatter 22:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It contains an introduction and several annotations against the individual processors. Picking up AJR's idea and running with it was something that you could have done yourself. It's actually taken you more edits to write on the talk page and then start and continue this AFD discussion, than it would have for you to have hit the rename button to rename the article to the suggested name and then hit the edit button twice to cut the 65xx content out of this article and paste it into MOS Technology 65xx. Uncle G 02:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, for one articles take me longer than conversation. And for two, I'm not personally in favor of doing that. I think 6800 does a fine job of introducing the family and removing the page is better than trying to hack it. When someone wants to write a 6800 family page, it will be easier to do from scratch. Potatoswatter 03:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
      • The irony is, I'd prolly have just been WP:BOLD if there weren't an authoritative vote resulting in "KEEP." Potatoswatter 03:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Anyway, yeah, I didn't realize it was a pain for any administrators when I did that. I just thought I'd get the attention of anyone caring about/watching this article so as not to step on toes. Given the effort everyone's put into this here discussion, I guess I owe it to go over to 6800, copy a few paragraphs into a new 6800 family article, maybe expand a little, and redirect 68h there. Thus freeing 6800 to grow to describe more about that chip (dates, sales, engineers) and improving organization. Potatoswatter 03:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Edward Johnson

Robert Edward Johnson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete - two-time failed candidate for the House of Representatives. Does not appear to be otherwise notable (although with his common name it's difficult to be sure) and as I understand it we generally don't maintain articles on losing candidates unless they are otherwise notable. Article has been tagged for cleanup for over a year. Otto4711 05:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable either as academic or as minor-party Congressional candidate. NawlinWiki 12:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO as non-notable. MastCell 21:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It is not quite this simple. First, he is not notable as a academic, having not received a doctorate and taught only as an istructor. Failed major party candidates for election to national legislatures have always been considered notable--there are only about 500 a year, and at least the top 1000 politicians in the US are notable, And, while we are at it, since WP is not a news service, I thing the governing principle on "maintaining " articles is once N, always N. But as this article does not make clear but its references do--he is not a candidate from a major party, but lost in the primary runoffs. These candidates have not been considered notable unless there is some either reason.DGG 07:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Miles

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

Delete - minor party losing candidate who is otherwise not notable. Otto4711 05:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete NN, was unable to find any independent articles about him. Dionyseus 05:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - possibly use page title as redirect to Michael Miles? Grutness...wha? 06:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. 1ne 01:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:21Z

[edit] Carryl Varley

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

nn Trimjim 05:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Non notable person. Does not meet notability criteria.

• delete The whole Jinny debate, is like "a can of worms" as there doesn't seem to be clear facts if it's true or not. Minus that, the article just doesn't seem notable enough. DannyDoodles 07:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• commentThis reference [23] gives the real name of jinny as "Real Name: Alessandro Gilardi, Claudio Varola, Federico Di Bonaventura & Walter Cremonini ". Confusingly British Book of Hit Singles states Jinny as having the real name "Janine Brown". Also noted that this entry mentions only 2 hit singles released in 1995. According to reference below there were at least six singles released over a period of 5-6years. It also suggests that the 1995 tracks were also released several years prior. Was this also by Carryl Varley and does she claim to be the singer of all of these tracks? Whilst the reference below does show an unlabelled photograph that could match the pictures from the article references, a search on Google images shows a "Jinny" cover for a single called "Feel the Rhythm" with a male singer on the cover [24]. (It does also show the same photograph of a blonde female for "Wanna Be with you"). If Carryl Varley is the singer "Jinny" then I agree it does meet notability but the references don't seem to support it, except by her claim. Hotmann 01:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• comment - The fact that in the link provided below, the picture is of Carryl Varley, and that she can be seen as the singer in the UK video suggest's, that she is Jinny. The Dinkle 01:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unless can reference Carryl Varley as "Jinny" other than by subjects own claim. External references[25] do not support. Also improve NPOV. Hotmann 23:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Jinny, had one of the biggest hits of 1995. (The Dinkle 01:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)).
• Has two charted hits; keep per WP:MUSIC. --Selket ^Talk 09:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable as singer and TV presenter. NawlinWiki 12:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if properly sourced and referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 15:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The subject is notable and verifiability is not a problem. John Vandenberg 06:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:22Z

[edit] Septagon Studios Inc

Septagon Studios Inc (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Image:Scorn01.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Septagonlogo.gif (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Already prodded and deleted for non-notability. Disputed prod with no reason given. Appears non-notable and reads as promotional. ShadowHalo 05:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Methinks a PR agency wrote this. Promotional, very non-notable. Realkyhick 06:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I just edited it. I wrote the article I'm also the president of the company. I followed guidelines like the other comic book companies.NYXX 1:11Am, 12 February 2007
  • Comment Generally, people involved with a company should refrain from editing the article on that company, due to the conflict of interest issues. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I can't really declare notability one way or the other, but the article, if it is kept, must be rewritten. Phrases like "Nicola Defina, creator and visionary, whose lifelong dream of breaking into the comic book industry is finally being realized" and "Nicola has established a sturdy base to help attract readers and make Septagon Studios the best it can be" belong on some shitty P.R. newsletter that nobody ever reads, not on an encyclopedia. --Action Jackson IV 07:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no independent reliable sources to establish notability, fails WP:CORP and possibly WP:SPAM, and has already been prodded with no sources produced. MastCell 21:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If this article were to be rewritten would it be able to stay? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NYXX (talk • contribs) 12:42, February 13, 2007 (UTC.

  It depends on how it was rewritten. Essentially, it needs to be shown that there are multiple third-party sources that have written about Septagon Studios. ShadowHalo 13:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree that it sounds like a PR text and isn't really in place here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.30.227.92 (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
• Delete. No evidence of having published real books of note. John Vandenberg 06:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS. -Doc^g 02:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Carson Middle School

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

Multiple article AFD - middle schools in Fairfax County, Virginia. Not much history or notability, as far as I see. List of additional school articles below. Brianyoumans 05:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Also included here: Cooper Middle School, Franklin Middle School (Chantilly, Virginia), Robert Frost Middle School (Fairfax County, Virginia), Glasgow Middle School, Herndon Middle School, Holmes Middle School (Fairfax County, Virginia), Langston Hughes Middle School (Fairfax County, Virginia), Washington Irving Middle School, Luther Jackson Middle School, Francis Scott Key Middle School, Joyce Kilmer Middle School, Lanier Middle School (Fairfax, Virginia) --Brianyoumans 06:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I am withdrawing the nomination of Luther Jackson Middle School --Brianyoumans 07:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all - Wikipedia is not the yellow pages Feeeshboy 06:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all. I generally take a deletionist approach to middle schools. YechielMan 06:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete all - Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. There should really be a sister site for this sort of stuff. WikiSchooledya? I wonder what happened to Team C? --Action Jackson IV 07:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all due to lack of cited notability. DMacks 20:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - The article seems well-written, and I would prefer Wikipedia takes into special consideration educational institutions. I'd think articles on middle schools are far preferrable to long articles on anime characters or Transformers. By blowing away articles on middle schools, you are inherently saying fictional cartoon [[characters are preferrable content to real-life educational institutions. What sort of shameful nonsense is that? Mark the article for citation of sources if you wish, but don't delete it. --Petercorless 21:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Firstly, no-one here has said articles on anime characters and Transformers are suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. I'm sure there are many users who don't think most articles on fictional cartoon characters or real-life educational institutions should be included. Please don't set up straw man arguments. Secondly, "this is more notable than/preferrable to that, and we have an article on that" (which is basically what you're saying) is not a valid argument in AFD discussions. Extraordinary Machine 21:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all - Middle schools with no special claims to notability do not clear the notability bar. --Hyperbole 22:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Sound like average schools. Nothing to satisfy WP:SCHOOLS3. I agree with Petercorless that I would rather have a middle school article than an article for pokemon character number 300. But for some reason the editors of Wikipedia find cartoon and game characters more exciting than humdrum schools and such. Inkpaduta 22:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. To begin with, I want to remind everyone that there is not policy of notability on schools. The requirement of stating some assertion of notability is mainly created on the fact that millions of articles that are commercially based or focused individual self-promotion would be littered all over wikipedia. I believe that if any article that is not advertising in this said manner is viable. In addition, as an additional requirement, I believe that articles should have some substance and according to policy, they should have some referenced material or at least list some legitimate sources. This article appears to have some information, and I am sure that in the future, individuals could work on and improve the article based on these sources. As always, we should not be excluded articles on wikipedia on just notability alone; self-promotion and commercial characteristics of articles with illegitimate sources should be the targets of deletion. This article appears to have some possibility for growth, and I believe that if until some templates for clean up and additional sources are added, and then if no progress is made on the article within a few months, then the article can be properly assessed. --Thank You. Sukh17 ^{Talk | Contribs} 19:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Wikipedia is not a collection of all information. AfD just says "delete this as it is now", not "don't ever have a page in the future in a form that does meet standards". DMacks 02:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I am sorry, but your application of the that policy is misrepresented. No consensus has yet been reached on the matter in accordance with schools. There are only a few distinct categories of information for which policy has stated should not be here. This does not follow under one of those categories. I believe that the proper maintenance and addition of school articles will foster a higher level of involvement in wikipedia and help to introduce newer less willing users of wikipedia to become contributors as well, and in effect, become involved in a larger scope with wikipedia, adding material in a broader scope. I think that the attempt to create a entire set of articles covering the given Virginia School District was quite a commendable job, and the combined participation by several editors will only help to foster growth in all areas of wikipedia, eventually improving this excellent community tool and service. We should not be discouraging the growth of this overwhelmingly useful community portal which is turned to as a source of information by so many people. Sukh17 ^{Talk | Contribs} 2:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all Does not follow WP:SCHOOLS3. --Zrulli 22:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Extremly strong keep and improve User:Brianyoumans has listed ALL the Fairfax County Public Schools elementary and middle school pages for AFD, ALL of these listings on the basis of non-notability. Please see the AFD pages for the elementary school AFD's here and the other middle school page here. See: Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_subjective and (citing guide to deletion here) "the fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth"

Before continuing to tout these article's non-notabilty, please do a google search to attempt to find some notabiltiy, as well as read the references for articles that have them. If there are no references, especially references for notabilty, instead of just listing all the articles for deletion, please try to improve the articles by adding references. All pages start as stubs, and then they get improved. That is what needs to happen here. KeepOnTruckin 05:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• I would be somewhat surprised if any of these articles should be kept. Middle schools are generally considered non-notable, and I didn't see much in the way of claims of notability in any of the articles. Many of these are new schools, founded in the last decade, which makes it even less likely that there is anything notable about them.Brianyoumans 05:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment User:Brianyoumans has listed many articles, not just these school articles, for deletion (see his userpage here. Most edits on his account have been to get pages deleted, and not so many edits to improve pages. (Cite contribs here) Brianyoumans, I work for Fairfax County Public Schools, and I can assure you that many of their schools have notability (which I dont think they need to be included here). But hey, don't take my word for it, instead check out some of the references or do a search to find some and improve Wikipedia. Now, Inkpaduta, you make a good point here: "But for some reason the editors of Wikipedia find cartoon and game characters more exciting than humdrum schools and such". Now, to cite the guideline on deletion:"General notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. Thus, the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether "the world" has judged a topic to be notable. This is unrelated to whether a Wikipedia editor personally finds the subject remarkable or worthy." So, we as wikipedians aren't who decides whether a school or cartoon characters are more notable; the world is. The business about wikipedia not being the yellow pages or a directory, heres the part on that:WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. That is trying to keep individual businesses from advertising or promoting oon wikipedia. Now, i could be wrong, but last time I checked, a school system is not a business.

And also a question to User:Brianyoumans: did you "first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the notability template" before listing all these articles for AFD? And please see this page: User:Stifle/Don't say non-notable. KeepOnTruckin 06:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Thank You very much KeepOnTruckin. I really could not have said it better myself. The purpose of creating this assertion on notability is to prevent business and people from self-promoting themselves. Obviously this is not the case, and, in fact, this could be a much more useful article that promotes contributions around wikipedia from otherwise unlikely users. Wikipedia is a very powerful tool, and we should be working to improve and expand it, not just try to delete every article that we think should not be here. Every article can be a useful tool as long as it meets the general procedural standards such as style, non-commercialism and proper research. --Thank You. Sukh17 ^{Talk | Contribs} 6:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• It is true that I tend to spend a great deal of time getting articles deleted. "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery --Brianyoumans 06:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quote, but it doesn't really have much in terms of this discussion or the official wikipedia policy. Notability is not the only definer of an article; there are many characteristics such as the style and quality of research which can make any article that is not commercial or promotional a proper and acceptable article. Wikipedia will never be perfect, and deleting every article for just one reason is not helping at all, and is perhaps hurting. You are distancing the community that uses wikipedia, and very likely are preventing the contributions of otherwise hesitant users. I am sorry if your egotistical attitude is getting in the way of making wikipedia better and more accessible for both users and contributors. In the end, we can only benefit from any additional information that is presented to us on a factual and non-biased basis. Deletion is in no way a constructive manner by which to enhance our learning and understanding. We should observe and learn about everything, for an even greater individual said: "The unexamined life is not worth living." --Socrates --Thank You. Sukh17 ^{Talk | Contribs} 7:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep all. Luther Jackson Middle School is notable and historical significant as reported in [26], for its desegregation history. It was the first high school in fairfax county attended by black students. I'm troubled by this mass nomination and voting, as I commented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clifton Elementary School (Clifton, Virginia), the notability of at least one other school was overlooked. --Vsion 06:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it is arguable whether this notability is merely local, and whether it is the building or the school that is notable; the school building has been repurposed several times. However, I will withdraw Luther Jackson Middle School from the AFD, for simplicity's sake. Brianyoumans 07:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

To "protect" a school article such as this, or any article, it is best to begin by doing searches via Google or other search engine, for notable comments. It is especially helpful if a local community paper has listings of articles involving the school. Both good and bad notations of the school should be included to ensure you are not creating a biased pro- or anti-school POV. Consider how Beach Channel High School in New York City was treated and see if you can likewise put in a good half-dozen or more references for each of these schools. The articles were well-organized and written, and I think we would be prudent to allow contributors time to get references together rather than simply slapping them down with disparaging claims of NN and requests of AfD. --Petercorless 07:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The nominator has withdrawn one article. This presents a problem, as the Afd-closer could not reliably determine the intention of the votes made before the withdrawal, such as the "per nom" vote. According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, the articles should not have been bundled in the first place. --Vsion 07:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. As per comment by Vsion, the Articles for Deletion proposals have been created very haphazardly and without a legitimate investigation by Brianyoumans. I believe some action must be taken so users such as myself and Vsion are not forced to devote our time to these discussions in lieu of improving and refining articles. --Thank You. Sukh17 ^{Talk | Contribs} 7:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete All. Not obviously notable. I think we're beginning to see a pattern here: the strategy of the schools clique seems to be to start with high schools, then get all middle schools in, and then elementary schools. Meanwhile we're getting articles on every g*d-darn mall in North America, people are adding half the streets in their home town, and churches, post offices and funeral parlors are not far behind. The entire thing is turning into a running battle between the elitists ( in which category I include myself ) and those who are temperamentally opposed to elitism. There's no middle ground, any more than there is between scientists and the students of the fluffy subjects, and, just as scientific thinkers/rationalists are in a minority, so the elitists will be here. It might be better just to accept that Wikipedia is screwed and create an elitist fork. Any comments ? WMMartin 17:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I specifically include Luther Jackson Middle School for deletion. I can see why people are going to claim notability, but I don't think it's a particularly notable piece of "notability". If we accept it, we'll also have to accept an article on the oldest school in the district, and then someone will push for the "largest", and then the "smallest", and before we know it we'll be back to schools whose teams have won some local sports competition three years in a row. The line I want to draw excludes Luther Jackson Middle School. If only "elitists" were running the show, I might feel safer including it, but right now I don't dare give any hostages to fortune. WMMartin 17:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment While it is true that some of the articles do not have notability, that schools that the articles are discussing do have notability, this can be found by a google search. WMMartin, if you have just glanced through the article, and, seeing no assertion of notability, decided it needs to be deleted, please help contribute to wikipedia instead of demoishing it. Also, if you are biased towards all the articles just because they are schools, may I kindly suggest that you focus your attention more upon deleting nonsense and commercial articles with absolutly no use here instead of school articles that can be improved and are reasonable inclusions on Wikipedia. To your point on accepting all sorts of school articles: Let them be accepted. Schools are not bad things, and they are allowed on wikipedia, and wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and therefore can have articles on everything with no limits (except those of the server, and right now this talk page is most likely taking up more space than the article itself...touche). Your account, like Brainyoumans' is one that mostly participates in deleting pages (cite your userpage) which is ok with me when you are deleting useless junk that does not belong on wikipedia. Now, I might be wrong, but a school is not useless junk, and most of us would not be editing here had we not gone to school. And lastly, let's keep the swearing down, we have user talk pages for that.--KeepOnTruckin 18:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete All A big load of non-notable schoolcruft. Soltak | Talk 20:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• relist individually or in small groups Doing it this way is unfair to those that are notable among the large group. Possibly batches of 3 or 4, each carefully examined to make sure the group is homogeneous. I hope nobody seriously thinks that all middle schools are always un-notable--perhaps most of them are, or just that most do not really understand what is needed--I suspect that some of the school-based projects to add the local schools may not be well thought-out, & those organizing them may themselves need some more experience in WP. DGG 06:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - (same as at other AfD requests) - I believe there was a breach of proper protocol... First, you should mark the articles as unsourced. Then allow the authors/editors of the articles, say, a week in order to add citations and references as a proof of notability. ONLY ONCE some time has past in which the notability of the school can be proven or disproven should they be nominated for AfD. I think this entire swath of deletions was premature. It also causes editors to pay attention to defending their work rather than build on it. Stop this AfD movement and let people make better articles. --Petercorless 06:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• I think in the future I will in fact put these articles up in smaller batches, to make it easier for people to participate. I would point out that only one article out of 13 AFDed here has shown any notability. I think that editors need to consider seriously whether or not an article is needed before creating it. It is certainly true that some middle schools are notable, but the number is small compared to how many there are. We certainly don't need articles on all of them. --Brianyoumans 07:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Its quite difficult to be discussing the deletion of a large group of articles on 3 different pages. Anyway, All schools are notable to me, and I am happy to read an article on any school on wikipedia, regardless of district. Brianyoumans, you have consitently stated that the reason you want these articles deleted is because they have no assertion of notability/they arent notable enough to be on wikipedia. Let me say this again, citing the guide to deletion (my apologies if I am making the same argument twice) "the fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." "Lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion, because (among other reasons) this isn't specifically stated in the deletion policy; and since Wikipedia is not paper and has no size limits [except those of the server...not important here], there's no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't include "everything" that fits in with the other criteria, such as WP:Verifiability and no original research". If these schools are such a non-notable topic, then people wont search for them. They arent harming Wikipedia, but they are helping anyone who read them. In fact, if "we delete articles solely due to their obscurity, currently obscure, or seemingly obscure, subjects may gain more popular interest at a later date. In such a case, deleted articles will constitute a loss of valuable (and perhaps, in the transitory world of the internet, irreproducible) information." "Non-notable" is a non-NPOV designation, therefore not abiding by policy. The person who authored the article probably believes that the topic is notable enough to be included. "Writing 'Delete, non-notable' is not about whether the articles should be in Wikipedia, but rather that it is a quick phrase that does not tell everyone else why the article is non-notable". Brianyoumans, you need to prove that all these school articles aren't notable. KeepOnTruckin 04:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable — MrDolomite • Talk 18:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into school district article or Delete. Also if this pair of group deletions is approved, then {{Fairfax County Public Schools}} need to go to TfD. Vegaswikian 01:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete some. If notability is a problem, them the article should be deleted. However, some schools, like Luther Jackson, so have some notability. These articles should be kept. Jordan 04:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 11:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Walter Aziz

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

I didn't read the whole article, but I skimmed it. I'm guessing this fellow meets WP:BIO, but the content is so horrendous as to be ridiculous. I believe that sometimes an article can be so bad that deletion is a reasonable outcome. I know there are those who disagree. YechielMan 06:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Article is word for word copy of this url: Official website, which has a very clear copyright notice, so it is a copyright violation. TheRingess (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per TheRingess. So tagged. cab 06:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wedding stationery

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

This how-to guide (or ad?) is a textbook example of what Wikipedia is not. YechielMan 06:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Essentially a how-to guide with some instructions on etiquette. Heimstern Läufer 06:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Might be better suited to Wikihow - or maybe even Wikibooks. Delete or Transwiki - but if the latter, clean it up. --Dennisthe2 06:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• I'm with Dennisthe2 here - Delete or Transwiki (with cleanup) --Action Jackson IV 07:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. If some other wiki wants an article about this subject, they would do better to start from scratch. FreplySpang 10:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. FreplySpang is right that other wikis would be better off writing from scratch. This represents the ideals of the stationary industry not the reality of current or historical use. -- Siobhan Hansa 12:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If the article is re-introduced not as a how-to but focused on the origins and evolutions of Wedding Invitations --Ozgod 03:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete entire walled garden - sorry, doesn't make sense for Internet search engine technology to be "locally notable". The biographical article for Rob Bertholf individually relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Bertholf (3rd nomination). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:27Z

[edit] Zeppo Network

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

The Zeppo Network, Inc (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Zeppo logo.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Image:Zeppos logo.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Autobiographical, non-notable, previously deleted for same reasons

Also

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

Image:ZeppOS box.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Zeppo Network's Partnership for Integrity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Empowered Internet Solutions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Image:Logo eis.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (added by closing admin)

Feeeshboy 06:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, Rob Bertholf (founder of these companies). NawlinWiki 15:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• The Zeppo Network, Inc is a S-Corp founded in 2004 which is the IP holder of the ZeppOS management software which turned down a multi-million dollar buyout offer in July of 2005. Instead it formed a subsidiary, Empowered Internet Solutions to distribute the software in a grass roots effort. This company has since become the largest web solution provider for the state of Hawaii. Over the past several months Empowered Internet Solutions has launched sales offices in California and Florida. It has been featured in many trade magazines. The content is relevant and needs to stay. Thank you.Rob Bertholf 08:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: There are clearly WP:COI issues that need to be addressed, but that does not necessarily make it non-notable. I would encourage Robertholf to demonstrate WP:CORP and give him a few days to reference the article. --Selket ^Talk 08:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment To show that this article may stay Robertholf, please add to the article references that display that it has been the subject of non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other as per WP:Notability. (I could find none, but only after a short search) Sancho McCann 08:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Supporting Media References:
  • Zeppo Buyout / Empowered Internet Creation - Pacific Business News [27]
  • KHON Channel 2 Morning News Interview [28]
  • Rob Bertholf - University of Phoenix speaker [29]
  • Rob Bertholf - Keynote Speaker [30]
  • Rob Bertholf - In Magazine Interview [31]
  • Rob Bertholf - Pacific Edge Featured Entrepreneur [32] robertholf 21:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A walled garden of marketing for a company that markets a "content management solution". I'm not convinced by appearances in obscure business publications, which are more than likely not much more than paid ads. Out. --Brianyoumans 23:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I appreciate the cautious sentiment about a new post and the constructive direction I was previously steered. I am however now growing weary of the unjustifiably elitist mentality shown by Brianyoumans. In rebuttal, I would hardly call Biz Journal (Pacific Business News) an obscure publication. Admittedly, we have done much in the way of paid advertisement in large state magazines but I have not listed that here. Articles were written on me by both the Pacific Edge and InMagazine due to the fact that they found my vision and success notable. Nothing which was posted was driven by a sales agenda. The content posted is factual and unbiased. The fact that The Zeppo Network provides research and development on search engine technology and offers a content management system is not something which should be looked down upon. Fact is we have turned down a substantial buyout offer, we own the largest market share in the state of Hawaii and have two rapidly growing regional sales offices now in California and Florida. The only point which I feel is valid is the fact that I posted the content with a username which was not made up. Had I posted the content from various fake accounts we would not be having this discussion. To remedy this situation, I have asked my employees, my pr firm, my friends and my enemies to become active on these posts to alleviate the WP:COI. Over the next 24 hours there will be numerous posts by previously named sources which I hope proves to satisfy you all. I honestly feel the post adds valuable content and am open to suggestions on methods for solidifying my companies place here. Regards. robertholf 00:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Searching on "ZeppOS" and "content management" on Google gives you only 913 hits... many of which aren't even relevant. Search for "OpenCMS", and you get over 3 million; even "Hot Banana" "content management" (another commercial system) gives over 86K hits. You are a small regional firm, and while I wish you much luck, I don't see why you or your products need Wikipedia articles, especially ones written by your marketing department. --Brianyoumans 02:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I would just like to remind all to assume good faith in all of these proceedings. Just because a page is autobiographical does not mean that it is automatically advertisement, vanity, etc. Whether this page stands or fails does not rely on our opinions of the poster. Feeeshboy 03:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree. I should not have implied that Robertholf had deliberately written a "marketing piece"; I apologize. I'm sure he has a great deal of genuine enthusiasm for his company and his products. Brianyoumans 06:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Appology accepted Brianyoumans, I think that intentions are everything, had we met in person you would sense my sincerity and even been the one to start the post on the Zeppo Network :) Evangelism is what it is, my energy typically is quite contageous and the product speaks for itself.
  • The Sell I have avoided any marketing spin in the wiki posts, but here is some additional info to set the stage for who we are.
    • The Zeppo Network started its R&D on search technology in 2003, the ZeppOS platform was developed to fill a need for logically storing data found in a website.
    • The ZeppOS software is different than the typical CMS systems we see popping up which are extremely polarized; either overly complex or easy to use but limited in functionality. We received our last patent pending in July 2005 using Heller and Ehrman for a standard web platform. ZeppOS is unique in the fact that it arguably has more functionality than any competitor yet has a very easy to use navigation and usability. The system was created with the designers in mind, most designers do not use a CMS because it limits their creativity, our system showcases designers abilities.
    • We presented the software to several companies, one of which being Yahoo International. They were interested in purchasing the software but did not have the same vision for methods of deploying it. The large ISP's who were interested in the product wanted to mass distribute it with generic stock templates, we felt this would provide the wrong image of the software ultimately limiting its potential. We then started contacting local web design companies to distribute the software but found that their reach was limited. I am sure we would all agree that most web design companies do not have a bigger vision and typically service 2-5 clients a month maximum. We then formed a web solutions company specifically structured to rapidly deploy higher end custom web solutions at a very low rate. Empowered Internet proved itself in the Hawaii, in 2006 while confined to a limited market we deployed over 20 sites each month. Some very large projects to include military bases, community colleges/educational institutions, four chamber of commerce’s (to include the main Hawaii Chamber), and many small and medium sized businesses. We partnered locally with Clear Channel broadcasting and deployed sites for Budweiser and Time Warner Cable. With just one month in two new markets we have already laid the groundwork for replicating the success we found in Hawaii.
    • The bigger picture is to continue gaining market share and then launch Zeppo Search which will allow us to feed relevant web content to search engines. There is a much bigger vision which we do not advertise for obvious reasons. I have presented all I intend to sway your opinions on this post. If you have any hoops to jump through I will have one of my team to do so. Warm Regards robertholf 15:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete At present, regional interest only--their client list at http://empoweredinternet.com/customers.asp has the heading "The largest web solution provider in the State of Hawaii and rapidly expanding to the mainland," examining it, the only ones whose names indicate a located say "Hawaii (whatever)..." (They claim Florida and California).

However, if regional interest is sufficient, then it seems they do have a major position in Hawaii.DGG 21:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Although no press releases have come out as of yet, we have structured a deal with Salem Communications in Tampa Florida who will be distributing our software as well as strategic partnerships with T3Communications and First Data Services who will be offering our services to their clients in Florida. Since the initial creation of this post we have also hired a new sales rep in the washington DC area.robertholf 15:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment For what its worth, when I typed United States Web Design into Google, EmpoweredInternet.com came up first.Wiki-ickie 16:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC) — Wiki-ickie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete, per nom, WP:CORP, and Brianyoumans. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I dissagree, it seems it has been justified that there is enough regional interest due to the industry dominance in the state of Hawaii as proved by press clips and TV interviews. They have four physical offices across the nation and it appears several clients in each location.Wiki-ickie 19:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and trim into one article and re-write / remove undue weight from much of the content as much of it is repeated and has the feel of an advertisement. Many statements have been left un-referenced, and the main contributors are all closely tied to the organizations. This will need work from some third-party editors. Sancho McCann 20:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Zeppo Network as locally notable; Redirect all of the rest and Zeppo Awards (another part of this walled garden) to Zeppo Network as they fail WP:RS and dont demonstrate notability. I am particularly worried about these articles being WP:SPAM and would like to see one or two of those articles be deleted rather than redirected, in order to prevent undue PageRank influence. John Vandenberg 06:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bishakta Manush

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

An article containing two uninformative lines on a single song by a mildly popular regional band, lacking any sort of popularity or notability. Salvagable information better placed in article Fossils. Loom91 06:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete agree with nom, except you mean Fossils (band), not Fossils :-) -SpuriousQ (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing to assert notability, no references Alf photoman 15:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I can also testify that the claim of frequent radioplay is false. It is rarely heard in radio. Loom91 08:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Fujimoto

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

Fails WP:MUSIC and probably fails WP:COI Selket ^Talk 07:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, notability. Only sources given are Myspace and something in a foreign language (German?). Google hits for "Ken Fujimoto" are mostly unrelated. Dave6 ^talk 07:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, to use a German Blog as references is a little nervy Alf photoman 16:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC / WP:BIO, the German blog does not mention him once anywhere (Und ja, Mein Deutsch ist nicht daß gut, aber ich durch es las). Even then, this wouldn't be a reliable source. SkierRMH 21:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I am afraid I must agree to delete this page. Really no notable information beyond personal statistics. While Wikipedia does support the biographies of people, it is normally for people who have (arguably) accomplished something noteworthy in their life beyond simply existing. --Ozgod 01:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Nice-looking page but there's nothing here that meets WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. Jeendan 09:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nexhbudin Nuredini

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

PROD tag removed by anon. Article is a probable hoax. There are no Google hits for "Nexhbudin Nuredini" outside Wikipedia. —Angr 07:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete combination hoax/nn bio. He joined FK Vlazrimi, a professional football/soccer team, at age 10? Also, notice the article is about Nexhbudin Nuredini (referred to as Dini several times), and the author is User:Dini deisler. On top of all that, this is completely unsourced. Dave6 ^talk 10:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable youth footballer. The potential hoaxiness may come from a poor translation into English, but I think the subject of the article may have joined some kind of youth/underage team associated with Vlazrimi at the age of 10 (which is eminently possible), rather than in fact joining the full-time professional team. Obviously there's a bit of a way to go between that and the notability he's tried to parlay it into. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was KEEP. -Doc^g 02:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liberty Middle School (Virginia)

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

Multiple AFD More Fairfax County, Virginia middle schools. Notable? I don't think so. Brianyoumans 07:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Also included: Mark Twain Middle School (Virginia), Carl Sandburg Middle School, Rocky Run Middle School, Longfellow Middle School. Note: the rest of the F. C. middle school articles are in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Carson Middle School. Brianyoumans 07:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It probably fails WP:NN, but I'm partial to middle school articles as they attract middle school students to participate constructively. --Selket ^Talk 08:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • And high school articles attract students to participate constructively as well? I thought they were notorious vandalism magnets. A number of these articles have already attracted vandalism. Imagine if every middle school in the world had an article - who would revert all the vandals? Or verify any of the info? --Brianyoumans 08:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • There are about 25000 middle schools in the United States. Giving each one a page would result in 1.5% increase in the total number of Wikipedia articles, so your fears of overwhelming Wikipedia with middle school pages is, I think, a little misplaced. Maybe it would be best to wait until WP:SCHOOLS3 is done before coming to a conclusion. --Selket ^Talk 08:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I too favor featuring educational institutions. If vandalism becomes an issue, we can lock the page. Meanwhile, I think it is far better to feature a middle school than an endless series of anime characters and Transformers. --Petercorless 21:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Extremly strong keep User:Brianyoumans, you have listed all the FCPS middle schools and elementary schools for deletion today, all because of non-notability (link to elementary schools listed for AFD). Is there something about the school system that makes them non-notable? I am just curious because I am employed by the same school system. Here is my argument:

Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_subjective and (citing guide to deletion here) "the fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth" KeepOnTruckin 22:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete See WP:SCHOOLS3.The schools appear to be referenced to their own website and the state education department. What is needed are multiple references that are to reliable and verifiable sources independent of the subject of the article, and which are not trivial or pro forma such as "school starts next week" or "classes cancelled because of snow." The school itself should be a primary subject of the story, in other words not "Teacher at X school dies in car wreck". In my own town, I could find a dozen articles talking about the founding of a school, controversies about the curriculum or the administration, articles about innovations, and articles about expansions to or safety hazards in the building. Based on AFDs, we have been more willing to keep articles on high schools than on elementary or middle school. Per WP:LOCAL is is appropriate to mention them in the article on the town or school system. Inkpaduta 22:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. To begin with, I want to remind everyone that there is not policy of notability on schools. The requirement of stating some assertion of notability is mainly created on the fact that millions of articles that are commercially based or focused individual self-promotion would be littered all over wikipedia. I believe that if any article that is not advertising in this said manner is viable. In addition, as an additional requirement, I believe that articles should have some substance and according to policy, they should have some referenced material or at least list some legitimate sources. This article appears to have some information, and I am sure that in the future, individuals could work on and improve the article based on these sources. As always, we should not be excluded articles on wikipedia on just notability alone; self-promotion and commercial characteristics of articles with illegitimate sources should be the targets of deletion. This article appears to have some possibility for growth, and I believe that if until some templates for clean up and additional sources are added, and then if no progress is made on the article within a few months, then the article can be properly assessed. Also, lastly, I want to reemphasize the point addressed before, these articles are most likely a very good stepping stone for future contributions from otherwise, unlikely and hesitant contributors. --Thank You. Sukh17 ^{Talk | Contribs} 22:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. as per Selket and KeepOnTruckin. --Vsion 08:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No obvious notability. I await a useful fork of Wikipedia ( that is, one without this kind of article ) with interest and expectation. WMMartin 17:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I mean delete All, of course. WMMartin 17:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

a "useful fork of wikipedia"? If the articles on schools are not useful to you, fine, then don't read them. Other people (like myself) enjoy reading about schools, and it is much easier to locate information her then googleing for it. Also, the press use WP to find information, and FCPS being quite a notable school district, it recives a lot of press attention (cite washington post article on Clifton ES afd page) and press who come to WP to research=More attention to wikipedia by the world. KeepOnTruckin 18:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete All A big load of non-notable schoolcruft. Soltak | Talk 20:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete all' of this particular batch. The information would be better combined, as most of the content consists o the specification of the school zones and the associated high schools. Beyond that, all of those talking about courses offer the usual courses, and all of those talking about the time they ring the bells to mark period changes do it in a customary way, and none of them have anything else to say.

If there should be anything else, it will fit in the merged article until there is time for true WP articles.

I have not the least objection to articles about schools at any level, if there is something notable to say in the article. I like local history when it's interesting, and many localities and local institutions could potentially be intersting. But it merely confuses the notability of the truly notable ones to have articles on each and every one. Let the notable ones set a standard, and the other may try to see if they can find something comparable. (None of these are yet at that standard). DGG 21:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe there was a breach of proper protocol in that case. First, you should mark the articles as unsourced. Then allow the authors/editors of the articles, say, a week in order to add citations and references as a proof of notability. ONLY ONCE some time has past in which the notability of the school can be proven or disproven should they be nominated for AfD. I think this entire swath of deletions was premature. It also causes editors to pay attention to defending their work rather than build on it. Stop this AfD movement and let people make better articles. --Petercorless 01:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering that none of these articles made any real claim to notability, I could have just tagged them all for speedy deletion, and depending on what admin looked at them, they might have all disappeared in a hour. Instead, I chose to bring them to an AFD and give everyone a chance to talk things over.--Brianyoumans 07:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Although most stated notability (an article that does not have a notability assertion is NOT a cuase for deletion), had you tagged them all for speedy deletion, I would have immediatley brought the matter to an admins attention. KeepOnTruckin 02:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete All None of these seem to meet WP:NOTE or WP:SCHOOLS, per lack of independent reliable sources. Shimeru 17:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Doing a google search will likely bring up some references. In fact, heres a search already done with refs from only the Washington Post: here KeepOnTruckin 02:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think there is a bias on the part of those asking for unilateral deletion of entire school districts. Give the editors a chance to add notability. There are many articles on Wikipedia in far, far worse shape which are not candidates for deletion. These looked well-done to me, but simply lacked citation. --Petercorless 02:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The question is not whether an article is well-done, or even whether one can find reliable sources for the information. The question is, "Is the subject notable? Is it interesting in some way?" If the answer is, "This is a fine school (or library, or church, or street, or club), but one cannot really say anything about it that would interest someone not from the district", then I believe the answer is that we shouldn't have an article on it. There is nothing wrong with these articles as articles, they are simply about non-notable subjects. --Brianyoumans 03:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:SCHOOLS3 deals with how to determine notability, often via citation from independent media sources apart from the school or school district. Your personal interest in the subject is not germaine. --Petercorless 03:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It quite obviously is germaine; if I had thought these schools to be notable, we wouldn't be discussing deleting the articles. And more to the point, a number of random editors appear to agree with me. WP:SCHOOLS3 is only a proposal, by the way; it may well go the way of SCHOOLS 1 and 2. --Brianyoumans 03:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the nuber of random editors who agree with you, whether or not an article gets deleted is not determined by the amount of votes. All schools are notable to me, and I am happy to read an article on any school on wikipedia, regardless of district. Brianyoumans, you have consitently stated that the reason you want these articles deleted is because they have no assertion of notability/they arent notable enough to be on wikipedia. Let me say this again, citing the guide to deletion (my apologies if I am making the same argument twice) "the fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." "Lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion, because (among other reasons) this isn't specifically stated in the deletion policy; and since Wikipedia is not paper and has no size limits [except those of the server...not important here], there's no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't include "everything" that fits in with the other criteria, such as WP:Verifiability and no original research". If these schools are such a non-notable topic, then people wont search for them. They arent harming Wikipedia, but they are helping anyone who read them. In fact, if "we delete articles solely due to their obscurity, currently obscure, or seemingly obscure, subjects may gain more popular interest at a later date. In such a case, deleted articles will constitute a loss of valuable (and perhaps, in the transitory world of the internet, irreproducible) information." "Non-notable" is a non-NPOV designation, therefore not abiding by policy. The person who authored the article probably believes that the topic is notable enough to be included. "Writing 'Delete, non-notable' is not about whether the articles should be in Wikipedia, but rather that it is a quick phrase that does not tell everyone else why the article is non-notable". Brianyoumans, you need to prove that all these school articles aren't notable. --KeepOnTruckin 04:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming a "burden of proof" argument, which may be "unwinnable" if Brianyoumans refuses to accept any sources/citations offered. The articles are fine. Stop grinding axes. --Petercorless 05:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Project Name: Liberty Middle School - I just did an initial search, and the architecture of the school won it the award of a "Project of Distinction" by CEFPI. Added that to the article. --Petercorless 06:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If you look more closely at the CEFPI site, the 2005 winners are listed here. Liberty's design was entered into the competition, but didn't win. Brianyoumans 06:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

No, on the page peter brought us, it definatly says "award type". FCPS is closed tomorrow due to snow but I will check into it on Friday. Coincidentally I actually have to go to Liberty MS to adjust some lights there. KeepOnTruckin 06:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I took a close enough look at the CEFPI site to be able to say; there is a page of award winners, and a page of "entrants" - and Liberty is listed under "entrants" and NOT under "winners". The "award type" I think is just the category that it was nominated in. Also, if you go to the Samaha Associates site, their design for Auburn Middle School is mentioned as having won a CEFPI award - and Liberty isn't. (Go to their middle school page, click on the arrows in the picture to advance through the projects.) Rachel Carson Middle School won an award from the Virginia School Board Association, which should be added to its article. Minor, but a point in its favor. --Brianyoumans 06:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. First of all, I was slightly offended when - upon googling my school name - I found that there was not a Wikipedia page. I created a page for Rocky Run Middle School using verified information from the school website. Since then, it has been added onto by others, which only proves that the site is useful and used. My younger sister will be attending RRMS next year and she and her friends find the information useful. I believe this article has as good a reason as any to stay. By the way, Rocky Run's Jamie Sawatzky won Virginia History Teahcer of the Year in 2006 and the school has won numerous other awards. It is a great school and this information should be out there for people to see. --Thank You. Elesi ^{Talk | Contribs} 22:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as not notable — MrDolomite • Talk 18:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mucho Grande Siesta Productions

Mucho Grande Siesta Productions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Totally non-notable couple making home videos. But they have the wikisavvy to use a sock puppet to remove the db tag so I will bring it here. -- RHaworth 07:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. "Extravaganzapalooza". Make that a Strong Delete. --Action Jackson IV 08:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, instead of removing prods they should have included sources, or are there none? Alf photoman 16:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Non-notable. No sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nut-meg (talk • contribs) 06:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

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

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

The result was Delete all. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:40Z

[edit] Mass killings, Nerissa strong, Carmet ellison, HIDDEN

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

Nerissa strong (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Carmet ellison (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nominating these articles as what appears to be some sort of complex hoax. None of the claims made on any of the pages check out (a heretofore unknown daughter of Larry Ellison, who's a voice actor? A movie starring James Cameron that doesn't exist in IMDB?). Mass killings could probably make a reasonable redirect to a list of some sort, but the current article is complete bollocks. Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding HIDDEN: newly created page by the same user; more of the same. Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

• Delete All A brief double checking seems to confirm the nominator's suspicions. If this is not a hoax, I would be very surprised indeed. Deranged bulbasaur 07:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Tagged Mass killings and Carmet ellison as hoaxes, didn't tag Nerissa strong on the basis of some trivial google hits (a press release from a local source and some myspace stuff). I think Nerissa strong fails on A7 since it doesn't assert notability aside from some apparantly non-notable musical works. I'm tagging that one for speedy. Deranged bulbasaur 07:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As written, Nerissa strong has a material claim of notability (two albums). They don't appear to exist, but that's (unfortunately!) not a speedy criterion. Hence, I've removed the speedy tag. The AFD will do. Zetawoof^(ζ) 08:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, I don't think that strict interpretation of the CSD is serviceable. By my estimation from patrolling new articles, we get about 50 every day where the entire content is "I'm Pricilla Bittlesworth and I'm the sexiest and most talented person in TEH WORLD." They invariably get delted on A7 grounds (or A1 if they're truly trivial), regardless of the fact that that's most certainly a claim of notability (the person would be notable if it were true). If the view were taken that any claim of notability, no matter how easily disproven or how unvarifiable, exempts an article from A7 then this Afd process would be substantially and unduly emburdened. Deranged bulbasaur 11:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Created and mostly edited by Carmet, they therefore fail WP:COI. I have no need to investigate whether they are hoaxes or not as I do not reach that issue. --Selket ^Talk 08:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, Mass killings could be a redirect to Mass murder. So my vote is redirect, but only for that one. Mathmo ^Talk 11:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a potentially POV redirect. "Killing" and "murder" have very different connotative meanings. Say, for example, that someone's looking for a mass killing of livestock in response to a BSE scare, and gets redirected to Mass murder... Deranged bulbasaur 02:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

True true, that is a very good point. Then again most readers probably wouldn't understand the subtly of the POV? Guess it can still be found through searching of mass killings, even though Mass murder is a fairly long way down the results list. Mathmo ^Talk 12:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The singular form is a redirect, makes sense for us to make the plural form a redirect too. Oh, the other ones up for deletion should be deleted though. Mathmo ^Talk 12:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Inkpaduta 22:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete All No sources--Sefringle 05:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lori Braun

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

Fails due to WP:OR or WP:COI - self promotion Peter Rehse 07:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, also fails due to WP:V as there are absolutely no sources or references Alf photoman 16:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SPAM TheRingess (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

It's all wikiGreek to me dadadata 00:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The result was Delete. Well, I don't know if anyone's transwikied it, but they've had sufficient time. They can always ask an admin for the source. yandman 15:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Small Craft and Sailing Bibliography (1885)

American Small Craft and Sailing Bibliography (1885) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Listcruft. Wikipedia is not a miscellaneous collection of information. An up to date bibliography might just be allowed but one from 1885? -- RHaworth 07:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - nom is probably correct about the article, but it would be a shame to lose this entirely. Is it appropriate for Wikisource? -- Bpmullins | Talk 16:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - This is transcribed from a primary source and should be available to be linked to other Wiki pages dealing with the history of small craft and yachting. That's certainly more efficient than appending it to all of them. dadadata 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki and delete per above. Eluchil404 09:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete right away. What's the point? Transwiki if someone does it and does it fast. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was DELETE. -Doc^g 02:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 Guilt: The Proof is in Your Hands

9/11 Guilt: The Proof is in Your Hands (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a soapbox or an indiscriminate collection of information. #39,476 "best seller" on Amazon[33]...so until we write articles on the 39,475 that are better sellers, the only reason this article seems to exist is to promote conspiracy theory misinformation. Say NO to spam. MONGO 07:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or vastly rewrite - I'm biased against misinformation, biased against idiocy, and biased against articles on alleged "non-fiction" books by idiots full of misinformation. I will say, though, that #39,476 might well be the top 50% - there's a lot of stuff on Amazon. If the article stays, the belligerent summary of Dr. Schmuck's thesis needs to be completely overhauled. --Action Jackson IV 08:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Clarification: Are you stating the articles are full of misinformation, the books are full of misinformation, the idiots are full of misinformation, or all of the above? Inkpaduta 22:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:COI, WP:NN, and per-nom --Selket ^Talk 08:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable third-party sources found to establish notability. --Farix (Talk) 12:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I am basing this solely on the content of the article, nothing to do with existence of any conspiracy theories or not. The article cites pretty much only the creators of this video as its references. Since this is like my citing my own blog to show that I am notable I cannot see that this is valid. Find and add correct sources to the article and I will change my recommendation. Fiddle Faddle 13:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Tbeatty 14:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletions.
• Delete per above GabrielF 14:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - without reliable secondary sources who have written about the video, this can only be original research promoting (or denigrating) the work, or a soapbox to advance more 9/11 conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Fiddle Faddle --rogerd 14:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Vanispamadvercruftment Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: I'm not sure where the non-notable aspect is coming from. I see non-trivial third-party coverage here. .V. _[Talk|Email] 16:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Jim Hoffman, which is where this information most properly attaches. --Hyperbole 18:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per reasons cited at last AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 Guilt which resulted in unanimous delete. Why was this article recreated, despite overwhelming consensus that the video is not notable? This video is still not notable. --Aude (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete Seems to have only one marginally reliable reference, which is to a college newspaper. Inkpaduta 22:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete & Salt, per nom, and all of the reasons I cited last time I voted delete for this article.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 23:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete and salt as recrated content. Resolute 23:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete recreated content; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 Guilt. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Aude. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 00:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It was fun while it lasted! Ha ha . . . bov 01:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The above vote is from the creator of the article. JuJube 02:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Comment from article creator above suggests hoax. JuJube 02:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 Guilt, nothing seems to have changed. Wikipedia isn't for selling videos or increasing hit counts. --Dual Freq 02:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears promotional. Lacks WP:RS (The student newspaper at UC-Denver doesn't really meet WP:RS, IMHO). -- MarcoTolo 03:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Meets wikiedia requirements. Simply explaining what a video is does not violate WP:SOAP. Notable enough. Travb (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete; possible merge to Air America Radio - please discuss on talk page. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:43Z

[edit] Air America-Gloria Wise loan controversy

Air America-Gloria Wise loan controversy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The first nomination is here. Mathmo ^Talk 11:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• DELETE - No longer notable, also it is well covered in the Air America Radio, and Gloria Wise articles. Nearly all the sources on this page are extremely biased (right wing newspapers and blogs), and a quick Google reveals that very few unbised and factual sources can be found for this story. Now that this issue is past, a summary on the AAR page is warranted, but not a seperate article. I realize that this links to a lot of pages, but that is due to a "related articles" link in the Air America template. In October of 05, some reasons to keep were that it was "a subject that it seems a few people want to discuss" Now we know it is basically a deflated conspiracy theory and it is simply not much of an issue anymore. nut-meg 07:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I would be satisfied with a MERGE, as long as reliable and unbiased sources can be found and the information is clearly written and cited.nut-meg 04:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep We know that Bigfoot is a hoax, but it's a Zeitgiest thing - an issue which somebody may wish to know the history of, even if it's all resolved. If it were drastically rewritten, it might fit in either Air America Radio or Gloria Wise - but as it stands, it's relatively chunky and would probably read like a tangent. --Action Jackson IV 08:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, purely because the nominator seems to have a major misunderstanding of WP:NOTABLE. As shown by the first words in the nomination of: "No longer notable". Notability doesn't change according to WP:NOTABLE. Mathmo ^Talk 11:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the rest of the nomination. Do we have to have a seperate article for every hyped up "controversy"? The initial reason to keep it was "people want to discuss". Is wikipedia a blog? I thought it was an encyclopedia. Plus there are few reliable and unbiased sources cited. Factual information is hard to come by on this.nut-meg 16:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. "Notability" doesn't disappear, and it was never a conspiracy theory to begin with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a conspiracy, a conspiracy theorynut-meg 16:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

...as I said...? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I read it wrong, I thought you said it was never a conspiracy. My bad. But it was a conspiracy theory on these right wing blogs. They had it all the way down to Al Franken personally taking money from poor little kids. Quite ridiculousnut-meg 04:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep As others have already mentioned, notability doesn't "disappear" when the subject falls off the news or blog radars. Also, a separate article can do better justice in covering the subject then a very brief summary in another article. This article, however, can use some cleanup and organization. --Farix (Talk) 12:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can find some reliable and unbiased sources, fine. There aren't any cited here. nut-meg 16:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The standard is simply reliable, and the sources — NY Times, NY Post and NY Sun — referenced are reliable. --Farix (Talk) 21:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that a source can be both strongly biased and reliable.The Sun, maybe. The Post? Never. Its a propaganda rag. the Weekly World News of political journalism. nut-meg 04:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, the topic is notable. The scandal happened and there are numerous reliable sources noted in the article to verify that it did happen. Also, the references to the scandal in the main Air America Radio article have been all but completely removed. There is just a sentence or two to this situation still mentioned in the original AAR parent article and there is NO link remaining to this child article about the scandal.--Getaway 14:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

New York Sun, New York Post, Radio Equalizer, and Michelle Malkin are all extremely biased and unreliable sources. The rest are dead links. nut-meg 16:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

New York Sun and New York Post ARE reliable sources. Also, the New York Times and the Washington Post are there. And not ALL of the rest are dead.--Getaway 16:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The Sun is an extremely right wing biased paper. The Post is too, and worse, it is basically little more than a laughable tabloid. nut-meg 16:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Getaway, I am very concerned that we would be creating an article, as you argue, because editors in another article do not permit that material. What dispute resolution processes have been tried? --Dhartung | Talk 20:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Dhartung, Im not sure what he's talking about, because until recently I don't believe I have edited the Air America article at all. But I had initially pared down the section on Gloria Wise in the Air America artlcle, as it had terrible NPOV problems and a lot of false or misleading information. If the decision is to merge, then any notable and reliable details should be added back into the Air America article. nut-meg 06:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge this POV fork back into Air America Radio and resolve WP:NPOV#Undue weight issues through normal channels. --Dhartung | Talk 19:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into Air America Radio article after boiling it down to a few well referenced points. This is too much writing about a legal squabble over an $800,000 loan. A big law firm will have a number of cases at any instant which are far bigger than this and just as non-encyclopedic. Most of the references are to partisan newspapers only a cut above the National Enquirer. The one reliable source, the New York Times, just says Franken talked about the matter. As for a notable subject not being able to become non-notable, a better analysis is that it was never really notable in the first place, with the application of 20-20 hindsight. Inkpaduta 23:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (or at most, merge per Dhartung and Inkpaduta above). It seems to me that if an article needs to include "incident" or "controversy" in its title, odds are that article usually cannot stand on its own and is better off included in the parent article. A succinct summary in the parent article does not have to mean that the sub-topic cannot be done "justice". This is not wikinews or similar. Only very rarely is it necessary to break-off a single event into a separate article. Agent 86 01:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Besides Notability being permanent, there is way too much subject-specific information here to be merged to the already-long Air America article. --Oakshade 08:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is a large part of that is from unreliable sources, and inaccurate. nut-meg 04:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. I did a read-through and it is heavily sourced. --Oakshade 04:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

My issue is that many of th sources are questionable at best. nut-meg 03:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please keep this article. It remains relevant, as the NY Attorney General's investigation is ongoing.

Also, it now in the news again. Al Franken has announced he is a candidate for U.S. Senate in Minnestoa and there are reporters that are already asking about the Gloria Wise/Air America loan transaction and Franken's connection to it.--Getaway 20:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Who is asking? A Google news search finds nothing much at all. Why? They know Franken had no connection to it. Credible journalists do not use political extremist blogs as sources.I don't think wikipedia should either nut-meg 08:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable and verifiable. If a merge is useful, that can happen in due course with the maintenance tags, discussion and boldness. John Vandenberg 06:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy as {{db-author}}, as noted below. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flucidity

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

Scientific theory with no mainstream acceptance verifiable sources. Pak21 08:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. There are lots of theories with no mainstream scientific acceptance that have their own articles. This fails WP:NFT notability tests. Every reference I found was a cut-and-paste of the same text. -Selket ^Talk 08:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Fair point well made. I have amended the rationale for deletion. Cheers --Pak21 08:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with the decision to remove the article from Wikipedia, though I was the one who added it. Though it is obviously B.S., its merit lies in the likelihood of common-sense insight coming to the surface due to the copious amounts of ambiguity inherent in the system. However there are many other, better-established systems which operate on the same principle and can be used for many of the same purposes (feng shui, for example). It is redundant, for this reason I support its deletion. RW 09:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patricia A. Jennings

Patricia A. Jennings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No more notable than the average University professor, thus fails WP:BIO. Deprodded by anon without comment as a mass deprod of 5.5 day old prods. Pak21 08:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete because I couldn't find her to be the subject non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and of each other.Sancho McCann 08:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - unless she's proven to be the female alter-ego of Peter Jennings (or at the very least, strongly suspected of being so), I'd say she's NN. --Action Jackson IV 08:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable.--Getaway 14:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless properly sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO and/or WP:PROF by end of this AfD Alf photoman 16:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 19:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:AUTO and fails WP:RS. A WP:HEY effort required. John Vandenberg 22:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence from WP:RS of meeting WP:BIO, WP:PROFTEST applies. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A8. FreplySpang 10:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patiala Heritage Festival

Patiala Heritage Festival (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable festival. Deprodded by anon as a mass deprod of 5.5 day old prods without comment Pak21 08:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Lengthy and totally unformatted text dumps like this are frequently just a copy-paste from another website and just copyvios, and a Google check on a portion of the text will often reveal it. Indeed take a look here, where you will find the same text. This is a speedy delete WP:CSD A8 candidate and so tagged. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

  ... and so deleted. FreplySpang 10:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sun hang do (2nd nomination)

Sun hang do (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Advertisement for a single school - there has been no improvement in the article since the last debate - the same concerns remain. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sun hang do for the first debate.Peter Rehse 08:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nom, there has been no progress and no gain in notoriety since 2005, the first AfD. Does not satisfy notability in my mind. - grubber 16:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Lacks WP:RS. A WP:HEY effort reqd to demonstrate this is notable. John Vandenberg 06:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete; possible merge. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-17 21:45Z

[edit] 2007 Plot to Behead a British Muslim Soldier

2007 Plot to Behead a British Muslim Soldier (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Purely a news item, this is not encyclopedia worthy, merely newsworthy. Article belongs on Wikinews. For an extended reasoning which I do wish to repeat here, see the proposed guideline WP:NOTNEWS and it's talk page WT:NOTNEWS. This incident fails several of the points which would raise it from being merely an interesting news story to being part of the lasting historical record. (p.s. already listified on List of terrorist incidents in the United Kingdom.) Zunaid©® 08:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletions. -- Zunaid©® 08:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons stated above. --Action Jackson IV 09:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the well-reasoned nom. Take it to wikinews, please, but this is not encyclopedic. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but expand. The article as it stands is barely above stub level: six names, a paragraph, three references and one See also. But the subject in itself is encyclopedic: what is the background of the suspects, how was the plot foiled, how does this relate to the wider British Muslim community, what are the consequences of this in terms of measures and legislation, etcetera. A lot can be written about this subject, and it's up to us to do so. Aecis^Brievenbus 10:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Wrong. See our Wikipedia:No original research policy. It's up to historians, journalists, and others to do the research and write all of the things that you list. As encyclopaedists, our task is to summarize and condense what they have written and published. If you want to make a case for keeping this article, arguing that it's up to us to perform original research isn't the way to do it. Cite sources to show that a lot has been written about it, by others, not that a lot can be written about it by us. Uncle G 13:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Exactly, it's up to historians and journalists to research what I have listed. Historians will do so in a few years time, but journalists are already digging into the issue. That's what the references are for. This particular case has received widespread media coverage from all over the world, and the relevant information in those sources needs to be gathered to form an encyclopedic article. I agree that the article isn't as it should be atm, but that is no grounds for deletion. Digging into the issue ourselves would be original research, gathering what journalists have written about the issue is not. I merely said that a lot can be added to the article, I never said that the original research for it should be done by us. Because that's indeed not our task. What we can do is gather the original research of reliable sources. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is highly newsworthy, but in time will become historic. It is desirable that the article is shaped contemporously rather than afterwards. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia yes, but it is an encyclopedia with several advantages over traditional ones. Among those advantages is the ability to document history as it happens.212.219.242.194 12:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not for documenting history as it happens. That's for journalists, not encyclopaedists. "wiki" means "fast", not "first". If you want to write about "highly newsworthy" things, you are in the wrong project. The project for editors who want to be journalists, and which decides what to include based upon its newsworthiness, is Wikinews. This project is an encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedists condense and summarize documentation that has already been written and published outside of Wikipedia. If in time the events do become historic, then Wikipedia should have an article. But you yourself imply that they have not yet become historic; and it seems somewhat premature, and skirting dangerously close to flouting our Wikipedia:Biography of living persons policy, to have an article that does little more than simply list the names and ages of specific, identifiable, people who have yet to be actually convicted of the crimes that they are charged with. Uncle G 13:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - but virtually all that belongs in a newspaper, not an encyclopedia. Agreed that this might well be a valid topic if legislation is passed as a result of this. At the moment, this just does not meet WP:NOTNEWS - admittedly still only a proposed guideline - and will not do until someone makes a film or some legislation. To be honest, I'd be surprised if anyone does pass any new laws over this. It's just another averted terror plot. Lots of those these days. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 11:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment What subjects are or are not appropriate for wikinews is irrelevant to this decision. There is nothing to say or infer that a subject covered on wikinews should not be covered on wikipedia. AFDs should be based only on compliance with the policies and guidelines of wikipedia. AndrewRT(Talk) 14:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment WP:NOTNEWS is a proposed guideline that does not have consensus. Therefore this guidlene is not relevant. AndrewRT(Talk) 14:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable current event. And as per AndrewRT, WP:NOTNEWS is only a proposed guideline. 23skidoo 14:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but expand (Disclaimer: I started this article) One of the many reasons to keep this article is that it marks a shift in terrorist tactics, from mass casualty bombings to the use of Iraq style beheadings on the streets of Britain (this will get put into the article when i have the right source). As to legislation, the first thing the police talked about was upping the max 28 day detention without charge to 90 days. Also the "police state for muslims" quote stirred up a hornets nest, especially as he was released under a judges order as he did not think they had enough evidence to continue holding him without charge. Also this article is in List of terrorist incidents in the United Kingdom (disclaimer: i put it there 24 hours ago) under list of foiled or failed plots in the UK.Hypnosadist 14:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It's a misnomer to say that WP:NOTNEWS is not relevant. Guidelines are not hard and fast rules and DO allow exceptions: an article may be kept despite failing the guidelines, and so too may an article be deleted without obviously failing any guideline. This is one of those cases of an article not failing any obvious WP:N guidelines, but still IMHO unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Please read WT:NOTNEWS and its cross-linked discussions and AfD debates. The entire proposed guideline was born out of an AfD case exactly like this, and many of the arguments presented there are "valid", if not "carved in stone" in the form of guideline or proposal. Zunaid©® 14:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Note Islamist calls for soldiers' heads The Australian - writing that this isn't a one-off story, but a potential trend. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This article complies with all the relevant threshold policies for inclusion - WP:N(independent 3rd party citings), WP:V (verifiable sources exist). Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia which means it can go into a lot more detail than usual encyclopedias. This is an important detail within the overall subject of Terrorism in the United Kingdom which you wouldn't want to include in the main article as it would make this too long. AndrewRT(Talk) 14:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Several points after reading the Proposed policy of no news. 1) This story has run for over a week (six days to the police state quote). 2)This AfD is obviously a proxy battle to push one view of this proposed policy. 3)This story has vastly more news coverage than the letterbomb attacks that happened a day before this event (yet thats on the main page). 4) this idea has been around for the same length of time as the news story (the raids and the creation of the policy page both happened on 31 jan 2007).Hypnosadist 15:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS Three BBC stories over a 2 day period are refeerences for the article. Several men were arrested, and then several of them were released without charges. Clearly news, not clearly encyclopedic. An encyclopedia is not an archive of everything that was in the news in some locality for a little while. Edison 16:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I added a few more references showing international coverage:
    • "Terror raids over 'beheading plot'", CNN, January 31, 2007
    • "Britain foils plot to torture Muslim soldier", By Rob Harris, February 1, 2007, Associated Press/Boston Globe
    • Template:Fr-icon "Neuf terroristes présumés arrêtés en Grande-Bretagne" Le Monde, French "Newspaper of record"

This was covered all over the world, it's a major international story. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep notable current event, covered by major sources across the world, meeting Wikipedia:Notability which is a guideline. WP:NOTNEWS is a highly debated proposal that explicitly contradicts WP:N, does not have consensus, and, frankly, it does seem like the nomination is overly strongly tied to the effort to make the proposal a guideline. We should be debating the specific article here, not the proposal. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or merge to an appropriate, encyclopedically-important subject. WP:NOTNEWS aside, this is not the wiki-newspaper. That would be two blocks down and take a right at Wikinews. If it becomes clear that this event is of historic and lasting (and therefore encyclopedic) importance (hundred-year test), great, make its own article then, but for now, I'm sure Wikinews would be very glad for help on this newspaper, not encyclopedia, item. It's just too bad we can't transwiki stuff directly to them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - the article obviously passess WP:Notability (see all the source above), reliable sources have assigned significance to it beyond a routine terror plot, the incident has received international coverage over the course of multiple days. Also, WP:NOTNEWS is not a guideline yet--please do not keep citing it! Though it may not be your intent, it can be misleading. Someone who isn't directly involved with the project may mistake it for established Wikipedia policy/guideline. -- Black Falcon 19:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above, especially due to the apparent WP:POINT violation. The article should get a proper NPOV name that meets simplicity guidelines in WP:NC, e.g. 2007 British beheading plot. --Dhartung | Talk 20:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The (alleged) plot was specifically to behead a British Muslim Soldier hence the name, and why I think it's appropriate AndrewRT(Talk) 20:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think it's entirely true that the point of this nomination was to push the adoption of WP:NOTNEWS and hence violates WP:POINT. This AFD doesn't disrupt wikipedia per WP:POINT. NOTNEWS is currenly being debated in order to find a consensus and the related AFD discussions (more are listed at WT:NOTNEWS) are all an important way to find that consensus. The conclusion of this debate will be an important guide to the debate on NOTNEWS but I don't think there's anything wrong with this. AndrewRT(Talk) 20:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per all above. Jcuk 22:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia is not wikinews. This is nothing more than the rewrite of a news story. We do not need articles on every minor happening in the war on terror (and yes, everybody, this is minor). Resolute 23:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not WikiNews. This is disturbing but hardly uncommon. Rossami (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable incident with verifiable sources available. As per Dhartung, should be renamed. One of Wikipedia's great strengths is that it is more current that other encylopedias. Capitalistroadster 02:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Knowing the details of terrorist plots is of such obvious value, even years afterwa — oh, I forgot, we're not supposed to cite "usefulness" as a reason for keeping an article. Always remember we're here to cite Wikipedia rules like lawyers without regard to real-world uses of this Wikipedia tool we have. Let's only cite some Wikipedia bureaucratic rule we can find because after all, how important could it be for us to actually use our heads? Let's just blind ourselves to what we might find important in the world because it wouldn't have been put in a paper encyclopedia that couldn't be updated fast enough to deal with a subject like this. Just because we're electronic and instantly updatable here doesn't mean we shouldn't blindly follow what was used in an encyclopedia which had to limit its coverage of developing subjects as it cut down the trees, cut them into sawdust, create pulp, make paper from the pulp, buy the ink . . . . Noroton 03:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please read WP:CIVIL, and bear in mind that wikinews can retain this information very easily. Resolute 14:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Please don't confuse strong argument for incivility. Please reread the first paragraph of WP:CIVIL. In my comments above, no aspersions can even be inferred on anyone since (a) I wasn't addressing anyone in particular, (b) I wasn't even criticising anyone in general, but criticising arguments and attitudes. If you consider strong disagreement to be offensive in itself, please consider whether that's intolerant on your part. As to WikiNews — it isn't as easily found by readers as regular Wikipedia articles are. Important subjects, and this is one, deserve their own Wikipedia articles, whether or not they've been in the news. This incident will be of enduring value for years to come.Noroton 15:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
      • While I agree with you that the article should be kept, it is impossible to say that "this incident will be of enduring value for years to come." Aecis^Brievenbus 15:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
        • You make an interesting point. But in fact it is possible to say: Even failed terrorist plots, when they involve new tactics, commonly have an effect on security policy: The shoe-bomb incident resulted in shoes being checked and often taken off at airports; The liquids incident resulted in containers with liquid being banned. Also, others may copy this tactic. Obviously, those other incidents involved public transportation and this is limited to Muslims in the military, and obviously nobody has a crystal ball, but it isn't a wild guess that this incident will have a strong effect on Muslims in Western military organizations. In fact, it's overwhelmingly probable that attitudes (of Muslim and non-Muslim soldiers) and policies (about protecting Muslim soldiers) will be affected. Soldiers with intimate knowledge of Muslim languages and culture are extremely important in Western armies today. I'd bet the rent money that this will be important five and 10 years from now, just as the U.S.S. Cole, Black Hawk Down incidents have been influential.Noroton 15:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC) (minor edit for clarity)
          • If this incident does lead to any such changes in the future, then yes, it would deserve an article here. However, it has not, and a guess about what may happen as a result is not of any encyclopedic value. Even if one person thinks that it is "overwhelmingly probable" for x to occur, until x actually does occur, that argument is invalid. Also, I cited WP:CIVIL for comments like "how important could it be for us to actually use our heads?" Believe it or not, most people in this discussion are using their heads, and then supporting that thought with policy and guidelines. You should not lose sight of this just becuase your opinion is not universally shared. Resolute 21:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
            • If "how important could it be for us to actually use our heads?" is the most uncivil thing I said, then, after reviewing WP:CIVIL, let's just say we disagree on what Wikipedia's civility standards are. Even taken out of context, it is a criticism of poor argumentation, and in context it shows I'm advocating that editors prize common sense more as they apply rules. Speaking of common sense, to suggest that this terrorist plot might not affect policies and people in the future is simply to ignore how past terrorist plots in the West, when they've been innovative (or at least brought tactics to new countries), have almost invariably affected people and policies up to the present. This isn't one person's "guess". Noroton 18:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and Edison. Premature article - properly suitable for Wikinews but not here Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 07:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete since the story is fit for a newspaper, but is of very little historic interest. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment It is of so much historical interest, now and for the foreseeable future, that it verges on the practical. Especially if you're a Muslim member of a Western military force, but even if you're a citizen of any place a terrorist might strike. Or perhaps just someone concerned about and/or interested in the phenomenon of terrorism. Wikipedia should be helping people find information on a serious subject like this.Noroton 15:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Definitely keep Further to my comments above: existing policies and guidelines have thresholds in place which articles have to reach in order to merit inclusion - specifically in WP:V, WP:N and WP:NOT. This article clearly passes all of these criteria. Therefore the only rationale for deleting becomes a debate between the difference between a newsworthy event and an encyclopedic topic. Bearing in mind the Wikipedia:Summary Style recommends that sub-topics within a particular topic are split out to prevent articles becoming too long, you inevitably end up with articles on minor topics which would never expect to see on, say, Encyclopedia Brittanica. I accept that not all newsworthy events are encyclopedic topics, but when does the first become the second? The definition of encyclopedia - a comprehensive reference work - gives a clue in that people should have to want to refer to it. The event must have some historical relevance - perhaps a new law, a new political movement or something. It must be part of a greater trend, not an isolated instance. It should be part of a larger narrative. The article on a notable event - unlike a newspaper coverage of an event - should analyse the context and explain the impact and consequences of the event rather than just detail the event itself. This is, in fact, a good example of an event which is part of some much greater themes. When we start writing decent articles on Terrorism in the United Kingdom, Islamist Terrorism in the United Kingdom and Islam in the United Kingdom, events like this one will be key parts of these overall narratives. It's good to have articles with an indepth coverage of events like these - after all, Wikipedia is not paper - so that we can use our summary style and integrate them in. Isolated events with no wider consequence - like a highway crash perhaps - can be newsworthy but not encyclopedic, but this article is definitely both. AndrewRT(Talk) 01:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into 31 January 2007 Birmingham raid. KazakhPol 06:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment This AFD done with now? Looks like a keep to me.Hypnosadist 13:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. meets WP:N and WP:V. John Vandenberg 07:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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