Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 1

< December 31	January 2 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

edit • talk • log • watch
Wikipedia:Improving referencing efforts Wikipedia:WikiProject reform Wikipedia:Main page featured article stability Wikipedia:Article inclusion Wikipedia:Notability Wikipedia:Overlapping policies and guidelines Broad community discussion on the status of Wikipedia:Attribution
Conclusions

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SlaveHack

I prodded this webgame under not meeting WP:WEB and WP:V. The prod was removed and sources were added. However, two of them are first-party sources from the game itself. The other source is rather minor and was deleted in April 2006. I believe this article cannot be sourced by a non-trivial third party for verification. Wafulz 00:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. NN webgame. TJ Spyke 00:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per nom. It fails WP:WEB and WP:V. Daniel5127 <Talk> 00:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:WEB, unverifiable. Hello32020 00:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Sources from the game itself and one game-related site don't establish notability. Heimstern Läufer 01:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 01:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per above. MER-C 03:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment It says in the intro that there are 37,000 players. Is that notable for a video game? It seems like a big number, but I've never played an online game other than chess, so I'd like a second opinion. If it is a large number for its kind, then it should probably stay because of its notability in numbers. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Numbers are irrelevant- it's sources that matter. The reason people sometimes mention numbers is because typically as a game gets very large, the likelihood of sources existing goes up. That being said, there are none that I could find. --Wafulz 17:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Oh, well, it seems like such a large number. I guess I'll opt in a weak delete. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as it fails WP:WEB TSO1D 04:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:WEB. Terence Ong 06:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom per WP:WEB and WP:NN violations. Big top 08:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, it sounds like an interesting game, but its not particularly notable compared to other browser games. Lankiveil 11:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
Delete as unverifiable by multiple reliable third-party sources, therefore fails V and WP:WEB. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Jyothisingh 12:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete not notable. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete NN per above. --Wildnox (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per above. --Sir James Paul 20:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. 0L1 | Talk | Contribs 21:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete No citations to assert notability (WP:WEB) -- Selmo ^(talk) 21:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NN/WP:WEB Just H 20:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no proof of notability given or likely possible. Herostratus 17:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Omar Kamel

Not notable. Reads like a CV. No citations or references. Meno25 00:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Article isn't notable. Hello32020 00:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO. Heimstern Läufer 01:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 01:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 02:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as an unreferenced biography without sources to back up its claims of notability - WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 02:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I can't find any non-trivial sites that mention him. When you search Google, all you find are links to deviantART and blogs. The only page I can find that is about him is Wikipedia. Definitely not notable. DroEsperanto 05:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no references, fails WP:BIO, WP:RS. Terence Ong 06:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak Delete, might be notable if he really did make the first CD of electronic music in Egypt, but I'd need sources to actually verify this claim. Lankiveil 11:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
Delete per nom. Jyothisingh 12:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Deleteunless properly referenced by end of this AfD Alf photoman 16:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per nom. This person probably is not notable. --Sir James Paul 20:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Move from article space to Auther's user page. Nimbat230 00:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing about Mr. Kamel on LexisNexis or Google news's archive search (though it appears that there may be several other notable people of that name), and no references to him on AMG, either. It's already been added to the page creator's userpage. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD A7. Article described an alleged cult with 14 members. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Order of Bahamut

Nomination for deletion Unverifiable cult, possible hoax. Contested prod and contested speedy delete (I'm concerned this may be an attack page against the Catholic Church). Google only brings up a video gaming guild[1]. Bwithh 01:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Thoroughly unverified, and it sure looks like a hoax with google results like that. Heimstern Läufer 01:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unverifiable, possibly a hoax. Hello32020 01:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, nonsense seems to be the right thing. I can't call attack, as it's something that's ostensibly within the catholic church, so if anything, it's pointing to that, not the catholics as a whole. --Dennisthe2 01:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's the "idol worship" part which suggested the attack angle to me (standard accusation from critics that Catholic Church engages in idolatory of the Virgin Mary). The article is not patent nonsense, so I don't believe db-nonsense applies (in any case, being in afd overrules the csd tagging, although its perfectly fine to !vote for speedy deletion in afd) Bwithh 01:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, good point. Though with Karken's assertion, while it's clearly not nonsense, it does beg the question as to whether a db-bio would be even remotely appropriate. I'd say no, given he's asserting some kind of notability, if only pseudo-verbally; your thoughts, please? --Dennisthe2 02:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment from article creator moved from article talk page and registering as keep by Bwithh 01:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep It is a cult that I am a member of. It is really, a relatively new cult, and does not have many followers. (Only 14) My sect ::leader, Jyaharut, wanted me to post about it on the internet so that others could learn about the ways of our cult, become ::members, and possibly start their own sect. He encourages it.

I'm sorry if you don't believe, but we have no funding for a website currently, and we want to spread the word about our Order.

Please, just hear me out. Once we get a website, you can delete the article, but my family, and my cult leader would appreciate ::it if you kept it here until we get a website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Karken (talk • contribs). — Karken (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Above comment by User:Karken moved from article talk page by Bwithh 01:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Bwithh 01:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Well, maybe not an attack page, then. But this comment suggests strongly that this cult is completely non-notable. Heimstern Läufer 01:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. WP is not a free webhost and this sect is completely unnotable as admitted by the editor who added the article - 15 members. --Bduke 02:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as either a hoax or a totally inappropriate use of Wikipedia to promote a completely non-notable group. Joyous! | Talk 02:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. WP is not a free webhost, esp. for an unverified cult. ThuranX 05:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete per nom. Not quite G1 material, but close. Not for things made up in school one day, and that. Tevildo 06:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, WP:NOT a free webhost, wrong place to host stuff. Terence Ong 06:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Regardless of anything else, this article has no sources, and a religious group with only 14 members is unlikely to be notable. (Although the Shakers have fewer than that now, at their peak they had thousands of members, and they have been the subject of considerable public and media attention, unlike this Order.) --Metropolitan90 06:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Res delenda est. Per WP:SPAM, WP:V, WP:HOAX, WP:NONSENSE, WP:BOLLOCKS, etc etc. And salt it until Lot becomes nostalgic. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 07:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - this is an obvious joke. No one in a cult is going to refer to it as a "cult" or a "sect". Hatch68 08:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- An article being a hoax is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Heimstern Läufer 08:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That's open to discussion, see WP:CSDUA. Also, could be deleted as CSD G3, see first line of WP:VANDAL, same guideline says hoax or joke aricles are speediable as vandalism. Tubezone 17:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

- I'm not trying to put a speedy delete template on it. I'm just advocating that there is obviously a delete consensus and no more time should be wasted on this joke. Hatch68 08:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Enough. MER-C 10:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, amusing reading, but should be deleted as per all of the policies quoted above. Possibly a hoax. Lankiveil 11:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 14:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per WP:CSD A7 (14 followers, no money for website = no assertion of notability) and WP:SNOW as unverifiable bollocks and stuff made up during catechism class while the sister wasn't watching. Tubezone 17:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge. Majorly (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Santa's Village East Dundee, Illinois

Defunct amusement park of questionable notability. ghits: [2] --NMChico24 01:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete The theme park doesn't appear to be notable. Hello32020 01:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 02:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep I live in the Chicago area and I've heard of this park multiple times in the past. I've never been to the place, but its somewhat of a staple to the area and its closing made the newspapers. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 04:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Santa's Village, where most of the article's information already is. The three parks were operated by the same owner. These are relatively small theme parks oriented strongly at families bringing children, rather than a teenage/adult audience. Given the dearth of information on the three US locations, all now defunct, it seems there's little need for separate articles. --Dhartung | Talk 07:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Non-notable. Big top 08:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge per Dhartung. DCEdwards1966 08:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge per Dhartung, and someone fix the dreadful spelling while they're at it. Lankiveil 11:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
Merge -- same subject, no need for 2 articles ST47Talk 18:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge per Dhartung. and please note similarity to Satan's Village. Edison 06:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge -- as per Dhartung. Librarylefty 06:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
We might as well merge for now, but this topic could easily support its own article in the future (with a better title, though). Using Newsbank, I found sixteen Chicago Tribune headline results for Santa's Village since 1985, with over 100 additional full-text results. I think any theme park that has had a forty-seven year existence in a major metropolitan area would pass whatever notability test you could throw at it. Zagalejo 17:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge per Dhartung. Just H 20:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nom. --NMChico24 01:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Year of the Dolphin

Little context, little upon which to expand. NMChico24 01:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep: We have several other UN "Years", and this can be improved/expanded. GhostPirate 01:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Can definitely be expanded. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep other international years articles exist with reliable sources to support their encyclopedic value; there's not reason why this article cannot also, once appropriate references are cited. (aeropagitica) 02:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please help me out to keep this article. I do not know what to do to save this entry. I started this lemma just minutes ago and was buissy with editing as someone already want it for deletion.

2007 has been recognised as an official UN Year of the Dolphins and has only began today and therefore there is not much information available yet for the moment; just some basic facts. As the year will be continuing, international organisations, countries, media etc. will organise activities or pay attantion to it. So then thereafter there will be more possibilities to write and adjust this lemma in Wikipedia. - (Brabo 02:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC))

Brabo, I wouldn't worry quite so much -- the consensus so far is universally "keep" except for the nominator. I think that if you found some third-party independent references such as articles in major newspapers (preferably linkable) that there would be no real objection. That said, I'll do some cleanup to bring the article more in line with house style. --Dhartung | Talk 07:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep per above statements. JRHorse 02:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Per all above support reasons. Certainly got interested in it myself, in light of recent Yangtze river Dolphin extinctions. ThuranX 05:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per all above. --Dhartung | Talk 07:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, seems plenty of room for this to expand. I'm not sure that the title is the best possible one, but plenty of material to work with I think. Lankiveil 11:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
Speedy keep Metamagician3000 13:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, needs lots of expansion. If an article is short and it asserts notability, it does not qualify for AFD. Terence Ong 15:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keepy Nominator does not specify a valid reason for deletion. Tarinth 19:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep Per above comments. --Sir James Paul 21:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wii shoulder

"A widespread term"? Nah, just another nn neologism, this one with 1110 non-wiki ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 02:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NEO. (aeropagitica) 02:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per aeropagitaca. Personally, I had never even heard of this term before and have not seen it used anywhere. TJ Spyke 02:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ Redirect to repetitive stress injury per nom. Wii is still too new for this to have been a widespread term, and would be more appropriate for now as a dicdef somewhere else. --Dennisthe2 02:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Vote changed on 04:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC) --Dennisthe2
Delete per nom. Bring it back if it grows. Just H 02:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NEO --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 04:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 08:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Wikipedia:Message board users don't get to make up medical terms. Koweja 08:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, widespread perhaps amongst the original author's friends and chums, but not anywhere else. Neologism. Lankiveil 11:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
Redirect to shoulder problems. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NEO Da Big Bozz 17:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to shoulder problems. KnightLago 19:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to shoulder problems. --Sir James Paul 21:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete and block, not real enough for a redirect. Tennis elbow = Wikipedia Wrist ? --Bejnar 23:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete no need for a redirect for this one, nothing to salvage even in a redirect. Esurnir 00:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
'Delete - definitely not redirect-able. --Haemo 06:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Snowball Delete -- no sources. Neologism. Nonsense? Anomo 06:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
delete protologisms without redirect. — brighterorange (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no redirect. Term is protologism and not established as a likely search term. hateless 23:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a non-notable user-named medical condition. Darth griz⁹⁸ 18:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to repetitive strain injury The Kinslayer 20:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Although I'm wary of "validating" this obvious neologism, I don't have a problem with a redirect to Shoulder problems. --Alan Au 05:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Redorect to shoulder problems per above. It appears to be valid but I'm not convinced that the encyclopedia is better for it. Paul D. Meehan 05:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, I haven't heard this term anywhere. --Japan became a first-world country after a bomb wiped out everyone. We Argentinians only managed to get two dictatorships and 10 million of poor people since WWII. 02:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge into Wii article. Joel Jimenez 04:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete A7, by the looks of things, with an R1 on the redirect. --Dennisthe2 20:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Azules Maskarades

This article was brought to my attention by Doc4life. It appears to be a hoax. It has no sources, has been marked as unreferenced since August, and I cannot find any information on google. Some of the information contained in the article points towards it being a hoax as well. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 02:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:V. Nothing but Wikipedia mirrors on Google. MER-C 02:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per MER-C. Mack. 02:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related page because it is a redirect to Azules Maskarades and would serve no purpose if the main article was deleted. The closing admin would probably notice the redirect and delete it as well, if the result is delete, but here it is just to be safe. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 03:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Azules maskarades (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Speedy Delete, I can probably call A7 on this one. FWIW, the redirect in there would likewise be speedied out on an R1. If someone else agrees, I'll let them tag. --Dennisthe2 06:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, seems pretty unbelievable to me. Leaning towards calling 'hoax' on it. Lankiveil 11:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
Prostitute mother and homosexual father plus other junk = unreferenced attack, I tagged speedy delete as G10 attack page. A7? Plenty of notability asserted, although most of it should be discounted as false and WP:NFT. Tubezone 17:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment article has been deleted. Will somebody officially close this AfD discussion? ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 03:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 123 Pleasant Street

Doesn't seem to be a notable nightclub. Notability isn't established by who gives gigs there. No evidence of notability on Google. Contested prod. MER-C 02:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep - The nightclub may be notable as a place of local interest. The information in the article is verifiable and no other major problems exist. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 04:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep, as per above - the notability is weak, but it is there I think. Lankiveil 11:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
Keep Agree with Nick. Looks like it passes WP:LOCAL. Important venue in locality. Involved in a notable criminal event. Everything verifiable. --Oakshade 16:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

comment There is nothing notable about the woman's disappearance. People go missing everyday. It may be notable for that local area, but it is not notable outside of that local area. Also, there are no articles about the club outside of a mention that this missing woman owned it. No verifiability means no article. It was said that the article could be made verifiable (or was verifiable), but there are no sources cited nor found about the club. We can't keep everything on the grounds that there might be sources. No one is base their arguements on anything besides "oh, it's notable and verifiable". How is it notable? How is the notability verifiable? Again, a missing woman does not make everything connected to her notable. None of the arguements are based on policy, nor do they provide refuting evidence against the policies that are listed. For an uncited article to be able to survive on the principle that it is verifiable, just not verified, requires some showing that sources are reasonably likely to exist and can be resonably easily found by a person who is not from the area and knows nothing about the owner. The keep arguements say "It's notable" but are not providing proof of this with any sources. You are ignored the issue of verifiablility which is NOT optional or negotiable. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 18:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, per this. Agrees with my assessment, basically 100%. Some pictures would be nice, though. Haemo 06:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep — Looks like there is notability, and WP:LOCAL applies. ST47Talk 18:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep Per above comments. --Sir James Paul 21:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
DELETE Notability doesn't matter if there are not Multiple, Independent, Reliable, Reputable, Third-Party, Published Sources. WP:V and WP:RS trump any WP:NOTABILITY claims, and I don't see any sources here. Unverified claims of notability. The owner disappearing does not make the club notable (A local bar owner disappeared a few years ago and is still missing but that is does not make him or the bar notable. Many people go missing every day from every social standing.) Notability is a guideline but WP:V is a POLICY that no article can ignore. Deletion Guidelines for administrators quite clearly states:

Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable' and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.

The only sources provided are links to the club's webpage, a homestead.com page which has been disabled, a personal angelfire.com webpage listing the owner as a missing person (which is a direct copy of one of the external links from doenetwork.us) and finally a blog story. Sorry but this is a clear delete without reputable, reliable sources. Anything on the club by Rolling Stone? A national newspaper? A national radio or TV show?

As for WP:LOCAL it states:

If enough reliable and verifiable information exists about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article. If some source material is available, but is insufficient for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality. If no source material, or only directory-type information (location, function, name, address) can be provided, the subject may not merit mention yet at all.

As it is, There are are not enough Reliable and Verifiable information sources to validate an article. Again, WP:LOCAL is a guideline and does NOT trump WP:V. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 20:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - So CBGB's it's not. but it's the best we have. I'll add a WTRF story to the Marsh Ferber angle. if it'll appease you. -DarkAudit 23:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
comment no, it won't because the problem is the story is about Marsh Ferber, not the club. We need multiple, independent coverages on the club, not the owner. ~~What we COULD do is merge the club article with the owner's article.~~ (edit: No, after review, the owner doesn't pass notability either.) You can't ignore the fact that there are no news stories on the club itself. What I am saying is, again, WP:V can not be ignored. Where are the articles on the club and only the club? The "best you have" is, I'm sorry to say, not good enough to pass one of wikipedia's main pillars. The news story doesn't even mention the club. It mentions an address where the car was found but nothing on the club. All the articles found are about the owner disappearing. It's a local story about a missing woman. Nothing notable about her. Nothing notable about the club. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 18:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
comment kinda seems backwards. Most of the 'sources' being supplied or cited in the article (or here) are about the owner, and the only sources about the club are a blog and the own club's website. The owner is more referenced (mainly from sources that do not meet WP:RS) than the club, yet she is the blurb on the club's page? Now even if we reversed it, I would still list the article for AfD (and follow up with a deletion review if it was kept by the closing admin) but it just strikes me as funny. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 00:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Trachtenberg

May fail WP:BIO, also no sources. Looking for more input. cohesion 02:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:BIO. IMDB profile doesn't inspire confidence in notability. MER-C 03:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, if the best he can do is host a "vidcast", he's not famous enough for inclusion. Lankiveil 11:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
Delete Per above --Sir James Paul 21:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No disrespect intended toward Mr. Trachtenberg, but he doesn't seem sufficiently notable. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
DeleteIMDB profile doesn't inspire confidence in notability.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.81.232.207 (talk • contribs).
Delete per above _SUBWAYguy 00:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, no assertion of notability and incomprehensible in parts. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DJ Brazil

Originally tagged and deleted Speedy A7, article was reposted. Article appears to be a copy-ad, and it clearly does not satisfy WP:COI or WP:MUSIC. Content is already on User DJ BRAZIL's User page, basically saying the same things. JRHorse 02:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Hello32020 03:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - unsourced autobiography of a non-notable person. I've added the user page to my queue of vanity pages for deletion. MER-C 03:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete A7 per nomination. Major POV and a violation of WP:AUTO. --Dennisthe2 06:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red Steel 2

It's an unconfirmed sequel of a game that just came out. The WP:PROD tag I added was contested, and the tag was added a second time shortly after that. Because a contested Prod should go to AfD, I'm listing it here. Even though I added the tag in the first place, I'm neutral, as I get a surprisingly large number of Google hits for "Red Steel 2". --Conti|✉ 03:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The article admits that nearly all details about the game are just speculation, and a future video game does not have the significance of something like the 2008 Summer Olympics to justify an article. Heimstern Läufer 04:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete It does seem like the game will happen, but we should wait until at least Ubisoft confirms it. TJ Spyke 04:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 05:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete: "its existence is pure speculation". Need I say more? Zetawoof^(ζ) 06:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 08:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Ubisoft hiring people for the "Red Steel project" isn't the same as confirmation of a sequel. Koweja 08:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete for all the above reasons Guy (Help!) 10:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball; recreate when or if the game does come into existance. --Anthony cfc 12:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete: As the article states, it is pure speculation and has no place here. If Ubisoft were to announce or even hint at it, that would be sufficient grounds for an article. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL. It might be popular on Google, but until there's some substance to speculation, there shouldn't be an article that can provide potentially misleading information. --Scottie theNerd 13:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete -unconfirmed, we can't really have articles about crufty-sounding rumours. Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL needs reliable sources to confirm a future software like this. Terence Ong 15:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete: I have heard about the work ads, perhaps that particular information should be added to the red steel article but not it's own as per WP:CRYSTAL Da Big Bozz 18:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

DELETE, not even a merge since it is not verifiable at all.--Chicbicyclist 10:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete for now; article can be recreated if/when Red Steel 2 is announced (and verifiable). --Alan Au 05:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Neutral Red Steel sold incredibly well, and Ubisoft has unofficially confirmed the game [3]. This article could work as a stub with the "this article is about a future tag and may contain speculation. Alan Shatte 22:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete The game will probably be released but it isn't verifiable right now. Infomanager 22:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete but include a line or two about a possible sequel in the original Red Steel article. Gisele Hsieh 20:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- This makes sense I have edited the "Reaction" portion of the Red Steel article to include a possible sequel. Alan Shatte 21:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Boy & Billy characters

This is a long list of every character that has ever been played on the John Boy and Billy radio show in North Caroline. It's too long to merge into the main article, so I copied the first couple characters onto the main article page. The rest can go. This is of interest to no one except die-hard fans who presumably already know each character's catchphrases. Tocharianne 04:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as a very good example of Fancruft. As with most cruft we run into problems with Verifiability and having Third party sources to assert notability. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information which this article seems to violate, in my opinion, since it contains poorly formatted, unnecessary, non-notable, information about non-notable characters.
Any character of this show that is notable and passes requirements and guidelines should have their own article or mention in the parent article. If such a need arises then, with full justification, create a List of John Boy & Billy characters, but by no means should an article like this be created in lieu of a list. wtfunkymonkey 05:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete appears to violate WP:NOR. Sources? Guy (Help!) 10:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Move to Wikipedia:Fancruft/Example. Else delete, since it doesn't belong as an article. MER-C 10:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, fancruftacular. Lankiveil 11:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
Delete, pure fancruft, nothing can be salvaged from this article. Terence Ong 16:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toronto lofts

Thinly veiled advertising and promotion for a single company, but the topic may be of interest so I didn't speedy. Should the article be deemed worthy of Wikipedia, it should be renamed and the external link removed. Akihabara 04:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, commcercial advert page. ThuranX 05:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge (sans link) with Loft. I don't think that having some specific examples of this type of accommodation in a major city will do the main article any harm. Tevildo 05:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete nothing to merge - that which is not advertorial, is generic Guy (Help!) 10:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, a badly disguised ad. Lankiveil 11:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
Delete, advertisement, sorry wrong place to host adverts. Terence Ong 16:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as spam. Article creator is User:Carllangschmidt, and coincidentally, the external link goes to his real estate site. -- Whpq 17:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and redirect. - Mailer Diablo 00:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horse ancestry

This article is an abbreviated, entirely unreferenced fork of Evolution of the horse. John254 04:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. DS9 Voyager 05:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete and Redirect to Evolution of the horse. JRHorse 05:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete and redirect per above. MER-C 10:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete and Redirect, pointless fork of a reasonably good article. Lankiveil 11:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
Delete and redirect, just a fork. Terence Ong 16:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete and Redirect, no need for a fork when the evolution article covers the topic already. TSO1D 16:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete and redirect - as above, this article is a duplication of a better and more detailed article. CloudNine 19:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as nonsense, spam, empty and no assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Save Earth Confederation

Originally tagged Speedy A7. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. User posted a similar article, Www.cgptw.com/mediawiki, presently under the CSD tag. JRHorse 05:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete as pure nonsense. TJ Spyke 05:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as TJ Spyke. DroEsperanto 05:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete as nonsense, so tagged. MER-C 05:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete G1 and salt. --Dennisthe2 06:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Blatantly bad-faith nomination. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of the River Plate

Not too big a battle. Only double digit casualties (clearly not much). I don't think it's worthy of an article. User:WaWa12 5:43 AM UTC

Speedy Keep. Do I need to say anything? Obvious frivolous/bad faith nomination. Tevildo 05:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep. Probably the biggest single naval battle in New Zealand military history, and a decisive part of the war of the South Atlantic.. Grutness...wha? 06:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep and revert to previous version with an infobox. Clear bad faith nomination. --Dennisthe2 06:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep - Important battle, resulting in a motion picture being made about it. JRHorse 06:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Obvious Keep. I know we're supposed to assume good faith, but this is stretching it.--OinkOink 06:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep Merge debates can take place on the article Talk pages. Eluchil404 08:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doctrines and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses

The article is a failed attempt to merge two other articles, Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses and Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. The article is too long and is better for now left as two separate articles. Editing has continued as normal on the two other pages. BenC7 05:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Tevildo 06:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep The article is not that long (although the references section is), and it appears to be a well written article. TJ Spyke 06:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. It looks to me like a successful merge of the other articles, and an attempt to separate doctrines and practices is not sound here. It's not too long, and I think this material does belong in one place.--OinkOink 06:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Just organize the references into columns. --Hemlock Martinis 11:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, everything looks perfect, just need to columnise the reference section. A good way of merging the articles imo. Terence Ong 16:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, extremely well-referenced article. Merger discussions should take place on the talk pages of the relavent pages. AfD is not a mechanism for forcing people to merge or split articles the way you want. Tarinth 16:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I have just noticed that there is an almost identical page, Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. The content of this article will be merged into that one. BenC7 02:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if there's consensus to do that. Philwelch 08:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, seems like a successful merge. Philwelch 08:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beckett Dragonball Z Collector

I can't find any reliable third-party sources on this topic, and the article has little assertion of notability. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete I liked the magazine, but it's not really notable. IF this article is kept, it should be moved to the correct name (it's Dragon Ball, not Dragonball). TJ Spyke 06:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MER-C 10:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, there must be jillions of nn anime magazines and publications out there, we don't need articles for every single one. Lankiveil 11:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
Delete, does not meet notability criteria. Terence Ong 16:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete I love this stuff, but this is crap.--C J King 02:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Letter To God (Courtney Love)

Fails WP:Music. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so this article is at least two months early even if it is a hit single after it's release. Hatch68 06:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, the first sentence even says it's a RUMORED single. TJ Spyke 06:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC/WP:CRYSTAL. MER-C 10:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, come back when it's actually confirmed or released. Lankiveil 11:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Terence Ong 16:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Unsourced crystal balling. —ShadowHalo 00:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Article writer's continued removal of the AfD notice is not helping his case either. -Elmer Clark 10:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PPDL

Article states that PPDL is an acronym for a managerial style developed by a noted economist. However I do not see how that economist is notable, or how PPDL is notable. A search for "PPDL" yields ambiguous results, while "Procrastination Prioritization Delegation Litigation" does not come up with anything significant. WP:NOTE, WP:VERIFY, WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT. JRHorse 06:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This looks like some sort of satire or in-joke.--OinkOink 07:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - obviously a joke page. Hatch68 07:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom, not to mention WP:NFT. MER-C 10:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as hoax and/or nonsense. Lankiveil 11:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
Strong delete unfunny in-joke. NawlinWiki 14:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete, attack page. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete I agree with OinkOink. Too much foresight. Econos 10:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Majorly (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Umakant Sharma

Non-notability: all this man has done is to cheat at chess: at best this is an ephemeral story; it is not at all notable and he is not at all notable in wiki terms. Springnuts 06:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete. WP:BIO requires either a professional competition or the "highest level" of amateur competion; according to the news sources, he was only competing at a club/regional level when discovered, rather than a national level. I think that brings him below the threshold of notability. Tevildo 06:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:BIO's guideline that he compete at the highest level is only one criteria for inclusion, and the fact that he doesn't compete at that level does not exclude him from an entry. The multiple-media coverage of him does. Tarinth 18:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep (as main article contributor) - WP:BIO says that an individual must be in multiple, non trivial sources. THe story was linked to on the main page of CNN.COM in the technology section. The references section gets information from the article from 4 sources that are pretty reliable. WP:BIO also says, "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events, such as by being assassinated." While cheating at chess is not being assasinated, his involvement gave him notoriety in an newsworthy event (being covered by several sites and online newspaper). Google news serch comes up with 66 stories. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 06:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The article said he started with a rating of 1933 and increased over 500 points to 1484. Surely these numbers are garbled or reversed. I also don't know what the Indian ratings mean. But if he is less than a master both before and after, he is not notable as a chess player. Perhaps some of this material could be incorporated in an article on cheating in chess, though.--OinkOink 06:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - THe numbers were a typo, I fixed that up. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- His final rating was actually 2484 - this has now been corrected. Tevildo 17:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Its one of the cases where the subject is famous (or rather got a lot of publicity from non-trivial sources) but NOT notable. Its a "slow news day" filler story, like "man gets foot stuck in grate, causes traffic jam". In such a case, although the story gets published everywhere, the person is clearly not notable. At best, this person gets a mention in the cheating article.

The fact that you don't think he's famous, or that you think his press coverage qualifies as "slow news day" stories is not relavent to notability. Tarinth 18:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

--Eqdoktor 09:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, it may be a slow news day article, but it still got mentions in major newspapers and websites. That makes him notable, I think. Lankiveil 11:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
Weak Delete. He is a regional player, who plays for Southern Railways. Although he has been covered widely by the newspapers on December 27 2006, he will soon be forgotten. This is news, not encyclopedic material; should be covered at Wikinews. Jyothisingh 12:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You have know way of knowing that he'll soon be forgotten; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. He's made himself notable due to extensive press coverage. Tarinth 18:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete The main content of the article is notable, but the person is not. Agreeing with OinkOink that the information belongs in a more general article, I went ahead and recycled it into a new article on Cheating in chess which parallels Cheating in poker. Thanks to User:Chrislk02 for writing up this interesting and well-verified incident. Nesbit 17:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

He's notable because the press coverage focused on him, the player, not the issue of cheating in chess in general. Tarinth 18:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - aint this up for DYK ? Baka man 17:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. .Baka man 17:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep He's been noted multiple times in the media. ~~Deletion potentially smacks of ethnocentrism (most of the media sources are from India).~~ Nothing mentioned in the nomination is a valid reason for removal. It sounds like a notable item in the history of chess playing. All of the arguments above that argued for deletion are based on the subjective opinion that this person is either ephemeral (how would you know? we're not a crystal ball) or that he's "just a regional player," which isn't relavent to the fact that he's made himself notable by other things (cheating). Tarinth 18:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete subject is not notable, and is only different from others because he got caught cheating. ST47Talk 18:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

COmment - It was notable enough for coverage by several reliable news source. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment The information is notable, but functions more effectively in an article on Cheating in chess than a biography. It's hard to imagine a bio on Umakant Sharma ever attaining FA status, unless he further distinguishes himself by other "achievements." The subject of the news reports is the incident, not the person, and it is the incident which is notable. Nesbit 06:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep anyone with rating 2484 Doctor Bruno 19:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment even though I'm making a case for Keep, his rating, which he obtained unfairly, means nothing Citicat 20:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Weak Keep~~ Being banned on this level, and the circumsances, make this a notable occurence. If there was an article "chess cheats" or "chess controversies" this could be merged, but until then it should be left. Citicat 20:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

okay Redirect to Cheating in chess. But that article needs to be expanded to justify it. Citicat 00:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep Article is backed by several (strong) non-trivial sources – OK, so subject is notable because of what he did rather than what he is, but that is besides the point. Notable (or is that notorious?) nevertheless. Bubba hot ep 20:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete I was leaning towards Keep until Nesbit created the page for Cheating. Seems like a good solution. I wonder - would it be appropriate to link to/from the page on The Turk?[4] Bourne 23:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete A wholly non-notable chess player. Being caught cheating, which is a 24-hour news story, does not make him any more notable. Indeed, as he cannot now compete, he becomes even less notable.--Anthony.bradbury 00:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Encyclopedic notability not established. Wikipedia is not a news report archive Bwithh 02:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Cheating in chess. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - he may not be notable as a chess player, but his actions have made him notable as a chess cheat. Multiple independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources] exist to provide for verifiability. Mering into Cheating in chess gives undue weight in the article to this one single incident. -- Whpq 17:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This is essentially a synopsis of news stories, which WP:NOT for. We don't have bios on every random criminal who gets arrested and his mugshot printed in the local press, either. Sandstein 11:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - This story was not just covered by local press. It has had coverage across the world. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asif Malik

This is a contested prod with no reason given for removal of the tag. It is an unreferenced article about a person who is probably not notable. It is also likely a conflict of interest. Khatru2 06:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 06:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MER-C 10:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep and Cleanup, okay, the article is very poorly written, but that's no grounds for deletion. I fail to see where the COI is, and even if it exists, I also don't see that as grounds for deletion. If the facts in the article can be verified, I think he might just be notable enough to fall over the threshold. Will change my vote to Delete if no sources for any of this can be found though. Lankiveil 11:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
Delete unless wikified and properly sourced by the end of this AfD Alf photoman 16:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep The subject is notable, but the article has no sources. That doesn't mean it should be deleted. Delete could not find proof of notability. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete per nom. I've been unable to find any sources, thus far, besides the name mentioned in the KTRS (AM) article. Also, primary editor of the article immediately removed the AfD header, probably verifying the nom's claims. --Millbrooky 22:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete There doesn't seem to be anything here that pushes him over the notability line. Bourne 23:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Even if well written and well sourced, I would urge deletion for lack of notability. I couldn't find material on Asif Malik even using commercial searchs like Gale-Thompson. Is the first Tamil undertaker in the USA notable? No. Race, creed, color or national origin only provide that kind of notability when the profession has historically and invidiously discriminated against that particular attribute. --Bejnar 23:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Trampik e y ^{(talk to me)(contribs)} 00:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural depictions of women in combat

This isn't the kind of topic I like to nominate; it's just too subjective to be encyclopedic. I am the editor who created the featured list Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc. I also happen to be a female war veteran.

This list's inclusion standards are too broad and poorly defined to fit Wikipedia's mission, nor have they been followed. A Few Good Men contains no combat scenes and Lara Croft is a fictional archaeologist with no military experience. The fluid and usually informal nature of women's appearances in combat situations make inclusion standards deeply problematic. Would Full Metal Jacket qualify because of the female sniper in the final scene? Would the French resistance scene put Plenty on this list? How about Platoon for its gang rape? Or The Sound of Music because Julie Andrews and the children escape from the Nazis? Most Hollywood adventure films have at least one female in the cast and often place her in danger as a plot device. That would render this list untenable if it covered cinema alone, yet it aspires to represent all depictions in all media. This reads like a few editors' POV of we think these chicks are cool. I say delete. Durova^Charge! 06:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as per nom Bwithh 07:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Clearly unmanageable as a single topic. --OinkOink 07:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nominator. Lists which mix real and fictional characters are always a problem. Guy (Help!) 10:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 10:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nominator. The scope is simply too broad. Alternatively, narrow the scope for inclusion significantly. Lankiveil 11:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

If I could find way to narrow the scope to something encyclopedic and objective I wouldn't have proposed this for deletion. Durova^Charge! 03:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Jyothisingh 12:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Just reading this 15 or so things have sprung to mind which fit this list. Widders 22:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: this could be employed to offload "cultural references" from the serious article History of women in the military. A thorough cleanup and stubbing may be better than outright delete, otherwise these "references" will appear into the main article. While this is not the ideal solution such structures serve rather well all over Wikipedia. Pavel Vozenilek 23:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] T-Rock

nn musical artist, fails WP:BIO — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 08:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 10:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, see all those "N/A" in the discography section? Also, there are a lot of unfounded statements in here which makes it read more like a press release than an encyclopædia article ("His clever lyricism and tongue-twisting style immediately endeared T-Rock to fans all over the south. Widely regarded as one of the best lyricists to ever grace a Three-Six Mafia track, his appearances were partly responsible for the platinum successes of two albums and the sale of hundreds of thousands of other albums..). Ugh. Lankiveil 11:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. --FuriousFreddy 00:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Keep~~. The article's a mess (especially now that all but the discography has been removed), but he still appears to meet WP:MUSIC. According to AMG[5], his album Rock Solid/4:20 charted on two of Billboard's charts (Independent Albums and R&B/Hip-Hop Albums). I'm going to see whether I can clean this up a bit and make it a workable stub, though rap really isn't my forte. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Changing to Neutral. I can't find enough verifiable info to expand the article to even a reasonable stub. I've got his AMG bio, a couple press releases, and this article in the SF Chronicle, which briefly references him opening for Dan the Automator on a tour. That's a good thing, notability-wise, but I'm not sure that we should have an article on a modern artist if we can't find sourced info for stuff like his real name or year of birth. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Throw Your Neighborhood Up

non-notable album — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 08:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. MER-C 10:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, reads more like an ad than an article. Artist is not notable, and neither is this album. Lankiveil 11:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
Delete, appears to be an advert, non notable artist Iridescenti 15:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polar Ice Vodka

del a brand with no claims of notability. 08:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikkalai (talk • contribs).

Delete, practically empty, no coverage cited at all. The distillery doesn't have an article to redirect to. Sandstein 10:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:CORP. MER-C 10:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Jyothisingh 12:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Sandstein _SUBWAYguy 00:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all. - Mailer Diablo 00:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B'nai Elim

Organisation and its leaders which fail notability criteria Tewfik^Talk 08:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- Pastordavid 18:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:ORG/WP:BIO. MER-C 11:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete nn organisation, and the article has obviously been written by someone with a strong Israeli nationalist POV. Lankiveil 11:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
Delete per nom. Jyothisingh 12:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel or Palestine-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 09:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete marginal - crz crztalk 12:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raheel Ramzanali

Non-notable biography article. Some google hits on his blog and radio work. Does not cite sources to claims. Unable to find any reference or confirmation on the assertion that he was inducted into GQ hall of fame. Eqdoktor 09:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - no evidence from reliable sources that he meets WP:BIO. MER-C 11:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, may change vote if evidence can be produced of his induction, as well as expert opinion on whether the "GQ Hall of Fame" is notable. Lankiveil 11:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
Delete unless claims to notability are properly sourced by the end of this AfD Alf photoman 16:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Agree with nom. TheMindsEye 22:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge and redirect, although I couldn't see anything to merge. The history is still there if anyone else can see anything. Majorly (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nizami Gencevi

Reason the page should be deleted

Creating deletion discussion page for Nizami Gencevi because an identical but more extensive article exists under Nezami Ganjavi. Parishan 09:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge and redirect into Nezami Ganjavi --Eqdoktor 09:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per above. Google searches reveal that this is a common anglicization of the Azerbaijani name. Jyothisingh 12:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per above Alf photoman 16:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Keesing

Only 44 unique Google hits [6], suggesting he's not that much of a controversy in his country or internationally- claims to newspaper coverage are included, but are vague. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, per WP:BIO, no verifiable relevant coverage. We don't have an article on every student who has issues with the authorities. Sandstein 10:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 11:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete show me the coverage! Seems like a hoax, what with him being an anti-capitalist pro-drugs right-wing activist (?). Lankiveil 11:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
Delete per nom. Jyothisingh 12:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless properly sourced and wikified by the end of this AfD Alf photoman 16:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I found one article, mentioning him as a pamphleteer, published in the New Zealand Herald. I don't think that's enough. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Typophile

Deleted once as dicdef plus a weblink,. now created as even more blatantly a puff for the website. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, borderline G11, WP:WINAD. Possibly redirect to Typography or somewhere else useful. Sandstein 10:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Borderline G11 and probably close enough to a G4 too. Grutness...wha? 10:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - spammy dictdef. MER-C 11:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete pretty blatant ad, probably comes under "neologism" as well. Lankiveil 11:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
Delete per nom. Jyothisingh 12:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to the Typophiles. Of course, that article might not be notable enough to stay anyway, but that's a different AfD. Koweja 16:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Transwiki to wiktionary. Not a neologism, a term of long standing. 186 Google Books results[7], even a couple dozen Google News Archive results.[8] --Dhartung | Talk 07:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Majorly (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Five Star Prison Cell

I'm the first to admit that I'm no great judge of rock band notability, but this article has no third party coverage and little other indication that it meets WP:MUSIC. Sandstein 10:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, as much as I like supporting independent bands, third-party coverage of this band seems non-existent. Sorry, guys. Lankiveil 11:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
Delete, nonnotable band. NawlinWiki 14:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Found three third-party interviews from apparently serious music publications, which the page has been updated with. Also, the band Frankenbok (which the band's lead singer used to perform with) seems to be a few tiers more notable than this band as well, judging from searches, and thus I think meets criterion 5 of Wikipedia:Notability (music) as well. --Jackhorkheimer 17:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment, that might make his old band notable, but not this one. Lankiveil 08:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Comment. Criterion 5 applies to bands members join before or after a notable act, and thus the notability of an old band does impact the notability of a band afterwards, unless you don't believe in the criterion. --Jackhorkheimer 20:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I've had a look at "Frankenbok", and about all I could find was a spam-blighted messageboard, and the same scattered references and gig guide entries as this band. I'd go so far to say that Frankenbok wasn't a notable band either (and we don't have an article for it, if it was that notable, surely it would have been created before this article). Lankiveil 10:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Delete, any band can hook up an internet-based interview to garner a smokescreen of credence. I'd take those with a grain of salt; get rid of this entry. Bobus Wang 04:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Jackhorkheimer. Guyanakoolaid 10:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep per Jackhorkheimer. Also, I've googled a bit and found out they are somewhat popular at last.fm, their lyrics and tabs are in myriads of online databases (who probably steal information from each other, but nevertheless), etc. Also, they've won a MusicOz award in 2006. --GreyCat 10:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment, Reportedly the members of the band are close personal friends with Faultline Records founder and owner D.W Norton, whom awarded them with this MusicOz 'award'. Smells supremely fishy to me. Bobus Wang 14:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Unless I'm mistaken Faultline Records is the sponsor of the award, not necessarily the decider--I'd assume MusicOz uses either a panel or ballot system, like most awards. But that did make me raise an eyebrow. --Jackhorkheimer 19:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was KEEP. -Doc^g 01:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of places named after people

uninteresting, incomplete, potentially enormous... It may be tilting at windmills to try to get rid of this, but this list has such vague and sweeping criteria for inclusion that it could potentially grow to literally tens of thousands of entries, or more, and still be incomplete. And to what purpose? The result would be of mild interest, at best. I think this sort of thing is better served through categories. Brianyoumans 10:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC) Oh, and there are presently NO sources or references in the article. Not every town named "Washington" was named after George. --Brianyoumans 10:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Arbitary, useless, indiscriminate, (i.e. what's famous?) unsourced listcruft. MER-C 11:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I have just added Melbourne to the brief Australian list and then I realised that I could probably name several dozen Australian places named after people. Indeed with a bit of research I could probably name hundreds. My suburb in Melbourne, Spotswood, is named after a person. This list is unmaintainable and therefore useless. --Bduke 12:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The "uninteresting" field is called placename etymology. If there are problems breaking down the lists when it gets too long, I'd happy to help you with this. BTW Categories were deemed unsuitable to group, e.g. "places named after US Presidents". -- User:Docu
Conditional keep. Keep, but limit to capital cities and major centres, and not suburbs (such as Spotswood mentioned by the previous user). Chrisch 13:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Conditional keep per Chrisch. Also highly recommend making sure that each individual article actually mentions this stuff. --- RockMFR 17:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that as presently constructed the article includes not just cities, towns, and "administrative divisions" but also other named stuff: stadiums, train stations and even a section on "former airports". Brianyoumans 18:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep as a list of lists- eg. List of cities in South America named after people- which would require only a simple cut and paste. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete A cursory search on Google turns up the frightening future of this page: "in Busseto, Italy, every street is named after a composer..." " In the market quarter of Athens, every street is named after a classic ancient Greek playwright..." "the village of Cesiomaggiore is really into bicycle racing, every street is named after a famous Italian racer..." Bourne 23:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The current article is completely unreferenced, and this is a subject area where a certain amount of digging is required. I suspect the present list is full of plausible but unresearched guesses. For example, is the District of Columbia really named after Christopher Columbus, or after the iconic figure, Columbia? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I find Bourne's preview of what this list is destined to become particularly compelling regarding its lack of manageability. Compounded by the OR problems noted by Dpbsmith, I find it unlikely that this list can be retained, at least in its current form. Serpent's Choice 03:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Grossly arbitrary and incomplete article. Edison 06:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Some people are interested in seemingly useless knowledge, but nowhere else will you get such a survey. Wikikiwi 10:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Potentially endless, badly referenced list containing too many dubious items. Romania named after Romulus? Erm, no. Neither, most probably, was Rome. The list fails to distinguish between mythological etymologies made up later in an attempt to explain place names ("Europe" from "Europa") and bona fide toponyms from real historical characters (Washington). This gives the page a nice mediaeval feel, but if you want that kind of encylopaedia you're better off sticking with Isidore of Seville's Etymologiae. Not for Wikipedia. --Folantin 10:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I reworked the list. In addition to a short summary about countries (from List of country name etymologies), it's now limited to cities and towns named after people. -- User:Docu
Comment. This really does not work. For a start, you have missed out places between countries and towns such as Australian states. Secondly you have not defined what a town or city is. A complete list would be very much longer and it is still impossible to get complete. Everywhere there are hundreds of towns that are not on the list. Also every entry will need a reference so they will be as long as the list. It is monster that serves no usefull purpose. --Bduke 11:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, to be more precise, Docu split up the article in a couple of different ones, including one about country subdivisions: List of country subdivisions named after people. See also: List of railway stations named after people, List of islands named after people, List of lakes named after people, List of eponyms of stadiums, List of eponyms of airports, List of convention centers named after people, List of eponyms of stadiums in the United States. As this is a good faith effort for improvement by Docu, I suggest we do not simply judge them all as one, but decide for each of the articles on their own merits. As smaller articles, some might be more worthwhile than others. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. For now, see my comment above. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment I think the list still has the potential to grow unmanageably. It would help if, as suggested above, it was limited to capitals and major cities. It still has no references and apparently contains many inaccuracies. Why don't we discuss the utility of this list here, and leave the calved-off fragments for another AFD? --Brianyoumans 18:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds fair to me, I was just afraid that people would want to include all the newly created articles in this AfD, which just seemed not right to me, giving the diversity of subjects. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - theoretically acceptable, practically unmaintainable. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
comment - I'm not putting a debate in for either position here, because this might be salvagable, but as it stands, with *any* place being listable, it's potentially massive. For instance, my university campus alone has a dozen such sites (IE Lubar Hall, Merril Hall, Curtin Hall, and so on) at least, all named after people. Criterion for personal notability might help that though, so if may not be a fatal flaw. Wintermut3 23:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep The potential for the lists to become too long is the only problem that troubles me. But it should be a straightforward job to move the very long lists into pages like "List of places in Brazil named after people", and keep the length of the lists per country to < 10 or so. Tintin (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Wikipedia has a bunch of useless (and incomplete) lists, so why do you have to single this one out? I have contributed to this page and have made sure to check that the actual article of the placename mentions who it's named after. Besides, I have learned some cool tidbits (Russia does not name airports after people, while most of Mexico's major airports are named after military leaders or political figures). And how else will people find out about Lake Strom Thurmond, Bob Hope Airport or Hitlersee? Nutmegger 21:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Also, I think a lot of people wonder about this kind of stuff – it's not totally useless. Nutmegger 21:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia has a bunch of useless (and incomplete) lists, so why do you have to single this one out?" "...it's not totally useless"? Ringing endorsements indeed! :-) If you point me to the other useless and incomplete lists, I would be happy to AFD those as well. --Brianyoumans 22:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- "And how else will people find out about Lake Strom Thurmond..." Obviously, someone interested in knowing the origins of the place name "Lake Strom Thurmond" can find out by typing "Strom Thurmond" into the search box. As for people interested in origins of place names, I think anyone interested in such things would do far, far better to go to the library and check out a copy of George Stewart's Names on the Land than to look at a completely fortuitous and arbitrary list of, perhaps, 0.0001% of all the places named after people. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

P. S. George R. Stewart's Names on the Land was published in 1945 and is still in print, ISBN 093853002X. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You are assuming that this book, or any book on the same subject for that matter, is accessible to all wikipedia readers :-) Tintin (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

- A good reason to delete this list is to prevent people from arguing in the future that some unencyclopedic, unreferenced list ought to be maintained because it is not as bad as List of places named after people. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Dude, that book was published more than 60 years ago. I think a few places might have been named after then. Nutmegger 01:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Don't bite my finger, look where I'm pointing. If you're interested in place names, and you don't know the book, get it, you'll like it. My local public library has a copy, yours probably does too. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as indiscriminate collection of information. Even if limited to towns and villages, this would be both huge (if complete) and pointless. Sandstein 11:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete indiscriminate, open-ended list which would include a sizable fraction of all toponyms. Would never be complete, and would be difficult to reference. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Unsourced material cannot be added to articles, and there was not a single reference, so it cannot be merged. Majorly (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dreep

Non-notable game character. Contested prod. MER-C 11:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete and salt given history and as cruft per nom. Akihabara 13:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 16:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. Koweja 16:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete nn cruft, per nom. Rockpocket 23:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as there was no need to spin this out of the Torin's Passage article. There's no assertion of notability and the text seems to be clutching at straws. Just why does this character need more than a few sentences in the main article? QuagmireDog 01:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge what little is appropriate back into Torin's Passage. — brighterorange (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Torin's Passage as appropriate. --Alan Au 05:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as nonnotable, don't merge this unsourced content. Sandstein 11:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge back into old article. Joel Jimenez 04:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect. One or two sentences is enough, but right now there is nothing about him in the main article. Eluchil404 08:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete.. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comic TENMA

Another non-notable magazine. This not-really-an-article-at-all (see difference over the last seventeen months, never even describes what the magazine actually is) has only the assertion that an iconic figures of manga (unreferenced, see Satoshi Urushihara, seems a little POV) draws the cover. Not really all that great an assertion of notability, given he's done a lot of that. To cap it all off, no reliable (multiple) third-party sources to fufill Wikipedia's policy of Verifiability. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete - zero context whatsoever. So tagged. MER-C 13:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Deleted (A7). -- JLaTondre 15:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tremorworks LLC

A company with no assertion of notability at all, as well as failing to have any independant third-party sources, let alone the multiple required to fufill WP:V. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete Nothing much on google either. Hard to be notable when you've existed less than 1 year, but Wikipedia advertising might help. Akihabara 13:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per nom. So tagged. MER-C 13:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep by Moving to William Niven. Cbrown1023 18:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Niven Tablets

Fails verifiability WP:V; almost no Google hits [9]. The article claims they no longer exist. How do we know this, or the cited book, isn't a hoax? Akihabara 12:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Apparantly the book is real. However someone needs to verify this article by getting a copy and dredge up other stuff. MER-C 13:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't doubting the existence of the book. I was referring to its contents being a hoax. In other words, assume the book discusses the subject as claimed. What else do we have for verifiability? I don't see anything, so the article fails WP:V. Akihabara 17:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment A Google search without the "" returns plenty of relevant hits [10], some of which may be reliable enough. One Night In Hackney 05:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Looking through these doesn't convince me that the tablets should have an article, but it does persuade me that Niven would be an appropriate subject for an article- e.g. So, I could support the solution proposed by Dhartung and Bejnar below.--Kubigula (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete I think the real problem here is notability. It doesn't seem like this created much of a stir at the time or since. --Brianyoumans 18:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep but move to William Niven. He has a Handbook of Texas Biography entry[11] and there are books from major and scholarly publishers. The man is probably more interesting than this one incident in his life. --Dhartung | Talk 22:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete If it's a hoax, it's not a very popular one. Practically nothing about this on Google. The Jersey Devil... now that was a hoax! Bourne 23:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep then Merge The tablets would be notable if they still existed, but they were lost more than 50 years ago. The little we know about them is appropriately placed in a new William Niven article. --Bejnar 01:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as silly hoax. Complete bollucks!. Edison 06:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Move to article on Niven per Dhartung and Bejnar.--Kubigula (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Delete per above valid verifiability and notablity concerns.--Kubigula (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Or,
Move to William Niven. There is a reasonable amount of information available on him, and some information available on the Tablets. One Night In Hackney 10:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - but move to William Niven - the fact that there's a whole book on Niven suggests that he is objectively notable - per Dhartung. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Rolling Stone Immortals

Not notable [12]; we don't in general need articles on covers of magazines. Listcruft. Akihabara 13:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - probably copyvio too... MER-C 13:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable, again possible copyright vio. Hello32020 14:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Resolute 19:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, copyvio of Rolling Stone's intellectual property. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete- as potential copyright violation of Rolling Stone Magazine. Darth griz⁹⁸ 20:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electric universe (concept)

Two years ago, this article was nominated for deletion, and no consensus was reached. The community has given enough time for supporters of keeping the article to make their additions and referencing to keep the article, but it is now more clear than ever that this article should be deleted on grounds of original research, non-notability, and it being impossible to reach standards required of verifiability and reliability. As another editor stated: "EU seems to be notable primarily in the minds of the advocates, and scientifically it is less notable than the sum of its parts."[13] Any information contained in the article that is relevant to uncontroversial science (e.g. descriptions of plasma, z-pinches, or electric discharge) is already present at the relevant articles. Here are the reasons for deletion of the rest of the content:

The article is written mostly by supporters and advocates of the concept which is a definite conflict of interest
There are only two people who currently publish ideas of the "electric universe" and both of those people (Scott and Thornhill) publish exclusively on the internet or vanity presses. Despite being ostensibly "scientific" the concept has received no peer review. This makes their ideas original research.
The article includes very misleading original research amalgamations of various citations gleaned from mainstream sources in attempt to pass a veneer of respectability for the subject. This original research amalgamation includes using as "sources" papers written by Nobel laureate Hannes Alfven and descriptive links to NASA press releases. However, neither of these sources was/is aware let alone actually supported/supports the ideas of Thornhill and Scott.
Contributors who support and advocate EU have falsely claimed that this subject has been subject to peer review research. In fact, every IEEE transaction paper the contributor listed to show evidence of "notability" is not about "electric universe" but rather about plasma cosmology (a different idea). Just recently, this charge was reinvorgated with the false claim that will be subject to a future peer-reviewed publication. This assertion also is in reference to plasma cosmology. As such the "electric universe" has no single paper subject to peer review about its ideas.
For a fringe idea like this to be included in Wikipedia it has to have some recognition from the mainstream whether it be internet memes, the media, the scientific community, etc. In fact, there has been absolutely no verifiable nor reliable independent review of this idea since it is not notable. There is only one single piece of press that this idea ever received, and this piece of press is neither a notable nor a directly relevant example. The press was a single, non-notable article in Wired Magazine about an exchange on internet message boards between proponents of this idea and amateur space enthusiasts, obviously reporting of this sort violates Wikipedia's internet verifiability rules and reliability concerns. As such the subject fully and completely defies notability in the "media recognition" category as well.
As stated by another editor: "As it is, the article has an alarming tendency to grow into a mat of poorly-connected references into holoscience.com and thunderbolts.info, and normal editing is impossible."

--ScienceApologist 13:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Comments on the nomination redacted to the talkpage

Commentary moved to the Talk page. Please keep discussion there, this page is for the voting.

Delete as per nom. Chrisch 13:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom with reservations too minor to debate here. Metamagician3000 13:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MER-C 13:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nomination. Mike Peel 13:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I cannot say more than what the nominator has said. Dr. Submillimeter 14:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Impressively researched nomination. Plasma cosmology is wrong, but possibly notable, but this is wrong and not notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete I agree with the nominator on all points TSO1D 15:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, User:ScienceApologist's point 5 above is decisive. We can have articles about pseudoscientific theories (and even hoaxes), but they must be properly externally verifiable. A single brief article in Wired News is not enough to build a proper WP:NPOV encyclopaedia article. Demiurge 15:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Even if there is an IEEE Transactions article on this "concept" it seems hardly sufficient to establish notability. Meanwhile, as hoax or kook practice it doesn't rise anywhere Time Cube status. Sdedeo (tips) 15:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Keep and stubify~~Delete without prejudice Here's the problem. It appears that the subject has been noted by the press, as evidenced by links such as http://www.wired.com/news/space/0,2697,68258,00.html ... I think the article probably needs to be marked as potential pseudoscience, and described as unsupported by the general scientific community--but if a theory, even a hopelessly flawed and controversial one has received some press attention, then I think it needs to stay. Wired is a fairly notable source to have written about it. Therefore other people might come to Wikipedia trying to learn more about it, and they should probably learn that it is considered pseudoscience by most reliable sources. Tarinth 16:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

We've been talking about the criteria for notability for scientific theories over at a project page, and the question of how much press coverage is sufficient to make a theory notable. To me, a single mention -- in the context of "internet kook" news -- in Wired is insufficient really to make something notable, and the current criteria of "ongoing coverage" seems much more reasonable. In any case, do join the discussion over at that linked page on proposed criteria. Sdedeo (tips) 18:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It is extremely difficult to create such an article for a theory that isn't completely incoherent like Time Cube. In my experience, such an article can only be created when the supporters of the concept are either banned for some reason, or banned by the ArbCom from editing articles on the topic. Even then, a fundamental problem with writing that sort of article is that while the pseudoscientists write copious amounts, there generally are not enough people who care about the topic to write proper debunkings, and most reliable sources don't consider the subject pseudoscience in a verifiable manner, since they either don't care or have never heard of the topic. This seems to be the case here: there simply is not a large enough corpus of critical material to create an article that treats the subject from a popular culture point of view. I think this criteria might be a good measurement of whether an pseudotheory is notable from a popular culture perspective: if a pseudotheory is notable enough in the media, it must have reached enough people who care enough to write debunkings. --Philosophus ^T 19:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

External sites appear to contain thorough debunkings, such as http://www.geocities.com/kingvegeta80/pseudoscience.html and New Scientist seemed to think the issue was controversial enough to accept for publication some sort of "Open letter" on the subject. If you search on "Electric Universe" via google right now, the first link you get is the holoscience.com pseudoscience site; Wikipedia is third in line. I'm troubled by the idea that someone might hear about the "theory" and then search for it, and only find these other sites, with Wikipedia silent on the issue. If we allow articles on Wikipedia about malware (destructive software programs) with warnings about them, isn't it helpful to have articles about pseudoscience (with appropriate warnings) so that people can quickly learn that that these are merely the ideas of a few vocal people on the fringe? I'd be willing to switch over to Delete if I can be persuaded that there truly is no interest in the media for debunking and/or commenting on this subject, but I am concerned about removing it purely on the basis that it is an incorrect/implausible/pseudoscientific theory when it could simply be described as such. Tarinth 20:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion here would be for you to start rewriting the article now from a popular culture perspective. The new article could be significantly shorter, so it shouldn't be so hard to do. There have been AfDs in the past which have gone from 95% of users being for deletion to being kept after such a rewrite. If you can rewrite the article to assert notability in the media, include proper criticism, exclude long passages purporting to be science, and cover the history and popularity of the pseudotheory, I believe you will find that most users here will change their votes. --Philosophus ^T 20:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

For now I'm going to go with "delete without prejudice"; the subject isn't sufficiently interesting to me to work on a rewrite at this time, but I would not be against someone else creating an article that gave a critical treatment of it as an example of fringe-science in the future. It would also appear that an argument for notability based on media-attention to the subject is fairly tenuous. Tarinth 20:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. At best, this should be a sub-section in the Plasma cosmology article, until peer reviewed research is published which supports this as an actual theory of its own, or at least until it achieves outside notability. I would support a redirect to Plasma cosmology for the term, and a section could be devoted there to the concept. -- Kesh 16:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per excellent nom. Fails WP:OR. Tevildo 17:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep This is just another attempt of ScienceApologist to eradicate views that he personally disagrees with. I would agree with Kesh's suggestion of a merge with Plasma Cosmology, however ScienceApologist is also attempting to remove the Plasma_cosmology article by proposing to Merge it with one of its stubs, Ambiplasma. -Ionized 17:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Arthur Rubin above, and as original research by synthesis. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per nomination. HEL 17:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Original research apparently...not verifiable.--MONGO 18:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. There are no appropriate sources for a scientific article per the interpretation of the Pseudoscience ArbCom decision, and there hasn't been enough media coverage to be considered a popular culture article like Time Cube. Even the article admits that the concept is absent for peer-reviewed scientific literature, which precludes a scientific portrayal of the topic, again per the ArbCom decision. --Philosophus ^T 19:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Failures of WP:OR and WP:V. Resolute 20:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Plasma cosmology and make a sub-paragraph there. Same with Ambiplasma. However, ambiplasma passes the notablility test, whereas EU really doesn't at this time. ABlake 21:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Re Tarinth's point: this was my position in the debate two years ago, and I and some other editors did thoroughly shrink and rewrite the article to reflect the cultural interest aspect. However, as pointed out by Philosophus above, it is very difficult to maintain such an article in the face of a small but prolific community of advocates, and the article has once again veered away from the "cultural impact" orientation to become an advocacy page. zowie 22:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. There is no way to locate reliable information that would satisfy WP:V. In the absence of genuine science, it would difficult to maintain a Wikipedia article on this topic against the constant onslaught of WP:FRINGE enthusiasm. EdJohnston 22:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, I fully agree with editor Ionized; some of the science editors around (with an academic career to protect and a dogmatic view to hold in spite of all the evidences, like the fanatic bishop in the middle ages) seem to forget what an encyclopedia is and the Wikipedia:Five pillars, suppressing data (articles with valuable sourced data) from different views existent in society, when it should be "unacceptable for Wikipedia to to be dogmatic or one-sided, in stark contrast to for example textbooks". As a joke, I usually say that if Reincarnation is to be seen as a real concept, most of these people must have been in dark side of the church - the middle ages Inquisition - in their prior lives... yet there is now at hand a Galileo, whose suppression attempt went already for several long decades, in order to open these deeply crystallized minds. --Utad3 23:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The oppressed Galileos in whom you believe may yet change the world, but that is not for Wikipedia to accomodate. --ScienceApologist 23:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete With such a detailed and clearly well thought out and accurate nomination, there is little more one can say. WP:BOLLOCKS does spring to mind.--Anthony.bradbury 00:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom Vsmith 00:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete without prejudice. Possibly, some day, someone musters the energy to report on this marginally notable piece of fringe science, but this time based on verifiable and reliable sources. We should not leave this unverifiable piece of junk hanging around until then. --Lambiam ^Talk 00:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
KEEPEven if it is considered fring science, someone interested in investigating it more thoroughly may come here as a means of verifying its legitimacy. Calls to delete are merely the bitter efforts of jealous sectarians who are lame apologists for conventional thinking at the expense of any thoughtful examination of alternatives. This is not a question of how "out there" you think EU is, its a matter of suppression! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aclog7373 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC).
- That's rather the point. It is not currently legitimate, and therefore we should not have an article on it. If it does ever achieve legitimacy, then that's the time for a Wikipedia article. Tevildo 01:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Note: Aclog7373 (talk • contribs) has made only two edits at this time. --EMS | Talk 03:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per item 5 in the nomination. — BillC ^talk 01:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Doczilla 01:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. This is a compelling and well presented request. --EMS | Talk 03:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep or merge, but warn and truncate I think the Electric Universe concept and websites are real stinkers, but that doesn't mean it is best to have no WP article about them. Capital punishment is final has not ongoing educational value. Better to hold the troublemaker in stocks in a corner of the village square so everyone can get a good look at him/her and his/her type.

I suggest starting the article with the mainstream position: This theory is not regarded as having any scientific validity etc. etc. Then let the proponents have their say, briefly describing how their theory differs from others, and linking to their site. Its not reasonable to expect WP to give more space than that to a concept which is extremely non-conventional and lacking scientific notability. But that doesn't mean all mention of it should be expunged.

Keeping a brief article with a non-conventional warning at the top is helpful for anyone consulting WP to find out something reasonably reliable about the concept.

I think the concept of "Electric Universe" probably meets the proposed criteria 6 or 7 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SCIENCE: "It is or was well known due to extensive press coverage, or due to being found within a notable work of fiction." and/or "It is or was believed to be true by a significant part of the general population, even if rejected by scientific authorities." since there are far too many (20,000) Google hits for http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Electric+Universe%22+Plasma for the concept to be regarded as not accepted or discussed by a significant number of people. (Unless it could be shown that most of this was generated by the concept's proponents.) Maybe it is a work of fiction, presented as scientific fact, with the intention of selling books, or gaining speaking engagements in the New Age scene. (Though if the books Amazon sales rank of >1,000,000 and http://www.fonerbooks.com/surfing.htm are to be believed, they are only selling a handful a year at Amazon.)

Overall, I think people who want to keep Wikipedia's science pages pure and completely uncluttered by even brief mention of challenging perspectives, including annoying lunacy, are swimming against the tide. The Internet is full of *stuff*. Human beliefs are messy. The best way to cope with contrary voices is to let them say a few words and give a link to their website - or link to a website where they are saying all they like. Pretending the voices don't exist, or that they WP is lofty enough to refuse to mention them at all, seems silly to me.

Good science isn't going to be harmed by clearly labelled links to sites which are radically at odds with mainstream thinking. I think narrow thinking and being caught in blinding paradigms are far greater problems for science. The delete, ban and ignore approach can entrench faulty paradigms, while maybe some of these apparently loony ideas carry the seeds of a much better paradigm.Robin Whittle 03:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I know this topic is contentious, and that it has been the focal point of two ArbCom cases. I know that is going to make for an unpleasant task for the closing admin. But I simply cannot see any way that this article, and through it, this topic, meets inclusion standards. As a scientific theory, it does not approach the standards bar. The two sources overwhelmingly cited in its defense are thunderbolts.info and the journal Kronos. The website is not a reliable source as WP:RS understands it; indeed, a case could be argued that the guidelines for extremist sources (that they "should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used as sources about themselves and their activities, and even then should be used with caution") should apply to the dedicated websites of fringe science proponents. Likewise, Kronos is not an established, peer-reviwed, scientific journal as either Wikipedia or the physics community understands such ideas. Per the ArbCom ruling on Pseudoscience, neither such source is appropriate documentation for a science article. This topic could be written as a popular culture article, but currently the single reference to Wired is insufficient to meet the standard of multiple, independent, non-trivial references. On the other hand, the arguments to keep this article seem to fall back on a professional version of WP:ILIKEIT (sometimes drifting towards WP:IWROTEIT) or an appeal to Wikipedia's status as non-censored content. The first is no more a reason for inclusion for science (or topics which would like to be thought of as science) than it is for any other subject; the latter is a false dilemma because standards for inclusion are not censorship. At the end of it all, I can reach no other conclusion but to regard the single paragraph in Immanuel Velikovsky (here, final paragraph) as the due weight to be afforded this topic. Serpent's Choice 04:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
edit and keep.I do not agree with some of the comments above , though they are made by people with whom I usually do agree. I do not find the article in its existing form the least sympathetic to the theory; the lead paragraph in particular is written with a POV which I can best characterise as amused contempt. The article is overbalanced by the discussion about deep impact, which may have been an interesting potential test case, but arguably an inconclusive one, as the concept/theory is so inspecific as to be able to explain away almost anything. The discussions of other elements of physics amounts to an assertion that the conventional theories are right--it is necessary to at least cite a demonstration of this, but--as noted above--few qualified people have taken this seriously enough to explain the errors. Though not a physicist, I have enough knowledge of science to interpret the material presented as demonstrating the theory (or concept) to be utter nonsense, and I think anyone with a college physics course would judge the same. Personally, I am not in the least amused by pseudoscience, and have an definite prejudice against it, as I consider the public knowledge of genuine science tenuous enough without introducing additional confusion. But I think assertions that it is non-notable a little absurd after the "Wired" article. I think assertions of verifiability equally absurd: the question is nt to demonstrate that the theory is right, but to demonstrate what the theory is, and the sources do that in a very full manner. it can't be OR either, as the theory is based upon whim entirely, with no research of any sort being evident. We do not refute nonsense by hiding it--we refute nonsense by exposing it. Exposing it means first displaying, and then discussing. DGG 05:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I really think we need a higher bar than a single Wired article for notability. The question here is not whether the article is NPOV -- it may indeed be -- and shows the subject in the right light. The question is whether it is notable. Sdedeo (tips) 06:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as complete bollucks and hoax by persons with zero understanding of electricity. Edison 06:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete without prejudice. Per nom, and because the article as it stands is something of a travesty. Cardamon 12:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It is possible to imagine a decent or even a quite good article on this topic. However, the leap of imagination required is much like that needed to visualize a magnetic monopole, or even a complex zero of the Riemann zeta function whose real part is not one-half. Such an article might not violate fundamental laws of nature and logic, but I do not expect to encounter it. Anville 19:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. I agree with most of the thoughts in the nomination and while pseudoscience can be reported as such for encyclopedic purposes, this article does nothing of the sort and instead fails WP:V in the process. ju66l3r 23:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Clearly in conflict with well established physical concepts and experimental data. Only a candidate for inclusion as a well-known, but not accepted "theory." But as documented well in nom, it is not notable enough. Awolf002 01:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep in entirety - I found this article to be interesting and informative, and it does explain these peoples theories accurately. The purpose of this article is to explain the theory, and their ideas to provide a record of them. We really must not allow our personal views about the theory and whether or not we think it is correct to lead us to censor this information. I see many people here who clearly have a disagreement with the theory and want to kill this article because it does not comply with their own personal opinions. It seems, we have little room here for differing viewpoints, and if something doesnt comply exactly with what some people want, they want to delete it, censor it. I say, keep the article here, and let the reader decide. Millueradfa 03:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how this argument addresses the concerns of this topic violating WP:OR and WP:N. --EMS | Talk 05:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. WP is not for something you make up in school one day would apply to your argument (i.e., I can't theorize about a Quazaloo bird that has the legs of a man and plays soccer and then quote my own research on the bird to generate an article here to record my theory). While this article is a bit more substantial than my given example, it still does not reach much further to satisfy WP:OR or WP:N or WP:V. There are many scientifically unverified hypotheses and proposals in Wikipedia, but in each case, they are able to satisfy the tenets of WP...and if they can't, they'll end up here eventually. ju66l3r 16:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep per media recognition in the Wired News article "They Sing the Comet Electric". The material at thunderbolts.info, though obviously not a reliable source for verifying the concept's claims, does verify that its proponents make those claims, and that's what our article can present. Tim Smith 03:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pilot (The Nanny)

This article should be deleted as it is an article of a single episode of a TV series - therefore (in my opinion) is notable enough to have an article on its own. The information contained within this article is quite similar to that of the actual The Nanny (TV series) article, with a few exceptions. It is my opinion that this article should be deleted, or have its contents summarised, and added to The Nanny (TV series) - creating a redirect. Chrisch 13:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Even though many other shows have articles about individual episodes I would agree that there is no need for this article as it s simalar to the main TV show article. Tarret 14:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
DO NOT delete There is no reason why this article should be deleted. As Tarret said, many other TV shows have individual episode articles and I plan to create more articles for The Nanny episodes. If need be, this article can be expanded on. Kogsquinge 01:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment/question to administrators: Just wondering, what is the official Wikipedia policy on articles written about individual episodes of (long running) television series'? It just seems that contents of such articles could be summarised in about a sentence or so on the proper article about the entire TV series, rather than having potentially hundreds of articles relating to each show on television... I'm just asking this because the article's creator is making more articles of this type (such as Smoke Gets in Your Lies, My Fair Nanny, and The Nuchslep, so I think we need an administrator's opinion on what should happen to articles of this nature.

A guideline has been created about the TV series "Lost", and it is quoted below:

"In lieu of Episodes of Lost (season X), Lost season X may be created, consisting of a summary of the main themes and developments of the season, for the reader who wants a broad overview before diving into the individual articles. These season wraparound articles should be relatively brief, link to the individual episode articles where appropriate, and should not attempt to summarize individual episodes but rather emphasize broad themes, plot arcs and character developments." (copied from here)

Should this be applied to The Nanny as well? Chrisch 12:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Individual episodes of notable series deserve coverage here, as long as they are handled in encyclopedic fashion. There is, in fact, an entire Wikiproject dedicated to such: Wikipedia:WikiProject Television episodes. A lot of the discussion behind the formation of the consensus can be found here and here. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per precedent toward keeping TV episodes, especially from notable series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - TV episodes are encyclopaedic and of interest to a very wide spectrum of our readers, i can't see ANY reason at all to delete this. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Standard TV episode page. Nothing wrong with that. - Peregrine Fisher 19:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was close it. It appears at least some of these have been nominated separately. — CharlotteWebb 03:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional characters by occupation

The articles listed below do not link to this discussion. --- RockMFR 17:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

List of alternate history United States Presidents
List of fictional butlers
List of fictional clergy and religious figures
List of coaches in fiction
List of fictional detective teams
List of fictional doctors
List of fictional Elvis impersonators
List of fictional hackers
List of hookers with hearts of gold
List of fictional journalists
List of horror film killers
List of fictional military people
List of fictional British monarchs
List of police and detective characters portrayed in comedy
List of fictional police detectives
List of fictional politicians
List of fictional Australian politicians
List of fictional postal employees
List of fictional British Prime Ministers
List of fictional psychiatrists
List of mad scientists
List of heroic fictional scientists and engineers
List of fictional serial killers
List of sidekicks
List of supervillainesses
List of fictional United States presidential candidates
List of fictional United States Presidents
List of fictional vampires
List of fictional Vice Presidents of the United States
List of fictional witches
List of fictional xenoarchaeologists

WITHDRAWN because most of the articles have now been listed separately here. Otto4711 23:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC) A mass nomination of all the articles currently housed under Category:Lists of fictional characters by occupation. In every case I think categories are the correct way to catalog this information (and in most every case it appears there is already a category for members of the fictional profession) and in a number of cases the information shouldn't be here to begin with on the basis of subjectivity/POV problems. All the concerns I expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional government agents apply here. Otto4711 13:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Do not replace lists with categories, or vice versa. And besides, "vampire" and "witch" are not occupations. If you have issues with the notability, verifiability, or POV of a particular list, then nominate it individually. —Psychonaut 14:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There are already categories for almost every one of these occupations. It's not a question of replacing one with the other. It's that a category is the better organizational scheme. As for the inclusion of the witch and vampire lists, you'll have to take that up with the person or persons who included them in the characters by occupation category. Otto4711 14:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep You think Categories are a better way to organize this information. I prefer lists. I see no reason why Wikipedia can't have both. In any case, I do not like mass proposals like this one, they make it hard to deal with a subject effectively. Especially when the first discussion in the series isn't even closed. Poor form, I would say. Mister.Manticore 14:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason not to have both is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and IMHO these lists are exactly that. You may disagree, but given your antipathy toward mass nominations I'd be willing to bet that you didn't review the actual lists themselves before weighing in. And as for not waiting for "the first discussion" to close being "bad form," I said clearly in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional heroes that I thought all the lists in the category needed to be examined. Otto4711 15:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

characters by type is a common way to organize information, and honestly, I can't see anything in WP:NOT#IINFO that fits anyway. And in some of these cases, I'd say a list would be a better idea since not all of the names deserve an article. The content is another issue, and one that should be referred to with cleanup. And indeed, I won't say I've reviewed all of those items. You nominated over a dozens articles. If you want people to judge those lists on their own merits, then nominate them individually. I decline to participate in this discussion in any way except the nomination, which objects to the concept of it. I don't. If you want me to review them each, nominate them again later, on whatever other concept you believe is an issue. Just remember, AfD is not cleanup. Mister.Manticore 23:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Keep because this collection of lists don't have enough in common for us to draw a general conclusion about. Some of the lists might be good, others bad. Tarinth 16:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Neutral I can see an advantage for a list over a category when a character is only covered by the work of fiction's article or "List of characters in XXX" lists instead of having their own article. However, I also think that all of these lists tread into the indiscriminate territory of WP:NOT. --TheFarix (Talk) 16:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Neutral, with a suggestion that this AfD be closed. This is far too heterogenous a collection for a sensible mass nomination. At a minimum, it should be split up into (say) "Fictional politicians", "Stock characters", and "Fantasy characters". Tevildo 17:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Seems to meet everything at WP:LIST#Purpose_of_lists. --- RockMFR 17:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment I noticed that all of the AFD tags in the article are redlinks. That needs to be fixed or people reading the lists may have difficulty finding this AFD. I doubt everyone would read through the entire days list just to find it. --65.95.18.34 22:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, lists are not categories. They serve different purposes. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Close this articles are far too diverse to allow for an effective batch nomination. I can imagine I would !vote to keep most of these, but favor deletion of a few.-- danntm ^T _C 23:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, as per Zoe. Rebecca 01:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Many of these individuals will not be notable enough for a full article, but worth the mention. that's the point of a list. DGG 07:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with DGG and Tarinth. Wikikiwi 10:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep All. Lists are never made redundant by categories. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AndyJones (talk • contribs) 13:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC).
Speedy Keep. Amazing how often categories are confused with lists. -- User:Docu

Everyone who's making comments along the lines of "categories aren't lists" and "amazing how often categories and lists are confused" is missing the point of the nomination. Otto4711 02:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the point of the nomination is "I think categories are the correct way to catalog this information" since that's what the nomination says. And it is wrong. AndyJones 09:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well there's that, plus there's, you know, the rest of the nomination. Otto4711 23:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep all this is a bit of a mixed bag, and admittedly some are borderline, but I could see any and all of them having substantial research value. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Close the nominator has withdrawn and is now listing most of them seperately. No reason to keep this one open. --70.48.109.24 03:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, oh the irony of using indiscriminate AfD listings to try to eliminate list articles for being indiscriminate lists! To be honest, I don't find the nominator's listing of each list article on an individual AfD page any more illuminating... they've still pasted the same dubious "reason" for deletion in each one without considering the merits of each article, so we might as well discuss it here instead of pasting identical keep reasons as seems to be happening in the discussions. --Canley 15:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment While I have some issues with this whole situation, it is important to note that the original nominator did not perform the individual nominations himself. I do think things are too convoluted for good decisions to be made, but I don't blame Otto4711 for it. Mister.Manticore 18:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, I split them up. And while I don't intend to justify what I did — but only because I feel rather miserably about making a mess of everything — let me explain. I came across one of the articles in the list and noticed that it had an AFD tag on it, but a redlink to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/<ArticleName> sub-page. (In retrospect, they had not been linked here with {{subst:afd1}}.) I looked in the history to see when it was tagged; it had been awhile. Then I went to the nominator's contribution history to see if there might be other odd things happening, where I noticed that there were many lists that had red-linked afd tags. (Again in retrospect, it was every list except List of fictional actors.) Unfortunately, I didn't look at them all, and I did not do enough investigation. Thus I did not come to this sub-page and see that they were all meant to point here. At any rate, before I found that out, I had already created subpages for (I think) every page that had been tagged. So it was I who created an indiscriminate number of AFD nominations, thinking that I was creating the subpages and thus completing them, when in reality they were already completed at this subpage — Iamunknown 17:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Client/SOA

Non-notable, original research, created and maintained almost entirely by one author with the recently stated aim, "to provide a focal point for discussion and definition of this term". Both Client-server and SOA are legitimate existing terms, but this combination of them purports to be a new and specific thing, about which this article is the main authority, and about which it is extremely prescriptive (see all the bold and uncited statements as to what this 'technology' must be in the article). See WP:NFT for example, and other discussion on the article's Talk page. Nigelj 14:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Initially it appeared to me that the forward-slash in the name had messed up this nomination. If so, thanks to whoever rescued it. --Nigelj 14:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC) (modified Nigelj 20:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC))

Delete per nom KnightLago 17:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Seems completely theoretical and prescriptive. And the article was originally created by the person who defined the term. If it's not sourced, this buzzword shit needs to go. --- RockMFR 17:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] YHA Wastwater

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YHA Saltburn, this article has no assertion of notability. —Psychonaut 14:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. No notability to be found from the 54 unique Google hits either. Prolog 09:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ Weak Keep It is a youth hostel and as such, as much a commercial venture as any Travelodge and we can't have an article each for them, however I would support renaming as an article about the building itself, Wasdale Hall, which, while relatively young for an UK building (built in 1829) is achitecturally distinctive with a striking combination of Neo-Gothic and Neo-Tudor styles...IF someone can show notability for either the history of the building or it's architectural attributes, or, ideally, both. --Zeraeph 16:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Changing my vote because I think I just found a little notability [14]. Whether it is notable ENOUGH is really for the fans of YHA Wastwater (which, being "Wasdale Hall" is presumeably the "Wasdale Youth Hostel" referred to, in the case of the missing French Girl?) to research, not only on Google, but also in the local library and the archives of local papers. Be aware, that without more evidence and details of notability I could change my vote back just as quickly. --Zeraeph 17:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. It's a Youth Hostel. The fact that a victim stayed there the night before she died doesn't convey notabilty onto the hostel. AndyJones 21:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Any remark of interest can be included on Wast Water page. Youth Hostels in remote areas usually warrant a mention, which is a practice I'm comfortable with, as with remote inns or (non-notable) places of worship--ARAJ 11:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong keepThis article is entirely valid. 1) The wikipedian above has stated that it should not be included as it is as much a commercial venture as a Travelodge.

This is not true, it is a registered charity. 2)The hostel (and building in its own right) are both of considerable significance and as such demand a page entry of their own. 158.180.64.10 16:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Fine, so put some of the information on the significance of the hostel and building into the article before this closes as "delete". Otherwise I will soon have to change my own vote back to "delete", because ARAJ is making a lot of sense to me. --Zeraeph 16:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was KEEP. (due to lack of consensus to delete - redirecting and/or merging are options still open to editors as normal)-Doc^g 01:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saint Mary's Catholic School

Non-notable primary school. Tarret 14:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No assertion of notability, primary school. --- RockMFR 17:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to St. Mary's School. Resolute 20:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, or merge/redirect to Darley Abbey. Doesn't meet WP:SCHOOLS3, lacks sources, no assertion of notability, etc. Shimeru 00:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Prolog 09:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep School is nearly 200 years old. I spent a few minutes adding a little bit more to the article, but it seems that there should be more data available to demonstrate notability above and beyond age. Alansohn 05:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Two hundred years isn't nearly as long in a European context as it is in a North American context. Guettarda 05:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - does not assert notability. Guettarda 05:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per WP:SCHOOLS, institution is approx 200 years old. bbx 07:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no notability asserted or apparent. A very many European schools are 200 years old or more, as pointed out above. Sandstein 11:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per WP:SCHOOLS yeah sure 200 years in europe is no big deal... but anything around that long has some historical value. I'd have no problem with an article on a statue that has been around 200 years... or a stable around 200 years... hell a PHONE BOOTH around for more than 60 years is of historic value as far as i'm concerned. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 15:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soulcraft

Apparently non-notable radio show. I think it's on a campus station. – ipso 14:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:CORP (specifically: /products and services) --Anthony cfc 14:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOT#SOAP Esurnir 01:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NFT. Ugh. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 04:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete Eluchil404 08:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Southern Maine Guerilla Drive-in

Nonnotable local movie event; contested speedy. NawlinWiki 14:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I posted my defense on the discussion page. Essentially, I don't believe that it is non-notable. It's a significant local event that's the first of its kind in its area, and it is known about nation-wide for being so. Alex Peppe 22:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete With respect to the creator, this is a question of articles needed for an encyclopedia. WP:NOT for things we each have passion about, or we "know" are important locally. There are various accepted objective criteria for events, business and organisations, etc. None of these seem to fit. But at the core, notability is about multiple non trivial independent sources. Please help with data. I can only find advertising and related material. What is the evidence this is known nation-wide? If there were even a few full page articles (not ads or lists) in a few regional newspapers or similar on this event or organisation, please provide the references.Obina 23:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete There are no full page articles regarding the Southern Maine Guerilla Drive-in that I am aware of, and I therefore cannot defend my statement. I thus second the deletion request, and will not retouch the topic until I have data to support its significance. My apologies for any inconvenience. Alex Peppe 00:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete since author requests deletion. —ShadowHalo 00:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete/Close under G7 per author request. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 04:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 18:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chin mu kwan

This article consists of an unsourced hagiography of the Grandmaster, a section of linkspam, and "to be continued." ➥the Epopt 14:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Comment~~Keep and stubify The article currently has no useful sources, and the links to various karate schools should be removed, but I'm not convinced yet that the article itself should be removed. The subject of the article might be fairly notable if he's really responsible for directly or indirectly spawning a significant school of martial arts. Perhaps an editor with some expertise on martial arts could comment on this? (I'm also concerned that this is another case of either recentism, since the subject here would have pre-dated the Internet; or ethnocentrism, since it is about an Asian individual and we may not have readily-available English-language sources for him). Tarinth 16:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to taekwondo. Kang appears to be a reasonably notable individual. He was one of the martial arts masters who met in 1955 to unify the styles now known as Taekwondo. Chin Mu Kwan appears to be an organization he founded to promote the art and establish schools. [15]. I'm not certain whether the organization is itself notable beyond Kang's association with it. I could also support a decision to stubify and move (and redirect) to H.Y. Kang, but only if more sources can be found to support the bio. Shimeru 00:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep because he is notable; but delete the existing text as a possible copyright violation from

http://hometown.aol.com/hplichta/page3.html It needs rewriting anyway. --Bejnar 01:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm heading toward stubify on this one. Seems like a notable person who needs a better article. Tarinth 01:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: Chin Mu Kwan is not the person, although the article deals mostly with the person. Shimeru 21:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say keep this. The history of Taekwon-do is shrouded in all kinds of mystery and needs clarification on a larger scale. This seems to do that. I admit that it needs to be rewritten but more importantly it needs to be finished. Chin Mu Kwan seems to be as important as any of the other taekwon-do organizations that are linked here. --Rasputin13 05:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC) There is great debate to the history of TKD. I have met some CTF members and they seem to be fairly true to the tenets but then it is just a sample. I say leave it under CTF as the organization and founder are one and the same to a certain extent. Adding to all the multiple histories of TKD can only help.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cbrown1023 19:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neo-fascism and religion

Strange article, mixing completly disparate concepts with no NPOV common denominator. 'Fascism', is in modern political context almost exclusively used as a pejorative, and the common denominator of all tendencies mentioned in the article is that they have opponents that have branded them as such. --Soman 16:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- Pastordavid 18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep I'm not expert on the subject matter, but it seems like a subject that's inherently notable and worthy of inclusion. It has 18 sources cited, which is way more than most articles. Maybe it can be improved over time? Tarinth 16:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - When people call something fascist they always mean Nazi. Baka man 17:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It doesn't matter what people mean by the term. It matters whether or not the term is used. That, and not whether or not we agree, should be our compass here. I do not take issue with a rewrite, but absolutely do not delete it.Greyscale 04:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Tarinth. --- RockMFR 17:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Nominator does not cite any good reasons for deletion. (If it's a NPOV-related complaint, tag the article as such.) —EdGl 18:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Potential for POV forking. I agree that, as it stands, it is a list of political grandstandings made by a bunch of partisan hacks. Rumpelstiltskin223 19:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete As the quotation from Orwell in the article says: "...the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless". Not entirely true, but any encyclopaedia article on "neo-fascism" has got to define its terms more thoroughly than this one does. The only section that deals with actual neo-fascist groups and religion is the section on paganism - and that has no references. Parties that might reasonably be described as "neo-fascist", such as Alessandra Mussolini's outfit in Italy or Jean-Marie Le Pen's Front National are conspicuous by their absence. Instead, we get a lot of stuff about extremely conservative religious groups with possible theocratic tendencies being called "fascists" by their opponents. Did Mussolini or Hitler aim at theocracy? No. So it's just "fascism" being used as a generalised insult for anything perceived as politically undesirable. Not encyclopaedic enough in its present state. --Folantin 10:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Re "conspicuous by their absence": Of course they're not mentioned in this particular article -- why would they be? They have nothing to do with the subject of the article. Ms Mussolini is mentioned in Neo-fascism, as one would expect. Cgingold 15:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply Maybe because they are among the most notable "neo-fascist" organisations currently around and the first term in this article's title is "neo-fascism". As far as I can see, this article doesn't even try to define that term. It mostly merely reports vague allegations that certain religious groups have some things in common with old-style fascism. --Folantin 16:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Of course there might be material in the text that might be relevant in other articles. Church-state relations in Italy, Germany and Spain during Fascism would certainly deserve independent articles. Particularily the relations between German Nazis and religion is very interesting and complex. However, there is no common denominator of all movements inspired by Fascism regarding religion. In some cases, Fascists (or people widely accused of being Fascists) have had a strong religious profile, whilst in other cases promoted secularism. There is no common denominator on which to build this article, the is no universal phenomenon to describe. --Soman 11:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep I agree the article needs work. There is also a general wikipedia caution against articles about "and" topics. But the article draws together important material that should be here. BobFromBrockley 15:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - I've had a day to reflect on this (rather than just jumping in and reflexively arguing against deletion). Judging from the comments I've read here, there seems to be a serious misunderstanding of what the article is actually about. People seem to have misconstrued the title. (Possibly it could be modified slightly, if that's the case.) If the title were, say, "Neo-fascist religious movements", then I could easily understand the objections -- in fact, I would almost certainly agree with them. But the actual title -- "Neo-fascism and religion" -- indicates that the purpose of the article is to discuss whatever connections there may be between those entities. It doesn't presume that all of the religions that are discussed in the article do, in fact, have neo-fascist elements. The whole point, as I see it, is to help readers sort out which, if any, of them really do have such elements.

My impression is that some of the people who are supporting deletion really just want the subject to go away, because they find it offensive. But whether anybody likes it or not, it's a fact that countless such assertions are made about one or another religion, sect, etc. To simply delete this article -- rather than improving it -- would be to pretend otherwise, and would be a real disservice to Wikipedia readers, depriving them of an opportunity to learn about such issues from a neutral source. This article has a number of serious editors who in my judgement are committed to the need for an evenhanded and impartial article. Whatever flaws there may be should be eliminated through the usual WP editorial process. Deletion is far too extreme a "remedy" -- in fact, it would just be a copout, taking the easy way out, instead of doing the work to improve the article. Cgingold 15:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply "My impression is that some of the people who are supporting deletion really just want the subject to go away, because they find it offensive". Would you please avoid using ad hominem speculation like this and stick to the arguments people have made here. My objection is much the same as Soman's: this article is impossibly vague and disparate and has too much material where "neo-fascist" is used as a loose synonym for "totalitarian", "authoritarian" or even "theocratic". The bit that could be saved (the section which notes connections between genuine neo-fascists and neo-paganism) is unsourced. Get some references and save that and use it as a core to rebuild the article. --Folantin 17:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - unacceptably POV. It's high time Wikipedia got rid of all of these concept articles, as most of them are little more than highly POV/OR/OR synthesis essays, like this one. OR synthesis is the big problem. Even if you base your essay upon reliable sources, it's still an essay and OR applies. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - This page has a history. Its creation allowed for a serious discussion of the issue (see the cites) in a context that defused heated and lengthy edit wars over several pages that looked only at one religion, especially Islam. (See the battle over Islamofascism for example). There are serious scholars who look at this question. See, for example, the Journal of Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, especially Vol. 5, No. 3, (Winter), special issue on Fascism as a Totalitarian Movement: [16]. See especially Roger Griffin's Introduction: "God's counterfeiters? investigating the triad of fascism, totalitarianism and (political) religion." Sure this page can be improved, but it does not confuse "totalitarian", "authoritarian" or even "theocratic" concepts, it attempts to tease out how they relate or do not relate using a framework developed in a peer review scholarly journal.--Cberlet 14:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. OR of low quality, war zone. Pavel Vozenilek 23:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete a lot of it is OR and pure POV, on topics such as these, sources are also inherently biased and tend to not present facts as they should be presented. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.5.210.218 (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
Delete - the information here can easily be dispersed as mere footnotes on the pages dealing with each religion. 'religion and politics,' yes, seems a topic of conversation, but to me, this article seems irrelevant as 'religion and emoticons.' The undertow 08:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Lots of delete voters are saying this because it contains OR and POV material. However, surely the response to this would be to edit out the OR and POV material, rather than delete the page. The delete voters need to establish that there is no case for such an article, not that the article as it stands is not up to standard. BobFromBrockley 17:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. The bibliography alone indicates this is a topic of scholarly inquiry; synthesizing the research in this field as pertaining to the individual religions is an encyclopedic endeavour. Sandstein 11:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep - this article appears to have been started as a NPOV way of addressing this subject in a well sourced and scholarly way, and to replace the previous articles (Christofascism, Christian Fascism, Islamofascism etc) that had serious POV issues. Islamofascism has remained a separate article but the others now redirect to this one. A good case could be made either way but I'm not sure if the alternative to keeping this would be worse - the proliferation once again of articles with far worse POV issues than this one. Probably worth keeping provided it can be kept well sourced, neutral, and free of unsourced personal essays Dragomiloff 22:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep This article could be useful.--C J King 22:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Further comments - I think it's worth noting that, even while this Afd discussion has been taking place, three editors (Rumpelstiltskin223, Bobfrombrockley, and Dragomiloff) have engaged in serious editing and the addition of numerous references. The section re Hinduism is already much improved over where it was previously -- which is notable, because this Afd nomination seems to have been a direct outgrowth of the dispute that was going on with regard to that particular section. This ongoing progress bears out one of the central points I made above:

"This article has a number of serious editors who in my judgement are committed to the need for an evenhanded and impartial article. Whatever flaws there may be should be eliminated through the usual WP editorial process. Deletion is far too extreme a "remedy" -- in fact, it would just be a copout, taking the easy way out, instead of doing the work to improve the article."

Returning to another point I raised above, regarding the title of the article: I believe that the current title inadvertently raises certain expectations, on the part of some readers, in terms of the primary focus of the article, which is not so much on Neo-fascism itself, as it is on religions -- more correctly, religious movements -- which may have fascistic elements.

While it's certainly true that changing the title wouldn't eliminate all of the hard work that will still be needed to improve the article, I do think that we should give serious consideration to modifying the title to better reflect the subject/issues that the article is intended to address. Perhaps something along the lines of Fascistic currents in modern religious movements (or more completely, Claims of Fascistic currents in modern religious movements). No doubt that can be improved upon, but I think it does more accurately denote the intended focus of the article.

Cgingold 12:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

comment - while i find each subject fascinating, and agree that much hard work has been put into this article, i simply find the link between the 2 to be arbitrary.The undertow 12:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Hardly an arbitrary link if there are multiple peer review scholarly journals and chapters in academic books (and even entire books) on the subject.--Cberlet 17:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

re:commentary - provide links, as i am willing to learn. The undertow 11:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete as a non-notable album from a non-notable group, WP:Music refers. (aeropagitica) 22:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shalsheles Junior

I have listened to this album. It's got some nice music, but so do 10,000 other albums that have been booted off Wikipedia. It fails WP:MUSIC. Note that the antecedent group, Shalsheles, does not have an article. Note also that, in more than a full year, only a single user has worked on this article. It might just be an advertisement. YechielMan 16:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete No assertion that the group or album is notable. —ShadowHalo 00:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment-shouldn't this be put on Jan 1 2007 afd noms, as it is now ample time to be the new year everywhere in the world? Chris 02:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Tevildo 04:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Palestine (artist)

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V -Nv8200p talk 16:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete as {{db-band}}. The article's creator has already removed this tag twice[17][18], no assertion of notability whatsoever. -- IslaySolomon | talk 19:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. You know, unless the article can be cut down. Bourne 00:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. —ShadowHalo 05:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gertrude Peabody Residence Hall

Non notable university residence, first para is from 2nd para of Temple_University#Residential_Halls, history is copy vio from here, remaining portions seem to be original research Delete KnightLago 16:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 17:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Campuscruft. Nobody outside of Temple U cares about the dorms there. - IceCreamAntisocial 01:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas (4th item). AndyJones 14:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Do not Delete This seperate website has signifcance. It is over 50 years old and many non-Temple student alike ask of its history because it was built on land of the internationally known founders original home. I can understand the need for not having specific dormitory pages for others but this page was orignally created to recognize the signficance of this building as an orginal. While not on the orignal historic register yet as a building, it is also part of the Liacouras block of homes that were part of Berks Street that have been placed on the historic register (to my knowledge). Adjustments can be made, just inform what to do. Some winki's are learning so please enlighten. One of the most frustrating things about Winkpedia is when pages our deleted in entirely after much work. Also, citation was made -- sources used and put as links at the bottom. This can be improved if necessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.247.83.61 (talk • contribs).

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jambog

non-notable neologism OriginalJunglist 17:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, clear case of WP:NFT made up on forums one day. Demiurge 17:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Pure crap. --- RockMFR 17:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Possibly worth a redirect to Jumbuck or Sjambok as likely misspelling? Tevildo 18:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Justin Samuel

Non-notable biography, claims to be world renowned photographer but has no significant google hits. Does not cite any sources to back up any claims of notability. At best 6th place winner in a state photography competition Eqdoktor 17:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

delete Non notable photograher. But wait, his favorite colors are red, grey and green. Nope delete after all it was black,silver, and blue, delete after all, sorry.Obina 20:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete He's a world famous fashion photographer... who graduated from high school last May? No wonder I couldn't find any info on this kid - he's a world famous fashion photographer... who "currently attends the University of Texas, where he majors in Biology." Bourne 00:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:BIO and WP:V. Likely conflict of interest. Prolog 09:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, Pure self-promotion, although he is not completely without GHits -- here's his Xanga site where you can view the infamous 'Ashley Cotner carrying numerous Louis Vuitton bags' photos. Act fast and you can too can get a photo shoot appointment for "just $15 baby!!!" TheMindsEye 22:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, oh dear no. -- Hoary 23:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global Research Program

Not notable - just a class at a high school. Even if it's a notable school that's nothing special. RossPatterson 18:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

deleteNo references. I can find no non trivial mention of this program. Obina 20:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, one high school program. Not notable unless there are multiple indepent reliable sources to how important it is. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Not independently verifiable, unless somebody can speak up now or in the future. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 04:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete as a non-notable teacher, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 19:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Melvin Maskin

Not notable - just a teacher at a high school. Even if the school is notable, the teacher isn't automatically. RossPatterson 18:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep until the status of Global Research Program is resolved, since if that program is considered notable then this person is probably notable as well (since that's the article's primary assertion of notability).

Tarinth 18:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

delete Seems like a very nice high school teacher. But not a notable one based on the objective evidence. The program, like the man, has no verifiable references for notability posted, nor that I can find. (the other discussion is here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Research Program).Obina 20:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, even if the other article is kept (which is doubtful), the creator of the program doesn't rate. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Zoe. I wouldn't comment were it not for Tarinth's keep recommendation. If Global Research Program were notable (note subjunctive) and the only notability that Melvin Maskin had was through that program, then Maskin should only be discussed in that article, and Maskin does not need, nor is it appropriate for, a separate article about him. --Bejnar 00:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Aw, man. Don't make me come out against the teacher. I'm afraid I have to agree with the nominator about notability. Aw, man. Bourne 00:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Central Ohio Film Critics Association

Don't know if this is notable or not, though the article certainly doesn't provide context telling me who is in the association, why they are so important etc. Equally, I've no reason to suspect they're not notable and a few people have noted that they're not speedyable.

So consider this a good old fashioned nomination for discussion --Robdurbar 18:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete If they are notable, the article has to say how and why. And it doesn't. No assertion of notability = non-notability.--Anthony.bradbury 19:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete; should have been a CSD:A7 for lack of assertion of notability. Looking through the history I see some contention over that, so here we are. --MCB 06:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Has a number of published critics [19], and a Google search notes that a number of films, such as Brokeback Mountain and Fahrenheit 9/11 have noted the award in their own lists. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete as a non-notable album. (aeropagitica) 19:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forward (album)

Was on prod, now taking to AFD. Non-notable album released by an obscure independent label. I've merged the information to American Idol (Season 5) and Ayla Brown. I have nothing against Brown, and I'm sure it's a great CD, it's just that I don't think it's well-known or notable enough to publish an encyclopedic entry on it. I wouldn't want to encourage all indie acts to have all of their albums on the Wikipedia, because most of them don't. What makes this album more special than other indie albums? Pink moon 1287^{(email|talk|user)} 18:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete The only secondary source cited is a web forum. Doesn't assert notability. -- Selmo ^(talk) 22:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Ayla Brown or wherever the information is now housed. GassyGuy 06:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete as a non-notable Gloucestershire company, WP:CORP refers. (aeropagitica) 19:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ollie's Discos and Entertainment

A non-notable disco company. Google returns 15 results. No mention of size of the company, value, employees, etc. Salad Days 18:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable. Might have been considered for {{db-spam}}--Anthony.bradbury 19:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Transwikied to Wiktionary. (aeropagitica) 18:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Negatory

Contested prod, slang for "no". Delete or redirect to No. —EdGl 18:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Dicdef. Tevildo 18:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete The word is certainly in usage, but wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang.--Anthony.bradbury 19:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Funny story. Neologism of an article.Obina 19:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary if it's not already there. It's not really a neologism, as it's been around for at least since CB was popular in the 1970s. --Dennisthe2 20:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Transwiki on the same conditions above, otherwise Delete --Wildnox (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to no. They're one in the same, so why not? Scepia 21:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Transwiki given that the supplied story is valid and appropriate for the Wiktionary entry. Redirecting to no seems problematic as that goes to NO and negative is a disambiguation page too. – ipso 04:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as unsourced and per WP:WINAD, transwiki if Wiktionary wants this. Sandstein 11:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete as a non-notable website, WP:WEB refers. (aeropagitica) 18:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irantv

Delete. The article is about a website that seems totally non-notable in all respects. Egil 18:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:NN--Anthony.bradbury 19:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. A non notable wbsite.Obina 19:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 09:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete as a non-notable student revue, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 18:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University of Queensland Law Revue

This is essentially a law school musical organization that I believe fails the notability standards for organizations. Although some student-run revues can become notable by, for example, spawning famous comedy troupes (like Second City), not all student-run revues are notable. Please note that there seem to be several similar articles, and I'm pretty sure most law schools, and probably most undergrads, have some sort of similar show. One such article was discussed, with no consensus, here. TheOther Bob 19:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Makes sense to return to primary criteria: no evidence or likelyhood of multiple non-trivial 3rd party mentions. This is not Second City .Obina 19:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete maybe mention on University of Queensland, but no notability on its own. --Wildnox (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete student groups are presumed non-notable, and without independent sources otherwise, this is non-notable.-- danntm ^T _C 23:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
What modifications could be suggested to retain the page? Removing certain links from other categories or from other pages? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.217.13.220 (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
- The subject of the article needs to be notable. If this group has been mentioned in multiple independent reliable sources (usually not including student newspapers), then it would typically be notable - and if there are those sorts of citations to establish notability, that's what the article needs. If there aren't (and I can't find any - that's why I nominated it), then the subject of the article is not notable, and doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. (I think the question of linking to other articles is separate, and doesn't really affect this AfD, but am glad to discuss separately if you have questions or thoughts.)--TheOther Bob 03:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep On the discussion page for the University of NSW Revues, someone quite rightfully in my opinion argues that notability is subjective. The recent posting of clips from the UQ revue on YouTube has gained the show wide recognition within both the legal and engineering circles in Brisbane, as well as from other Australian universities and student theatre organizations, as is evidenced by multiple bulletin board discussions, independent blogs, links and YouTube viewings. The student university revue tradition in Australia is much more closely connected between different universities than it is in America; this is evidenced by the development of The 3rd Degree which drew from writers and performers from multiple Australian universities, including the University Of Queensland. The page has now been written objectively, has had links removed from unnecessary pages, and is an objective statement of a show that does not necessarily have the worldwide reputation of Second City but is nonetheless recognizable and has a reputation within the Australian student comedy circuit - a valid category listing on Wikipedia - as much as any of the other Australian university revue pages on here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.102.42.97 (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

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

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

The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 03:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Think of Me First as a Person

Tagged as A7, but contested. Some evidence of external coverage, but not a major film at all. Guy (Help!) 20:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep It is included in the National Film Registry. That seems enough to me. --Wildnox (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, Wildnox's argument is the same as what I would have said. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep article establishes notability. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Hi, article's author here. Rather than making the case anew, let quote part of something I wrote in the article's talk section about the film earlier today: While there is no set of notability guidelines specific to motion pictures, I believe that Think of Me First as a Person is notable if we use a criterion similar to those already established to judge the notability of other media. A book meets the notability criteria if it "has won a non-trivial literary award"; a video game does if it "has won an award from a notable award-giving body independent of the game creators, sponsors, and publishers."; a song is notable if "[h]as won a major award," and so on. Likewise, as the film has been inducted into the United States National Film Registry -- a non-trivial honor presented to twenty-five "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant films" per year since 1988, 450 films so far in total -- I argue this reasonably establishes the film's notability. Epicharmus 23:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Article establishes notability. Films considered important enough to be conserved by the NFR (or any other national film registry) are notable. --Charlene 23:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, anyone who would tag this as A7 doesn't know what notable means. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep inclusion in the National Film Registry is enough for notability.-- danntm ^T _C 02:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Film registry makes it permanently notable. Moscatanix 21:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Per above, to be included in the National Film Registry is a great honor for a film, especially considering the number that gets added. It would be quite sad if we measured films by box office takings or sales alone. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 21:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep It would be downright silly for us not to have articles on National Film Registry movies. If that isn't a claim to notability, nothing is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete as a non-notable book, WP:BK refers. (aeropagitica) 18:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The War on Terrorism (Turning Points in World History)

Tagged for speedy as spam, but might possibly be salvageable. Publisher is not a vanity press, seems to be a specialist educational press. No evidence this is a significant book or series. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete The book does not meet WP:BK. It is a textbook primarily for use as supplementary material in a class. It is a useful book, but not notable at all. --Bejnar 00:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Non notable textbook, no useful content in article. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 04:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, book from a non-vanity press. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. WP:NOT a catalogue of books or a collection of tables of contents; no particular notability apparent. Sandstein 11:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete the article contains no assertion of notability beyond mere publication. Eluchil404 08:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swinesend School

Contested speedy. OR spam for an unpublished book based on NN web content. No independent sources cited. -- IslaySolomon | talk 20:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment The creator has left a comment on the talk page. -- IslaySolomon | talk 20:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Google shows 10 hits, five of which are directly affiliated with the web site. Page offers no evidence of notability for the book, much less the school it's based on. The book is unranked on amazon. If the book becomes well-known after publication, then a page might be appropriate, but right now, it's pretty hard to see notability. -FisherQueen 21:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete The book itself does not meet WP:BK. In any case, the school itself wouldn't be inline with WP:FICT even if we considered having an article about the book. Pascal.Tesson 23:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete Agree with Pascal Tesson. Also seems a bit like WP:CRYSTAL. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 04:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Apologies. Agree that article should be deleted. Was unaware that yet-to-be published books do not meet criteria. Not sure how to delete article, so would be grateful if someone could do it on my behalf. These two articles also need to be deleted Ben Locker and William dornan GAHenty 12:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iplay

Origional Research Farside6 20:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert to 05:39, 16 October 2006. Unverified speculation. Demiurge 21:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC) Delete as the original revert seems to be spurious. Demiurge 21:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- I see no reason why Iplay should redirect to The Great Big British Quiz
Delete; if a page for iPhone cannot exist, nor can a page for iPlay. Scepia 21:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as crystal balling. This is just iRumor number 1000000000000000. Koweja 22:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 22:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete I donno why you guys are saying this is OR. It's clearly a hoax. -Ryanbomber 12:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete without prejudice - totally unsourced and may not even be true, but if this subject is ever covered by the media then it will be inherently notable. Tarinth 14:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
iDelete unless properly sourced; WP:NOT a rumor mill. --Alan Au 05:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete unsourced crystal balling; per noms = Wikipedia don't deal with OR speculations. --Eqdoktor 06:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep after the rewrite and inclusion of sources. (aeropagitica) 18:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OutlookSoft

~~Spam; incoherent business-speak; unreferenced.~~ Withdraw per proper references and rewrite. Salad Days 21:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - might be a bad article as currently written, but I found articles about the company from Infoworld [[20]] on the first page of 419K google hits. Seems notable, and the article could be improved over time; and what sounds like "business-speak" to you might be the ordinary language used to describe a company in its industry. Tarinth 21:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - This is a legitimate company and the entry is in line with Wiki writing standards. Note other entries for like vendors. If this entry is considered 'spam', then all must be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.119.146.30 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are familiar with the company I suggest updating it with a couple of references to reliable sources (like the Inforworld article). Tarinth 21:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, notable 2nd-tier corporate-accounting software firm. Everest has been around for several years now. Article terrible. --Dhartung | Talk 23:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment What part of "Similar to business intelligence, performance management software (also known as Business Performance Management or Corporate performance management) allows business users to better understand and interact with enterprise-type data and perform strategic functions like planning, budgeting, consolidation, forecasting and reporting." don't you people understand?! I don't have a keep/delete opinion yet - I'm gonna have to spend the rest of the day diagramming that previous sentence. Bourne 00:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've cleaned it up and added a couple of external references. The sentence above is a reasonable description of BPM software but not really of value here. Basically it's software that lets you look at your entire company's financial situation and crunch some forecasting numbers. --Dhartung | Talk 00:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete Eluchil404 08:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Locker

Co-author of an unpublished book, the article on which is also up for deletion. No evidence provided that this person meets WP:BIO. IslaySolomon | talk 21:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Speedy delete both since they don't meet WP:BIO. Pascal.Tesson 23:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete both I've looked around, but I can't dig up enough information to make a case for notability as "educationists" (that's just fancy folk talk fer "teacher," ain't it?). Bourne 23:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete both under A7 - neither article makes any assertion as to the notability of their subject. skrshawk ( Talk | Contribs ) 04:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
CommentAuthor acknowledges that article should be deleted. -FisherQueen 14:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 18:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roland Rance

Not notable; subject gets about 700 Ghits, most of which appear to be blogs. [21] RedRollerskate 21:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Non-notable. Morton devonshire 00:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, see no indication why the subject would pass WP:BIO. Seraphimblade 09:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment I relisted this article on 1/3/07 to get a better consensus. RedRollerskate 21:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete we'd be well shot of this.--Doc^g 14:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete as a non-notable website, WP:WEB refers. (aeropagitica) 18:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rouseindahouse

Article was speedy deleted under A7 and recreated. No assertion of notability is made, fails WP:WEB, WP:RS and, WP:V. Should be deleted. RWR8189 21:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Salty Delete if it was speedied once, it should be speedied again. RedRollerskate 23:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Kill Kill Kill. -Toptomcat 15:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Zero notability. --- RockMFR 04:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 19:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wii Linux Project

A non-notable, incomplete project. Simply enough, something that may never be done and has little individual value. Possibly on the Wii and/or Linux pages. Scepia 21:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:SOFTWARE -- Selmo ^(talk) 21:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I disagree. It seems like a group of people feel the need to put Linux on every platform they possibly can, and there's plenty trying to get it on the Wii — here's a list of nine different sites up for Linux hacks especially (ten, if you include the site linked to). It's in development still, but it almost certainly will be done, and there's Wikipedia articles on software/hardware in development. Be more specific about what it fails in WP:SOFTWARE. Whether there should be a separate page on every variation of Linux, according to system... now, that's a different question. 66.69.90.253 22:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Y'know, you could find 1,000 sites on a given topic, but it doesn't mean it belongs on WP. 9 or 10 is pretty pathetic, what should we write an article about milk and cookies and the scientific interactions they create? Scepia 00:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  - I think this is a notable article, I agree that it needs some work and cleaning up, but it's a constantly growing and promising project that may even get some recognition from Nintendo (even if it's not quite positive, but there's a petition for them.). I say Keep. On the other hand, @Scepia, you are just in bad need of reading this, I know it's not a rule, but it may help us get your point. Luis villase
    - Maybe if people would stop wanting articles about milk and cookies and the scientific interactions they create... it would be different. Scepia 04:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 22:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Notable, cited. What more could you want? Also, could you please source the policy that says that something planned for (and proven to be in via citing, as to not be crystalballing) development is not for the wiki? -Ryanbomber 12:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- As simple as WP:Notability. Every little project can't be mentioned. Scepia 00:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  - I think that a project which tries to getting linux work in this machine and have 700 registered users in their wiki isn't a little project. Also I think that is notable enough. (Sorry about my english, corrections are welcome!) Kresp0 23:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment: You could find 700 users at many, many other sites. However, there are not Wikipedia pages about those sites, as they are not notable enough. Scepia 00:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Ryanbomber, article's sources demonstrate notability. hateless 22:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- A post from /. and Ars doesn't grant Wikipedia rights. You could find a great number, truly a huge number of products that don't have a WP page. Scepia 00:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, how is this any different from Xbox Linux? In fact, looking through Category:Linux distributions, I see many distributions that are much less notable than this one. JACO PLANE • 2007-01-3 02:50
- Comment: WP:INN --Pak21 17:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Xbox Linux is a working, complete project. Wiili barely qualifies above vapourware. IMO the project has lost it's original goals, currently they are just a not very organized repository of random Wii information. Most of the software at Wiili is actually Windows software. 88.0.76.244 01:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment: I would just like to point out Duke Nukem Forever has an article. Yeah, yeah, WP:INN, but since when has vaporware been grounds for deletion? -Ryanbomber 12:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment: It's all about notability. Duke is notable just because it is vaporware, this is not notable at all. Scepia 00:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep: coverage in ArsTech and Slashdot meets the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works" criterion of WP:SOFTWARE --Pak21 17:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Follow the spirit of the law, not the letter. Let's go write something about the Samsung 4420 HDTV because it was mentioned on Ars and Engadget, once each. Just a fake example, but the point stands. Scepia 04:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And we feel this is notable enough in spirit to include in the wiki. We have differeing opinions, I guess. -Ryanbomber 12:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. It can have its own article if/when the project is completed. Until then, merge any salvageable bits to the Wii and/or Linux pages. --Alan Au 05:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep This article was useful to me, especificaly "Controversy and outages". I think that it would be a good start point for anyone who wants to know some information from outside the wiili.org project itself. Kresp0 23:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection if facts. It may be useful, but does it belong on an encyclopedia? Scepia 00:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep because as an answer to above, I think that Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia for having this article. Paul D. Meehan 05:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Wikipedia would arguably be a better enyclopedia as a game guide, but it's not a game guide. Scepia 06:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Then argue it. Just because WP:IAR doesn't apply to every little thing doesn't mean we should ignore IAR. This statement is assuming, of course, any rules have to be ignored. I still think it's kosher, if a bit messy. -Ryanbomber 13:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I suggest we stop this AfD immediately and request help from an admin. This article is in need of some serious cleanup, as it is completely mixing up two projects, the Wii Linux Project, and WiiLi. Most of what's in this article is actually about the latter (except for the arstechnica/slashdot quotes, which are about the former), but for some reason at some point both were considered the same project and WiiLi/Wiili now redirect to this article's page. The former project has absolutely nothing and is not notable at all IMO (they haven't even had an update since the wii came out, and their wiki is basically empty), while the latter is a well-known (if controversial and of debatable merit) project. Personally though, I'd just say Delete the whole thing and create a single article (say, Wii homebrew) to encompass all of these sites and also including non-linux-specific homebrew (wiibrew, wiire, etc). Currently anyway, there is no Linux on Wii development, since it is impossible to run homebrew code, so the efforts to run homebrew in the first place are far more important (and more general). Stuff like the Wiimote reverse engineering is also not specific to Linux. Once someone comes up with some linux that actually runs on the wii, it might deserve its own page. Marcan 06:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Neutral per Marcan above. It would be better to vote after the article is cleaned up Gisele Hsieh 20:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - One or two paragraphs about non-existant projects does not count as "encyclopedia" news. This seems to read more as an advertisement to gain interest in the projects rather then information on the projects themselves. I personally agree with Marcan that we should have have a more broad article focusing on the entire homebrew scene, rather than a single project. Wii homebrew would do nicely. -- Darkain Dragoon 21:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The project is young (as is the wii), but it has a lot of traction, and they make fast progresses. I say keep, and if it turns out to slow down or be a dud in 3 months, let's talk again about a VFD. Peter S. 23:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Seems to more a battleground for a bunch of immmature web sites more intent on trying to draw attention to their Wii homebrew web site than actually doing anything. When there are notable results there can be a notable article about Wii homebrew, not about a web site. 59.167.63.205 01:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I would like to point out that both the Xbox Linux project and the Gamecube linux project have articles, why should the Wii Linux project be any different?59.167.63.205 01:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: WP:INN. Scepia 04:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Which as an essay, is just a notch below policy and guidelines. Joel Jimenez 04:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Main reason, because Linux for the Wii doesn't and can't exist currently, as opposed to GC Linux and Xbox Linux which have already existed for quite some time. Marcan 01:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Terrible example, but Perpetual Motion machines don't exist, and yet there's an article on it. The nonexistance of something doesn't necessarily prevent a Wiki article being made about it. -Ryanbomber 05:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. - As they stand, the article is a mess, and the subject is not notable. Maybe in the future, it will be worth an article; it can have an article then. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - As previously mentioned, the Xbox Linux project has a page, therefore so should the Wii Linux project, though this page does require serious cleanup. Koptor 16:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirected. Per policy, duplicate articles are merged, not deleted. The original content was also simply copied from Features new to Windows Vista (which is now the target article) on 2 october, so not much is lost. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Security and safety features new to Windows Vista

Duplicate content from Features new to Windows Vista. Themodernizer 21:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Digital Juice, Inc.

Notability not asserted, advertising, NPOV issues. MidgleyDJ 21:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Withdraw AfD~~ This article was created in literally less than 5 hours ago. Unless it's offensive or slanderous, an "instant AfD" without even being prodded is incorrect form. --Oakshade 22:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Is there something I'm missing here? I don't see anything problematic about this AfD or anywhere that it says it's bad form to take an article directly to AfD. Heimstern Läufer 22:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Please read the "Before nominating an AfD" section of WP:AFD. None of the guildlines were followed here. --Oakshade 22:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: After the speedy deletion was removed (the previous versions of this article were blatant advertising) I brought this article to AfD - In my opinion due course was followed. The article wasnt prod'ed - but there was no need for me to do that. MidgleyDJ 02:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:AFD, "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." As this doesn't at all look like a "hopless case", you completely ignored this particular guideline and nominated it for AfD in under 4 hours of the article's creation. --Oakshade 04:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Per actually reading WP:AFD: ...please consider that... & ...case, consider sharing... I did not completely ignore it at all, I considered. This is not the place for this discussion, feel free to continue to discuss this on my talk page. Cheers MidgleyDJ 05:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete: I don't see any reason this company is sufficently notable for an article. One outside source is not enough, in my opinion. Heimstern Läufer 22:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC) Lookin' a lot better now; I think I can support keeping it. Heimstern Läufer 06:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable, and Oakshade, there is absolutely nothing inappropriate about this AfD. What are you trying to claim? Nowhere does an article have to go through PROD before coming to AfD. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep ~~Abstain (until article is improved)~~ - article includes one Macworld reference which is certainly a reliable source, and a quick google search turns of a large number of other possibilities. The other delete votes don't appear to have a reason stated for deletion, other than a vague opinion that they "don't see that it is notable." Tarinth 23:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Expanded my reason. Heimstern Läufer 23:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, the arguments are that the article has not established notability. There is a difference. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, I can see that it doesn't establish notability aside from having been noticed by Macworld on one occassion. Definitely should not be speedied though, to give the article's creator an opportunity to address this. I suspect that with a company that's been around for a few years with 700K Ghits there's a good chance notability can be established. Tarinth 23:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The article now appears to have been improved and the reliable sources provided appear to support notability. Tarinth 13:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't being speedied. This discussion will last at least five days. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, it was being speedied (after this AfD strted, then I constested it) and that's what previous comments are referring to. --Oakshade 00:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy G11. Blatant advertising. Appropriate tag added. Tevildo 23:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something but it doesn't appear to be blatant advertising; appears to contain only statements of fact without any puffery or pitchmanship. Tarinth 23:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Vote User:Djuice1 12:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Vote changed per Djuice1's added references that establish notability (and it's obvious this AfD won't be withdrawn). The article now could use expanding to "verify" the sources! This is what's forced to happen when an article goes to AfD so quickly. --Oakshade 06:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Digital Juice is very notable in the video industy. David Slater 03:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete as a non-notable company, WP:CORP refers. (aeropagitica) 17:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy brown

Notability isnt asserted. No reliable sources cited, non-neutral advertising material. If the notability cannot be asserted using reliable sources (and the NPOV corrected) prior to the end of the AfD it should probably be deleted. MidgleyDJ 22:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete unless a better assertion of notability can be made. Heimstern Läufer 22:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete: no assertion of notability or references to verifiable reliable sources. -- The Anome 12:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. (aeropagitica) 17:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long Slow Distance

This is not a notable article. Besides, training methods that were even more widely used (crash training, for example), were deleted on the grounds that they weren't notable articles. Farside6 22:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - a quick google search finds a lot of articles from running magazines that address this subject. Appears notable. The nominator's opinion that is not "not notable" is unsupported by evidence and the comparison to other training methods is vague and irrelavent. Tarinth 23:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep I would agree that there is little on this page. It needs to be developed. LSD is really more of a running ethos, than a training method such as crash training. A living example of this can be found at the Honolulu Marthon Clinic which I believe still meets every Sunday morning. When I have a little more time I plan to add to the page. Joel Mc 09:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy keep — reasons for nomination were invalid; nominator has withdrawn nomination; WP:SNOW. ➥the Epopt 21:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 100-Hour Plan

While these are admiral goals, they are goals for the future nonetheless. WP:NOT#CBALL, and from there "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." While notable, these are goals of a political party, and thus not certain to take place. I would argue for either a Merge into a democratic party policy article or Delete KnightLago 22:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination, is now, or shortly will be a current event. So makes no sense to delete now. Keep. KnightLago 20:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, nothing crystal-ball about it, this is verifiably the current policy of the Democratic Party, it is not some future event that may or may not take place. See also: Millennium Development Goals. Demiurge 22:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

While this may be the current policy, that doesn't mean it can't change tomorrow. KnightLago 00:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep, subject of multiple independent news stories cited in article. NawlinWiki 23:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep because the nominator's reasons are invalid; this isn't a crystal-ball issue, it is a policy position that has become the subject of multiple eminent media sources. (A crystal ball article would be something like "Potential Platform of the Democratic Party in 2008") Tarinth 23:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Again from WP:NOT#CBALL, "future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. And it continues "appropriate future topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics." Both examples are not even close to this article, and both are certain to take place. The events this article outlines are in no way certain to take place. There is too much room for change, the party could shift policy, it might lose a majority, or the president could veto. While these may be the current positions, they can, and will change. Thus the article is a crystal ball, unless merged, or changed. KnightLago 00:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep per Tarinth. This isn't a "future policy that will happen" article (wich would mean CBALL then) this is an "electoral promise" of the Democratic Party. Esurnir 01:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep As the author of this article, my position should be obvious. The 100-Hour Plan is the policy outline by which the Democratic Party is currently basing its political actions, and thus is notable. Similarly, given the Democrats' majority, it is almost certain to take place, per Wikipedia guidelines.

SwedishConqueror 01:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)User:SwedishConqueror

Delete Uh... Wikipedia isn't a news report archive. Are we going to start articles on every tactic, plan, strategy a politician thinks up that has its own catchphrase and gets press coverage? One of the functions of journalism is to facilitate/mediate political communication between politicians and the public. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a journalism channel. All we have so far is some announced policy promises in a short period - nothing of clear historic or practical significance Bwithh 01:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Keep - the article is specifically couched as being a stated plan of action for the Democratic party; there is nothing crystal ball about it. If they re-neg, the article can be edited to reflect such a fact, and the discussion surrounding it. Haemo 06:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep (objections have ditched speedy), per Tarinth. Notable political program that was part of the fall campaign, similar to (or cognate with) the Contract with America, when the Republicans took over the House. Article needs a touch-up. --Dhartung | Talk 06:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep Eluchil404 09:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boston Park Plaza Hotel & Towers

Contested Prod. I still think this article does not assert enough notability to be included. Delete. -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep - One of the most grand and historic hotels of Boston (and probably North America). Member of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. [22]. Passes at least WP:LOCAL --Oakshade 00:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Oakshade. That membership make it notable enough. Esurnir 01:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep, one of the original Statler Hotels, renovated in recent years. Potential references abound. --Dhartung | Talk 06:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - reference within the National Trust for Historic Preservation makes it notable enough. The hotel doesn't appear to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places, but it appears to be within the Back Bay Historic District. (Or is it? I can't tell by looking at the boundaries, because they aren't exact. Are there any locals who know?) --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 22:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. As a person who lives near it, I can assure the other editors that this is an important hotel. The hotel itself is notable, but the article is weak. That might change. The hotel is not technically in the Back Bay Historic District (the District includes buildings north of Boylston and west of Arlington). If knowing the hotel's historic preservation status were the key to this debate, I could call someone, and eventually find a reliable source. I did see one comment turn up in a web search: "Hotel built in 1928 and some ADA modifications were not possible due to historic preservation.", at [23]. EdJohnston 00:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete as a non-notable group, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 17:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clave Rhythmz

del. nonnotable latin dance company. `'mikka 22:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. There is no assertion of notability in the article. Judging from the article text, it seems reasonably unlikely that proof of notability could be provided. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 17:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

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

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

The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 19:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of books in computational geometry

Original research, who is to say these books are any better or worse than others in the field. WP is not Amazon.com! Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 22:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC). Following the discussion I'll concur with Merge into respective articles --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 00:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

keep. A thorough ignorance speaks here. Please show me which "others in the field" you know and feel free to add them to the list. My point is there are probably about two dozen of these books, easily listed here. "Not amazon.com" is not listed among WP:NOT, not to say that wikipedia is not "Encyclopedia Britannica online" either and not IMDB and not porn shop and not pokemon fair and not whatever else stuffed into wikipedia. `'mikka 22:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
P.S. For an exercise, why dont you go and delete List of Linux books or something else from category:Lists of books. `'mikka 23:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure that's meant to be a rhetorical question, but why not indeed? Your argument would be a lot more persuasive if you could point to some failed AfDs in the category. Melchoir 22:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- On Special:Allpages, all I find is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books for copy editors, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books about World War II, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books similar to Harry Potter, all of which were deleted for various reasons. Melchoir 22:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Neutral I'm not a big fan of lists but comprehensive texts on computational geometry are not that abundant so it shouldn't be a problem to have a decent unbiased list. On the other hand, I still feel that most lists in the lists of books category are of dubious encyclopedic value. But that's just me. Pascal.Tesson 23:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- So Cleveland steamer is encyclopaedic, but science books are not. Very funny encyclopedia we have here. `'mikka 03:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
speedy keep We have such lists in every subject This one is a little different, for most of the others have been renamed List of important books, or List of important publications, and objective criteria are given for the listings. I would suggest that this too be renamed and limited, but that question is for the individual article talk page.DGG 07:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I like the idea. It allows Wikipedia to become a whole new kind of reaserch aid. -Toptomcat 12:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Why is this not simply a "Further reading" section in computational geometry? Uncle G 13:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Because it has the potential to bloat the article? -Toptomcat 14:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  - I doubt it. There are only 19 books listed. Uncle G 16:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Hence, potential. The number of known books on computational geometry may grow. -Toptomcat 18:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      - But since it hasn't yet, I pose the question again: Why is this not simply a "Further reading" section in computational geometry? Uncle G 16:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment, no vote. But you can have "list of books" on every field, and every subfield, and every subfield of a subfield... Like List of books on Palaentology, List of books on String Theory, List of books on American history in the 19th century, List of books on American Civil War, List of books on Lincoln's role in American Civil War... where is it going to end? -- Ekjon Lok 17:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Why would it need to end? Many of those sound like useful lists. -Toptomcat 18:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Beyond a certain point, it is useful to simply put the titles at the end of the subject article. But, for example, the Darwin article is so large and in so many parts that a separate list might be useful. Thanks or giving me the idea! I'll try it.DGG 07:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete I like the idea; this particular collection, however, looks like an indiscriminate collection of texts picked up off Amazon.com. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep Even list articles can (and must) be encyclopedic, and this one needs some work, but surely some sources exist. Has anyone checked Mathscinet for reviews? Melchoir 22:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Neutral: with stable versions and expert reviews such lists would be very, very valuable. I am not sure that they work as well under current structure of WP. A good example is List of important publications in geology and Category:Lists of publications in science. Pavel Vozenilek 23:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment A better example in this case is list of important publications in mathematics. Michael Hardy 01:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  
  Comment Now that you mention it, List of important publications in mathematics looks much more interesting than the one about computational geometry. Does anyone feel like improving the latter to the same standard? EdJohnston 03:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep:Lists are a distinctive and useful part of Wikipedia. This one is unlikely to cause any problems. Leave it alone.--agr 02:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete This list and all others like it should be included as bibliographies at the end of specific articles. Having a set of articles on various subjects and a separate set of book lists doesn't strike me as being particularly useful for a user of Wikipedia. If I want to know the basics of computational geometry then I'll read the article on it and if I decide to study it further I'll scroll down to the bibliography. Most users would think this way, but would NOT think to go searching Wikipedia for some separate list. As far as "bloating" the articles, I would rather bloat the bottom of some articles than create a bloated and less useful Wikipedia. capitalist 03:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Weak keep~~. I'm not a big fan of lists in general, but this makes a decent extended references section for the main computational geometry article. —David Eppstein 03:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge into computational geometry. I changed my mind after seeing Ruud's suggestion. —David Eppstein 19:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I have left important remarks on the article's talk page. Unless and until those issues are addressed, I'm reluctant to recommend a fate. --KSmrq^T 10:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Based on the lack of any helpful response to my concerns, and in light of ample time and further contributions to the debate here, I believe this article is ill-conceived and will only get worse if allowed to persist. --KSmrq^T 12:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge back into computational geometry. —Ruud 14:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge back into computational geometry. (Thanks for the idea, Ruud).--CSTAR 18:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry. Bad idea. "Computational geometry" is now in a pitiful, sketchy state. It may be expanded at least 4-5 times. List of books is a separate, detachable topic. What purpose is to bloat an article with it? It is just one click away and its separation does not break the logic of the article in any way. I also intend to expand the list with brief annotations. `'mikka 22:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  - In my opinion that "one click" is more of a problem than the "bloat" added to the article (in small print you can list over 30 books on a single screen). Why break with the convention of listing literature relevant to a subject in the article itself? —Ruud 02:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Computational geometry. The guide to layout says that all books which a reader would find useful ought to be listed in a further reading section. If that list has too many books--that is, if some of them aren't important enough that they should be included in the article to prevent it becoming too large--then the solution is simply not to include every book, but rather only those books which will be particularly useful. This requires some use of judgment from a knowledgable person, but is probably the best solution. --Sopoforic 06:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- In this particular case all books are quite different in subject coverage. Therefore, like I said, I am going to provide brief annotations for these books. This will considerably bloat the main article. I'd rather suggest this page is already merged articles about separate books. Rephrasing, all these books are notable each in its own aspect, but this domain of knownledge is quite narrow, and it makes sense to see side-by-side comparison of these books, rather than to have them in separate articles, prone for aggression from those who think that only pokemon, porn stars and sexual slang are notable topics. Unfortunately experts in computational geometry do not rush into wikipedia, rather in opposite direction (I did notice several familiar names, who quickly became disinterested in wikipediting) `'mikka 20:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  - From a brief reading of the list and the topics suggested by their titles, it seems to me that several of these books would be appropriate on more specific articles--in particular, Combinatorial geometry has a separate page, as does Art gallery theorems. The fact that the books differ in coverage then seems (to me) to be because some of them are about different topics which we also have articles for. If that's the case, then those books should be listed on the appropriate articles. It's true that an annotated list of books on a topic is useful, but there's no reason you can't annotate a further reading list. Also, if the books truly are all important (i.e. introduced major theorems or ideas) then they may merit a mention in the main article (in a history section, perhaps) for that reason. At any rate, wikipedia is not paper and there is no reason we can't include all relevant (and verifiable) information, as long as we are careful about the presentation. I just feel that it's more useful to present it on the article rather than in a separate list. --Sopoforic 22:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Providing 'brief annotations' for the books is Original Research, instead you need to provide 3rd party references stating that these books are the best in their respective fields. That is the point of this AfD which still has not been addressed. There is no source stating that these books are any better or worse than any others, or that they provide a complete background to the topic. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 23:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      - You started trolling, colleague. <plonk> `'mikka 02:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
      - Ah, not quite. I envisioned such annotations not as "this book is totally cooler than the previous one," but more along the lines of "this book contains a section on algorithms for foo," which is more useful and not at all original research. --Sopoforic 16:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Give me a break, man. I have four computers at home, but only two hands and two pairs of glasses. But this is not a reason for article deletion. I agree with you, but if I decide to write a detailed report about some book, I will write a separate page about it (and some smartass will probably come and say "WTF, prove that this book is better than the rest or write about all other books, otherwise I delete it because you are POV-pushing"). `'mikka 19:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        Well, I'm advocating merging this into the main article on computational geometry--I don't want any information to be lost, I just think it's better presented along with the subject of the books, where people will see it more readily. Regarding deleting an article about a book: if someone did that, though, they'd probably be wrong. If you wanted to write an article about a book that was actually notable, according to our own guidelines, then the existence of articles on other books has no bearing on this. Their claim may mean we'd have to go through an AfD for the book, but in the end things should work themselves out. I don't think that keeping this article just as a prophylactic measure against future problems is a good idea, though. --Sopoforic 21:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        (Please try to remain civil. Describing other editors as trolls and smartasses because they initiated a community discussion into an article is not considered appropriate behaviour. Thanks. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 04:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC))
Merge into computational geometry per Ruud's excellent suggestion. With all due appreciation for the valuable expansion of the original skimpy list, article bloat is not an impending problem. After merging we'll have an estimated length of 15K. By the time the article becomes unwieldy because of the envisaged expansions, it is more likely that the remedy is found in spinning off specialized subtopics than in having this list as a separate article (and see also Soporific's suggestion above). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talk • contribs).

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

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

The result was Delete as a non-notable television programme. (aeropagitica) 17:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Ebby Parts

Appears to be a local (educational?) television show, if it exists at all. No Google hits that I can see, but I may be missing something so I bring it to the wider audience. Please note that Gilbertie's herb gardens has already been deleted, as the content was not relevant ("Harry is a cool guy", or something to that effect). The Ebby Parts was deleted before, but G4 does not apply to speedy deletions. -- nae'blis 23:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. No listing on IMDB, no review in Variety. Hard to make a case that this is a notable TV show if notable media publications don't have any information on it. Bourne 23:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Esurnir 01:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete As far as I can tell, this "TV show" doesn't exist. --Oakshade 01:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Do Not Delete per nom. Tree 02:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC) (this comment added by IP user User:69.183.192.150 on 16:15, January 2, 2007)

Can you say why? And can you clarify, are you the user User:Tree and forgot to log in? Your signature is a little confusing. -- nae'blis 22:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I searched on google and it only yielded the Wikipedia article.--EvaGears 15:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete as a non-notable organiation, WP:ORG refers. (aeropagitica) 17:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pink Therapy

notability not asserted; reads like promotional material. Along with Dominic Davies article forms a small walled garden created by a single-purpose account. For GHits I have only been able to find amazon, wikipedia, own website, and publisher; nothing to satisfy WP:NOTABILITY.

Accordingly I add Dominic Davies to this nomination. Akihabara 12:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Pink Therapy as not asserting notability. Not so sure about Davies himself, he seems to have at least some minimal notability as a published author (by a real publisher, not vanity press), he's given a seminar at the British Association for Counselling AGM and I found a magazine article quoting him. Weak delete because although the sources suggest the possibility of notability, they do not prove it, and because of the suspicions of WP:COI. Demiurge 12:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Core desat 23:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete book, keep and wikify Dominic Davies and merge relevent book content to the article. (Whew!) -Toptomcat 12:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Pink Therapy. Appears to cover three distinct meanings of the term, none of which assert WP:NOTABILITY. A list or association of notable people is just that, not automatically a notable list or association itself. DMacks 08:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete Dominic Davies. Asserts some WP:BIO notability ("first"/"pioneered"/"earliest example") even if in a relatively narrow category, but does not provide citations to these assertions. Citing the points of notability would convert me to weak keep (weak due to narrow-sounding realm of notability). DMacks 08:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 17:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam burke

Child actor who had a significant part in one film when he was 5 years old; nothing since. Would be an easy speedy a7 if not for the film role. I don't think it's enough. NawlinWiki 23:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia doesn't have an article about the film he was in (although it does get a sentence in the article Little Boy Blue), and this article reports its total U.S. gross was $3,526. (Actually, Box Office Mojo says it grossed $12,958. [24]) Still, even the higher amount would make it just the 316th highest-grossing film of its year. I don't see anything here that would lead me to think that the subject qualifies under WP:BIO. --Metropolitan90 23:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided in sufficient quantity to support the claims of the article and allow for the creation of a neutral and verifiable article. While the fact that this person played a minor role in a minor movie is verifiable, the remainder of the article is pure original research. --Allen3 ^talk 20:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep by Moving to List of Major League Baseball free agents 2006-2007. Cbrown1023 19:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Major League Baseball free agents

Wikipedia is not a newspaper or Sports Illustrated. This is information which will have to be kept up to date as each player signs a contract, and, based on history, it's unlikely that this will occur. And once they're all signed, what happens to this article? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete Although they will never be "all signed", the list is unmaintainable. Players become free agents all the time. --Charlene 23:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete A list with no permanent entries? No encyclopedic use whatsoever. Resolute 02:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Alternatively, this could be transwikied to Wikinews. Resolute 02:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Cleanup This article does not fall under any of the " grounds for deletion". This article does not fall under any " what Wikipedia is not" categories. It is both verifiable and not original research (encyclopedic quality). It also has a neutral point of view and does not violate Wikipedia copyright policy. Therefore I believe it has been inproperly considered for deletion and should be removed from this list. There are many articles that need deletion, just because some people have no interest in MLB free agents does not make this article one of them. RobDe68 19:51, 2 January 2007 (EST)
Move to List of Major League Baseball free agents 2006-2007 (then create a new article for each season and point this redirect there). The problem with the article at the moment is that it is news, not encyclopedic content. However, a list of the free agents for each season is both verifiable and notable. Cheers --Pak21 17:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep and Move per Pak21. A historical series of FA's after each season would be encyclopedic. Neier 06:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, the content is only temporarily valid and (as for Pak21's suggestion) of no apparent historical or encyclopedic importance. Sandstein 11:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep and Move per Pak21. The list has no interest for me personally, but there is enough coverage of baseball free agents each year to convince me that it has some historical/encyclopedic value. Will it matter in 20 years? A little - baseball fans have long memories.--Kubigula (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Effects of Christmas on the environment

Complaints have been made that this is inherently POV, or that there is no need to single out a single day of the year for environmental coverage. Beland 23:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete, per above. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not an essay repository. --Dennisthe2 23:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- ...erm, yeah, that's me. --Dennisthe2 23:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please explain how this article is an essay. It links to several sources. When an article points to sources, one has to do more than only provide a bare assertion in order to argue that it violates the Wikipedia:No original research policy. How is the article not supported by the sources that it links to? What efforts have you made to determine whether other sources exist? Uncle G 04:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT WP:NPOV#Undue weight —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esurnir (talk • contribs) 23:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
- How, given the several sources linked to the article, is this original thought? Uncle G 04:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The only actual assertion of non-neutrality is Talk:Effects of Christmas on the environment#POV, which does not assert that the article is inherently non-neutral, but only addresses a single sentence within the article. That's just a content dispute, which is a matter of cleanup, not deletion. Please explain how this article is inherently non-neutral. What, exactly, is the debate that the article inherently takes sides in? Uncle G 04:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I agree with Uncle G, there is no POV as far as I can see, and it is not an essay in that it has no thesis. Also, the assertion that Christmas just a "single day of the year" is absurd. However, the article as is resembles more like notes from a brainstorming session on an esoteric topic than an encyclopedic article about a topic in public debate, which is why I cannot say Keep (for now, at least). hateless 22:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Why not create an article "effects of weekends on the environment". This article fails to assert it's importance. I really don't believe one single day can have that much effect on the environment as to deserve an article. Starghost (talk | contribs) 16:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I say Very Strong Keep, I do however have some comments. I believe it should be remamed to something along the lines of "Effects of the winter holiday season on the environment" (that was it accounts for dozens of concurrent holidays. When I see stuff like: [25] [26] [27] [28] I know it's not some article meant to push a pov, but an actual issue. When consumers travel more, spend more, cook more, leave christmas lights up, throw away paper, and cut down millions of trees just to toss them in a refuse pile to burn, it is an issue--not just "one day". Dark jedi requiem 20:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete and move info elsewhere Its an interesting topic, but per WP:NPOV#Undue Weight I don't think it should a have seperate article. Relevant information can be moved in Christmas, Christmas tree, and German Christmas traditions. <3Clamster 20:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that would have the same effect. If I want information on the subject, I don't want to have to look through Christmas, Christmas tree, Wrapping paper, Christmas lights, Winter holiday season, and so forth. If one needs the information, there's no need to have to find it scattered about several articles. Dark jedi requiem 00:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This could be a nice section in Winter holiday season. <3Clamster 03:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Expand it to include all major holidays and we have a workable Wikipedia article. Holidays DO have an extra impact on the enviroment (much as they affect the economy and transportation). Its a start concentrating on X-mas, but gives undue weight to that particular day (a lot of the transportation issues apply even more to Thanksgiving). --Eqdoktor 06:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Clamster. GassyGuy 21:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, original research, no reliable published sources. Sandstein 11:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete OR essay. Dragomiloff 00:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as an original synthesis of disparite information. Eluchil404 09:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. appears to have laudible aims, but in additon to appearing to be unsourced original research, there's no specificity to Christmas, or indeed the December holiday season. It is a function of consumerism, and equally applies to birthdays, moon festivals, mother's days, etc., and as such, ther article appears to violate WP:NOT#IINFO. However, I could see a valid article being built around Effects of economic consumption on the environment, which would be more easily sourced. Alternatively, redirect to consumerism or Waste management Ohconfucius 22:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Cryptic 04:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harold Aspden

Fails the (note: proposed) Wikipedia:Notability (academics) tests. Aspden's fringe ideas, which make up the bulk of this article, are not even known, let alone recognized as "expert" by independent sources. For non-experts reading this AfD, it's important to note that many of the claims made in the article (e.g., that he has debunked Einstein or is being oppressed by the mainstream scientific establishment) are simply silly. The "groundbreaking" ideas focused on by the article that make an implicit claim to notability appear to all be self-published on his webpage. Sdedeo (tips) 00:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science) Sdedeo (tips) 00:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Aside from the author not being notable, the author's ideas (which feature prominately in the article) do not withstand the criteria outlined by WP:FRINGE or WP:SCI either. --ScienceApologist 00:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep: I am one of the editors of the mentioned article Harold Aspden and this is my comment: redacted to talk
Very weak keep. His equation for the fine structure constant is referred to in several sources, mainly (probably solely) as an illustration of the problems caused by Eddington's application of numerology to physics. That being said, I see no compelling reason to keep this article. Tevildo 02:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- His equation: Aspden, H., Eagles, D. M., Aether Theory and the Fine Structure Constant, Physics Letters, v. 41A, pp. 423-424 (1972): 108π(8/1843)(l/6) or 137.035915 predicted in 1972; in 2002 CODATA presents the measurement value of 137.03599911(46) !? Thanks --Utad3 02:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Indeed. It may be churlish of me to point it out, but the experimental results do, in fact, falsify his theory; but that's not really relevant to his notability. Tevildo 02:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Simply producing an incorrect prediction for the fine structure constant does not seem to be a sufficient criteria for notability -- there are thousands upon thousands of scientists who have worked on this problem. Sdedeo (tips) 02:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Yet another attempt at removal of interesting content, and the article was just brought to attention, today, on the vote page for deletion of another article. Let's not forget that the arguments being used for removal of this content are only 'proposals', and not yet a guideline, and that these proposals are being created by the same people attempting to remove the content. -Ionized 02:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Can you give the criteria you are using to establish the subject's notability? Sdedeo (tips) 02:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Whilst the criteria for academics may be a proposal, our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies are not, and have been in regular use for many years. Similarly, our Wikipedia:No original research policy is not a proposal, either. Please explain how this person satisfies our criteria for the inclusion of biographies, and how xyr theories are not original research. Uncle G 04:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- There are no agendas nor rules to remove content which may be interesting, just that where the subject is not notable. Just being interesting is not reason to retain an article. Ohconfucius 23:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Indeed you point out actual criteria which are not proposals. However, the first argument made for removal was based on proposals, along with WP:FRINGE, which are being contributed to from the nom and SA. What usually happens is that a not-so-valid reason is first given simply to get the ball rolling, and with time actual criteria are then accumulated. I will not waste my time explaining how the article satisfies actual criteria, because it is likely that either 1) even if it does, I wouldn't be able to convince anyone and my vote is one keep out of many deletes 2) it doesn't satisfy the actual criteria. My initial point remains valid, deletion of an article should not be based solely on proposed criteria, especially when the people who are defining the proposed criteria are the same ones attempting to delete the article. Now that actual criteria have been stated, I will remain silent if success is achieved, however I will not retract my Keep vote, as it still stands that the article was initially attacked without solid warrant. -Ionized 00:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are not going to explain why you think the subject is notable, you should probably not be in a discussion about whether the article is notable! Sdedeo (tips) 02:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As a holistic thinker, my personal notability criteria is far more lax than those of Wikipedia, and as such you would likely find any arguments I make concerning notability to be inapplicable here. As a Wikipedian, my contributions are bound by guidelines put forth by the founders and community, whether or not I agree with them from a scientific standpoint, and as such I have always stayed just within the boundaries of Wiki and cited my work as per the older guidelines. Indeed I do think that most, not all, topics concerning physics, whether mainstream or not, deserve mention. Many years ago on Wikipedia, I was under the impression that it is for the reader to decide what is noteworthy, that was the whole point of writing articles with NPOV intent. However it appears that over the years notability has been incorporated further into Wikipedia guidelines than it was in the past, and the recent Pseudoscience arbcom case and its subsequent outcomes demonstrate this. Wikipedia has changed over the years, notability has become far more strict, as evidenced by the current proposals being put forth to further restrict content to only orthodox views. In my opinion, it has gone too far, but that is just my opinion, hence not noteworthy per the standards.-Ionized 03:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

my personal notability criteria is far more lax than those of Wikipedia --> Then you should try to affect consensus at notablity rather than circumventing the consensus standards as they are applied here. --ScienceApologist 04:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that comment. But given the precedents and recent and past happenings here on Wikipedia, I very much feel that my attempts to affect notability standards would be a personal waste of time. However I am still considering at least giving my opinion on the matter at the associated discussion page concerning the newest proposed guidelines, and will perhaps do so soon. -Ionized 22:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. First, let me say that this sort of nomination on the spur of a moment is never a good idea. If the article contains inaccuracies, remove them. If the sources are unreliable, remove them. From an outsider's perspective, I see a pretty good article that asserts notability of the subject, with multiple sources. --- RockMFR 03:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Can you please point to what makes this subject notable? Sdedeo (tips) 03:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  - But I can and will clarify this point you raise about 'notability':
    The mentioned author of the biographical article is a known and notable British physicist in scientific community worldwide already for about half a century; it has published over one 100 scientific articles since 1951, many of them in peer-review journals (eg. 9 papers in @Physics Letters A since 1972; 24 papers in Europhysics Letters, former Lettere al Nuovo Cimento since 1975; etc.), has several Brithish and U.S. patents one of them under research since May 2006 supported by DARPA and the Aviation and Missile Command in the U.S. [29], has several earlier physics books since 1966 published and his work has been mentioned in several occasions in mainstream physics publications, for e.g.:
    - 1985: R. S. Van Dyck, Jr., F. L. Moore, D. L. Farnham and P. B. Schwinberg in Int. J. Mass Spectrometry and Ion Processes, 66, p. 327.
    - 1985: B. W. Petley in The Fundamental Constants and the Frontier of Measurement (National Physical Laboratory, UK).
    - 1996: Department of Electromagnetic Theory, Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden, in Longitudinal electrodynamic forces and their possible technological applications
    - 2005: University of Turku, Department of Physics, Finland & Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden, Two Extended New Approaches to Vacuum, Matter & Fields
    - 2006: The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Unconventional thermoacoustic heat engines
  - The editor who purposed the deletion, and a few others, are attempting to supress a valuable publication which carries data that goes against their beliefs: As editor Ionized mentioned the main biographical article Harold Aspden was just brought to attention, today, on the vote page for deletion of another article and a few editors have taken the abusive action of tagging both articles, Aspden's physics and cosmology book Creation: The Physical Truth and this one, for deletion. --Utad3 03:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    - This is a biographical article, about a person. That someone has written a lot of papers is not sufficient reason to have a biographical article. There must be things written about the person, not by the person, in order to support a biographical article. All of the citations in Harold Aspden#References are either not about Aspen, or are autobiographical, having been written by Aspen himself. The primary criterion in our Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies requires that there be multiple non-trivial published works about Aspen written and published by people that are independent of him. Please cite some. Uncle G 04:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Ignoring your continuous accusations of bad faith -- the average scientist will be a coauthor on at least a hundred papers over the course of a career. My old advisor, who is mid-career and I love him but don't think he is "noteworthy" by wiki standards, has 163 peer-reviewed papers to his name; Rashid Sunyaev, a clearly notable scientist, wrote 731 [30] over his career. Sdedeo (tips) 04:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
comment I do not think you are right there--it varies from subject to subject, but 100 true refereed papers is way more than the average. The average for a successful academic scientist in most subjects is one a year. Notability is not attained by multiplying minor papers. DGG 06:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding aggressive and rude -- you are wrong, at least in physics, as is demonstrated by my evidence above (you are welcome to click Sunyaev's link -- those are all indeed "true" referreed papers.) Sdedeo (tips) 17:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot the rule -- "kooks lie". I checked, and Aspden has forty referreed papers over the course of his career, the last in 1988 [31], not one hundred. Sdedeo (tips) 18:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not the deceiver or the lier here! All I have stated above was in good faith and the best accurate to my knowledge: Dr. Aspden published about 145 papers (not including books and patents) distributed through some of the most notable peer-review journals and in alternative non-mainstream journals (see [32])! In spite of all current technology and the intellectual advancement of the last century, You are doing here exactly what the middle ages dogmatic Church did toward the forefathers of Science (except the [physical] death penalty, that would be improper of our advanced society...). Goodbye. (Utad3) 22:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia editors won't kill him - but he should watch out for particle physicists. On a more serious note, the Pseudoscience ArbCom decision precludes the use of "alternative non-mainstream journals" as sources for scientific topics. Also, I would recommend for your sake that you not make the stereotypical crackpot arguments like comparing us to the church in the middle ages. We've heard most of them before, many of them more creative than yours, and they will just make editors lose respect for you and view all of your arguments with distrust.

Delete - Ideas that have been "suppressed from the academic curricula" are almost always so suppressed with good reason. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a place to right the wrongs in this world. --EMS | Talk 03:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Plate tectonics was supressed for a long time. And Piltdown Man should now be up for deletion? We're not in charge of judging science, just reporting about things that our readers may come to us for information about. If Harold Aspden is a fringe scientists or even a quack, who gets over 10,000 hits from a google search, people are seeking information about him, and they should be able to come here for that information. KP Botany 21:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Page has become nothing but a soapbox for fringe nutjobs who are subverting the neutrality principles of wikipedia to make the article massively unbalanced (on a personal note, does anyone get psycho vibes (martyr complex) from the way these people address you in Talk pages and such .... eeeeeeeee!). Jonathan Williams 04:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Then edit the article. A bad article on Flower should be nominate for deletion because its bad? No, if the subject is noteworthy enough it belongs, I'm sure even Creation Science has an article. KP Botany 21:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. FeloniousMonk 05:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
rewrite from a NPOVThis is one of the most difficult cases in pseudoscience--when a scientist with definite conventional credentials in a subject adopts what would generally be considered highly unusual views. The "definite credentials" refers not only to his degrees, but to the journals where some of the work as been published, which are as reliable sources as can be imagined. But there are no references to the acceptance of the theory by any other scientist. The article with the greatest number of citations as shown in Web of Science is no.3, to which there are 23 citations. However 21 of those 23 are in later papers by Apsden himself, which is fairly clear evidence that nobody else thinks him worth citing, even to refute.
In any case, the article as it stands is also wholly unacceptable. It assumes the truth of his theories, and--while admitting there are criticisms--goes on in a manner as if here were none. I think a NPOV article could be written, but he and his supporters would find it highly unsatisfactory, for the plain honest presentation of the material shows it not accepted. The edit history reveals that his supporters have resisted any critical comments. I can see no basis we can refuse to include an article. However I do not see how one could be written. I certainly would not attempt to do so against the expected reverts. DGG 06:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Good point. Charles Darwin adopted some serious fringe views and nobody is nominating him for deletion. KP Botany 21:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you can "see no basis we can refuse to include an article" on a theory that you yourself state has "no references to the acceptance of the theory by any other scientist" and that hasn't been addressed (even to refute it) by anyone, then I suggest that you refresh your memory of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. This is an encyclopaedia, not a library. We actually have a duty to exclude ideas that have not yet gained traction in the world outside of their creators and become part of the corpus of human knowledge. Uncle G 12:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Anomo 06:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. POV, soapbox, OR, etc. Fan-1967 13:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, as nonsense or hoax. The claims made in the article are not believable. linas 16:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Certain kinds of kookery merit a place on the Wikipedia, mostly because they become notorious enough that we can talk about them even though they flamboyantly contradict well-established facts. If this fellow's claims had the media presence of Richard Hoagland's Face-on-Mars fluff, then they might merit encycopaedia coverage. In my judgment, the Heim theory defense does not apply here, and the article should go. Anville 16:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Edison 17:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The keep arguments are utterly unconvincing. If some aspect of his work is notable and can be written about, then an article on that is appropriate. Fails WP:PROF and his books don't cut it for him as an author. Mango juice^talk 19:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. HEL 20:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I'm fond of cranks, but they have to be notable cranks (like Gene Ray) to be on Wikipedia. I've seen nothing that establishes notability here, so delete. Oh, who am I kidding? I'm a servant of the academic scientific community bent on SUPPRESSION of the truth! So my vote is strong suppress, and quantum salt. — coelacan talk — 03:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete. There aren't proper sources per the Pseudoscience ArbCom decision to treat the topic as scientific, and there aren't enough media or popular sources to treat the topic as a popular pseudotheory. There are thousands of pseudotheories like this. --Philosophus ^T 18:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep He's obviously generated a lot of publicity for himself, and has written a number of books--this isn't notable? Our readers deserve to be able to come here first for a neutral and accurate and verifiable article about him. KP Botany 21:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Weak keep~~Neutral: What matters not is whether his debunking of scientific theories is "accepted wisdom", after all, the earth was held to be flat unti somebody came along and proved otherwise. Einstein's theories are only theories, and even this great man could have got some of his calculations wrong. What concerns me is whether he fulfills WP:BIO. I am totally unimpressed by the arguments advanced by principal author of redacted to talk, which make it sound like some sort of conspiracy theory aginst the subject. Aspden's 333 unique Ghits are a pretty mixed bag, but among those are a number of wiki mirrors, book links, many blogs forum and personal website hits, but also a number of sites where he is directly involved in creating content; the other relevant hits indicates that he may indeed on the esoteric fringes of science, and may be below borderline notability. His book appear to languish in the upper two-millionsths per Amazon (with none appearing above 2.318 millionsths. However, 'Physics without Einstein' is kept in 13 UK libraries (not many universities amongst these), and 92 (mostly university) libraries in the US, so it would appear not to be completely non-notable. Ohconfucius 23:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- opinion revised after review of Ghits. Ther are very few, if any, which are from reliable sources. Ohconfucius 23:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] SlaveHack

[edit] Omar Kamel

[edit] The Order of Bahamut

[edit] Santa's Village East Dundee, Illinois

[edit] Year of the Dolphin

[edit] Wii shoulder

[edit] Azules Maskarades

[edit] 123 Pleasant Street

[edit] Dan Trachtenberg

[edit] DJ Brazil

[edit] Red Steel 2

[edit] John Boy & Billy characters

[edit] Toronto lofts

[edit] Horse ancestry

[edit] Save Earth Confederation

[edit] Battle of the River Plate

[edit] Doctrines and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses

[edit] Beckett Dragonball Z Collector

[edit] Letter To God (Courtney Love)

[edit] PPDL

[edit] Umakant Sharma

[edit] Asif Malik

[edit] Cultural depictions of women in combat

[edit] T-Rock

[edit] Throw Your Neighborhood Up

[edit] Polar Ice Vodka

[edit] B'nai Elim

[edit] Raheel Ramzanali

[edit] Nizami Gencevi

[edit] Nick Keesing

[edit] Typophile

[edit] Five Star Prison Cell

[edit] List of places named after people

[edit] Dreep

[edit] Comic TENMA

[edit] Tremorworks LLC

[edit] The Niven Tablets

[edit] The Rolling Stone Immortals

[edit] Electric universe (concept)

[edit] Pilot (The Nanny)

[edit] Fictional characters by occupation

[edit] Client/SOA

[edit] YHA Wastwater

[edit] Saint Mary's Catholic School

[edit] Soulcraft

[edit] Southern Maine Guerilla Drive-in

[edit] Chin mu kwan

[edit] Neo-fascism and religion

[edit] Shalsheles Junior

[edit] Palestine (artist)

[edit] Gertrude Peabody Residence Hall

[edit] Jambog

[edit] Justin Samuel

[edit] Global Research Program

[edit] Melvin Maskin

[edit] Central Ohio Film Critics Association

[edit] Forward (album)

[edit] Ollie's Discos and Entertainment

[edit] Negatory

[edit] Irantv

[edit] University of Queensland Law Revue

[edit] Think of Me First as a Person

[edit] The War on Terrorism (Turning Points in World History)

[edit] Swinesend School

[edit] Iplay

[edit] OutlookSoft

[edit] Ben Locker

[edit] Roland Rance

[edit] Rouseindahouse

[edit] Wii Linux Project

[edit] Security and safety features new to Windows Vista

[edit] Digital Juice, Inc.

[edit] Legacy brown

[edit] Long Slow Distance

[edit] 100-Hour Plan

[edit] Boston Park Plaza Hotel & Towers

[edit] Clave Rhythmz