Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 12

< March 11	March 13 >

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. --Core desat 01:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Todd, Dave Mac

Iron Maiden band member with incredibly short tenure (2 days). Does not appear to meet notability requirements. Already been A7'd once, second submission was prodded, and then prod was removed by page author. NMChico24 20:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Co-nomination I am co-nominating Dave Mac (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for the same reason. --NMChico24 20:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion begins below

Delete per nomination. Probably salt, if they're going to be recreated. A matter of days in a band and showing up for little more than a photoshoot or runs in a tour don't constitute notability. --Dennisthe2 23:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete both per nom. -- Dhartung | Talk 00:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete both per nom. Lack of sources too. --kingboyk 00:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete both per nomination. Merge whatever can be salvaged into Iron Maiden. – riana_dzasta 01:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete both and merge whatever information can be into the main page for the band. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 01:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect all to Iron Maiden.--TBCΦtalk? 01:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete both and merge any relevant or necessary information into Iron Maiden. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 02:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Please be aware that "merge and delete" is not permitted under the GFDL. Delete and redirect, or merge and redirect, or just delete all are permitted. -- Dhartung | Talk 03:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I did not know that about GFDL terms, Dhartung. Thanks for the tip. Pig^man_dialogue 05:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete both per nom. Pig^man_dialogue 05:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete both per nom.--JUDE ^talk 08:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete both - someone whose main achievement is being with the band for 2 days is not notable. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 10:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 02:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Both I strongly believe that any official member of such a hugely popular band should be included in their history and have their own page. Iron Maiden is one of the top selling and grossing acts in the world. These members are discussed in their DVD biographies and the band even did photo sessions with them. It makes no sense for them to be deleted. I know if I was was scanning the various Maiden band members, I'd be very disappointed to see two names I'd like to know more about, but they have no links. Each member has a story, and I feel they should be included. Leper Messiah 33 22:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- But alas the articles say nothing of interest. No date of birth, no photo, no where are they now, nothing. The reason? These guys aren't covered by the media because they're not notable. --kingboyk 13:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- This would assume that notability by extension connotes notability - and per WP:N, the answer to this assumption is "no, it doesn't". --Dennisthe2 23:25, 15 March 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 because there is consensus to do so, and the article meets the minimum inclusion criteria for notability and references. Regarding some of the more detailed chapter summaries, it might be wise to transwiki them to Wikisource (see [1]). YechielMan 04:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] De Viris Illustribus (Jerome)

obviously notable text, but current article is unsalvageably unencyclopedic. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jerome's_De_viris_illustribus_Chapter_1 Nardman1 00:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep and clean up. There's no point in deleting what could be a perfectly legitimate article. It would be better to post appropriate clean-up tags and try to recruit interested editors to contribute. Lots of articles have begun life as a mess and been rewritten to standards. Deletion is for crap that shouldn't be here in the first place. --NMChico24 00:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep per NMChico24. AfD is not a replacement for clean-up tags. JackSparrow Ninja 01:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep encyclopaedic, if messy. This is different from the other AfDs for the individual chapters, that should indeed be condensed into this article and deleted. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 01:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep. The article might need to be wikified, but it certaintly isn't "unsalvageably unencyclopedic".--TBCΦtalk? 01:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep This article isn't wikified yet, but that doesn't mean it has to be deleted. Hello32020 02:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Encyclopedic at that, but should be cleaned up. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 02:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above points. Not wikified, but encyclopedic enough. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 02:50, 12 March 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 & cleanup. KrakatoaKatie 04:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 20th Kisei

wtf? Nardman1 00:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you added the tag and simply said "wtf?" here? This is a tournament used in Go which hasn't been formatted yet to look like the other Kisei tournament articles (see 1st Kisei, 2nd Kisei, 31st Kisei etc). CanbekEsen 00:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, gee, some context to the article would be nice. Nardman1 00:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, but I'm not a machine and I'm not able to edit all these articles at once. All of them should be done soon. CanbekEsen 00:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Keep was just going to add a comment, which follows, but reading CanbekEsen's comment and checking 1st Kisei answers my points, subject to overall policy (no policy said to have been breached, though). See Kisei - the page gives the details of the 20th Kisei championship in 1996, which according to the Kisei page is the highest-paying competition in Japanese professional Go. I have no idea about Go, and agree that the page could do with some explanatory text (to avoid reactions such as Nardman1's, if for no other reason), but (a) most people coming across this page are likely to do so from the main Kisei page, so will get the context from there; (b) there is a WP Go Project who could be asked to tidy up this sort of page if thought necessary, or salvage the main points of this and the other 30-odd similar pages for this championship into a more limited form. Not sure of the appropriate WP policy for recording results of tournaments in this, or other, games/sports - if the policy is no, then the page should go, as it were... Hope this helps. Bencherlite 00:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete all the Kisei tournament articles except for 1st Kisei and the ones after 30th Kisei, as—in its current state—the articles are nothing more than a directory of links to the participants of the tournament.--TBCΦtalk? 01:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call it just a directory of links. When I first started these, they were just the tournament brackets, but as can be see by the 31st Kisei, these have potential in becoming articles with a load of information, but in due time. But if we do come to the comprimise of deleting such articles except the 1st Kisei, I'd like it if it wasn't speedied, as I'd like to backup these articles and possibly put them up somewhere else. Thank you. CanbekEsen 03:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep No one seems to be denying that the subjects of these articles are notable; the only concern seems to be with the quality of the articles, which isn't the concern of AfD. Maxamegalon2000 05:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Quality of the article is not a reason to delete it. I do know a little about Go, and this is a very notable tournament. It would without a doubt pass WP:NN, however I cannot supply the links because the sources are going to mostly be Japanese. I will work on this. --Selket ^Talk 06:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, and consider updating the top of WP:AFD with big flashing red letters that AFD is not WP:CLEANUP. -- Neier 00:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's a little strongly worded. The article space is not for charts unaccompanied by a single sentence, either. Some semblance of a stub should have been written before these things were added. Dekimasuよ! 13:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Perhaps; however, it is a disturbing trend recently where AFD is being used as a five-day timed "cleanup now" tag. It is not just this discussion, and I've made similar remarks in others because I think it is a real problem with AFD and Wikipedia, currently. Regarding this particular article, it was categorized before the AFD tag was added, so context was there, albeit a click away. Neier 22:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Neier 00:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep If articles aren't good enough, improve them or let someone else improve them. Deleting them only makes it that much harder to start a new one. Fg2 07:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Saying that they can be cleaned up is one thing, but the quality of these articles could be taken as a reason to delete. Things like 19th Kisei come really close to speedies under Template:Db-nocontext. It is really not acceptable to rely on readers getting all of their context from an article that isn't even linked to on the page. If these were listed at articles for creation in their current state, they would never be added. Suggest userfy until this problem has been straightened out. Dekimasuよ! 13:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Needs improvement, but I can't think of any policy or guideline that would demand a deletion. Pax:Vobiscum 10:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-16 12:53Z

[edit] Bell (surname)

As a list, this is an indiscriminate collection of information and redundant to search. As a dab page it's pretty much useless and redundant to more specific dab pages like Mark Bell. Why maintain this in addition to those? kingboyk 00:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep not indiscriminate, list of Bells with Wikipedia entries. Nardman1 00:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Surely if we can keep indiscriminate video game characters, we can keep legitimate surnames. Denni ^talk 01:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. WP:NOT#IINFO doesn't seem to apply, as this is a disambiguation page.--TBCΦtalk? 02:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete An indiscriminate list; bad precedent. Would every surname be entitled to such a list, then? If not, what's so special about Bells?Betnap 03:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Most surnames are disambiguation pages. There are hundreds of similar pages listed in Category:Surnames.--TBCΦtalk? 04:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. There already is precedent, as a look at Jones or Johnson will show. Alternatively, we could move the page to Famous people with the surname Bell per Famous people with the surname Smith. — Brian (talk) 04:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep These surname disambiguation lists are invaluable navigation tools for when you cannot remember parts of subjects' names. --Canley 08:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep agree with Canley - if a user is unable to remember a person's name, or simply types the person's name in, the disambigs are very useful.SMC 09:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - As explained above, this isn't an indiscriminate list - it's just a rather long disambiguation page. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 10:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
This isn't really what disambiguation pages are for. Nobody could reasonably expect something as generic as "Bell" to be disambiguated (there could be thousands of entries). Furthermore, we have to maintain 2 sets of pages here, the Bells list and the more specific (and proper) dab pages like Mark Bell. At the very least shorten the list by listing Mark Bell as one link to that dab page or doing some transclusion. Otherwise, the result is likely to be a badly maintained mess. --kingboyk 13:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- In the English language, people are often referred to by their surnames, especially if the speaker or writer doesn't personally know the person. As such, it's completely logical that surnames need to be disambiguated. For example, Bill Clinton is often referred to as President Clinton and Barack Obama is often referred to as Senator Obama.--TBCΦtalk? 05:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep Well-organized aid to finding information in the encyclopedia. The precise opposite of "indiscriminate." If it's not what disambiguation pages are for, then remove the disambiguation template. Fg2 07:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:45, 13 March 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 & cleanup. KrakatoaKatie 04:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heart of the Universe

original research Nardman1 00:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep and clean-up. AfD is not a replacement for clean-up or reference tags. JackSparrow Ninja 01:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- You can't clean up original research. Nardman1 01:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Yes you can, through adding reliable sources and refererences.--TBCΦtalk? 02:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Have at it then. Nardman1 02:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
      - But I'm not advocating for it to be kept. --TBCΦtalk? 02:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        Actually, you are. Merger requires that the article not be deleted. See the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Uncle G 03:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        Let me clarify: I'm not advocating for it to be kept in its present state as a seperate article. --TBCΦtalk? 03:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge/redirect to Marvel: The End. Subject isn't notable enough to merit a seperate article.--TBCΦtalk? 01:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep/Rewrite article merely needs sources.--Lostcause365 19:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep it seems notable in context of the hugely popular Marvel Comics universe, so why not keep and source? Thedreamdied 22:12, 15 March 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 deletion; non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 01:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ryder McPherson

Almost certainly a hoax - I can't find any online references for this guy. Author has removed the hoax and proposed deletion tags, so I'm bringing it here. PC78 00:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - terrible joke does not sufficiently describe this article. --Bill (who is cool!) 01:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-16 12:54Z

[edit] Beherit (Dungeons & Dragons)

Contested prod. Non-notable gaming characters. I think the telling point for this one is "No canonical description is available for all these characters." Denni ^talk 01:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Character too minor to merit an article.--TBCΦtalk? 01:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Too minor of a character, this article will go nowhere. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 02:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete at least for now. This is beyond trivia. Maybe some day he'll get a major role in an adventure or something :-) --68.40.58.255 04:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ridiculously trivial. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 10:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above or Merge if there happens to be a List of Minor Dungeons & Dragons characters. This is just too NN for words. RGTraynor 15:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. --ImpartialCelt 16:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Apparently an idea for a villain presented in Dragon (magazine) which gamemasters can drop into their RPG campaigns at their convenience, but there is little or no coverage elsewhere. Far less notable than the Dungeons & Dragons iconic characters which have artwork throughout most of the D&D publications, and feature in some D&D novels (and which are only colected together on a list here on Wikipedia). Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete a minor RPG character.-- danntm ^T _C 19:29, 12 March 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. Given that the nominator withdrew his nomination, then withdrew the withdrawal, the discussion is confusing to decipher, but there doesn't appear to be consensus to do anything. --Core desat 01:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attachment disorder

First of all, major copyright infringement. Bulk of article is a copy-pasted copyrighted article taken from here. It was sort-of covertly added here. There has been no assurance Dr. Becker-Wiedman has released this article under the GFDL. In addition, this article is written in a non-encyclopedic tone, and advocates a specific pro-Attachment POV in many places. I think it would be better to just start over from scratch as this is such a controversial topic, and both sides seem quite entrenched. --Dwiki 01:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

speedy delete copyvio. Nardman1 01:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep. I've reverted the article to the original, non-copyvio one.--TBCΦtalk? 02:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep per TBC. Dwiki, how could you look into the history and find a "covertly added" copyvio and not simply revert? As for the remainder, AFD is not for solving content disputes. Please follow appropriate dispute resolution processes. -- Dhartung | Talk 03:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point. I like the reverted version, and I admit I had not closely looked at it. I'm going to archive the talk page with an explanation of the infringement, and cross my fingers that people will just start editing this new one rather than trying to resurrect the behemoth. Nomination withdrawn.--Dwiki 07:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

KEEP The article has been though many edits and revisions and is an important subject in Psychology and mental health treatment, as evidenced by the many citations and professional peer-reviewed references. Furthermore, the talk page does show that the material that was considered copyrighted was used with the permission of Dr. Becker-Weidman. There has not been any content disputes is quite some time and the various editors appear to have reached a consensus that is reflected in the current article. DPeterson^talk 13:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
speedy keep No copyright violation exists. From the archived page the hold of the copyright stated,

The material previously deleted was not "stolen" as it is covered under fair use provisions of the copyright code. But, more to the point, I hold the copyright to that article and I am allowed to use it as I see fit...although I have edited it some here. Dr. Art 22:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

JonesRD_talk 16:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, not because of the copyvio which isn't one as said above. The copyright-owner has given permission to use the text which makes me inherently sceptical, because of WP:COI. As the nominator puts it : this article is written in a non-encyclopedic tone, and advocates a specific pro-Attachment POV in many places.

In addition to that: Attachment disorder is a term that borders on neologism and original research. The term is in use, but many times it is used short for Reactive attachment disorder, which really exists as a medical diagnosis. Attachment disorder can also be used as a pov term to describe Attachment theory. (The findings of attachment theory are usually described as attachment styles, not attachment disorders.) Since articles on Reactive attachment disorder and Attachment theory do exist I think this article is redundant.--DorisH 18:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point, that, too. This article is sort of a cluster-f and there seems to be a group that wants to enforce the status quo. I can't exactly explain why I experienced such a sinking feeling when I encountered this article, but I will admit my impulse was "burn it! kill!" as it hurts my brain in so many ways to think about all the issues that encumber it. As the article remains essentially the same as when I first encountered it, I have to say, I reinstate my desire to see it gone.--Dwiki 20:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The article may benefit from some editing. I fail to see the POV...it currently represents a consensus built after extensive wrangling and the use of advocates, RfC, and mediation. The term is a broad one, without the specificity of the clinical diagnosis of Reactive Attachment Disorder (DSM-IV-R). However, it is a term that is used extensive in literature, on the web, and in various publications. As such, the term does deserve an encyclopedia article discussing the various issues involved in its use, lack of clarity of defination, etc. It is not a POV term for Attachment Theory; that is a completely different term. For these reasons it should stay.DPeterson^talk 20:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Keep For all the reasons stated above. It is a term used (do a google search) and so should have an article here. JohnsonRon 21:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep It is certainly not copyright violation if copyright has not been violated. Note also that the original holder, by editting the material on wikipedia has also given implicit consent to it's use under the wikipedia copyleft. It seems to me that the so called 'copyright violation' is being used as an excuse for getting this article deleted. Note Also: Someone has been editting the article and has clearly removed large sections of content. This content should be restored immediately. --I 03:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I was the one who removed the content, at it was a copyvio of this article.--TBCΦtalk? 05:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  - 'Comment'You are incorrect. The archive page shows that permission was granted for use of the material. DPeterson^talk 12:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Comment See diff [[2]] DPeterson^talk 11:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close (again) as nominator has withdrawn.[3] -- Dhartung | Talk 06:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- The nom seems to have withdrawn his withdrawal.--TBCΦtalk? 08:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep This article describes a term used widely. The fact that there is controversary about its use adds to the importance of having an article in Wikipedia about it.RalphLender^talk 15:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete and rewrite "attachment disorder" certainly is a real term. Possibly redirect to reactive attachment disorder per DorisH. JuJube 02:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Kep the page As the above person says, "attachment disorder" is a real term and so deserves an encyclopedia article. It is different that reactive attachment disorder, the DSM-IV diagnosis. SamDavidson 15:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Rewrite - The use of an entire article copied and pasted into Wikipedia from a single source on a controversial issue must surely be questioned. It's amusing to see people saying "someone has been editing the article" as if that's a bad thing. Just because someone copies and pastes a huge textblock into an article doesn't mean that text can't be edited, nor does it mean that textblock is appropriate for the encyclopedia. FCYTravis 02:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Editing can be an improvement. But wholesale editing is not productive and will only provide conflict as has happened before on this article. Rather than merely deleting the entire passage, it would be better if you worked to improve it by editing the material you are concerned about. DPeterson^talk 12:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
KEEP for all the reasons previously stated. The article could use some editing. In the mean time, it should not have large sections of it blanked as some editors have done (See diffs: [[4]] [[5]] MarkWood 15:38, 16 March 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 & redirect into University of Chicago. KrakatoaKatie 05:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago Shady Dealer

Non-notable satyrical student newspaper established in 2005. A couple of reference links were posted after the prod was contested, but none which adequately establish public notability of the journal. Ohconfucius 02:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, as the article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.--TBCΦtalk? 02:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 03:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge to the University of Chicago article and Delete. I've just tried several campus newspapers of which I know, and for the most part they consist of a single paragraph in the main university article. An unsourced article about the third highest circulation student publication at a university is well under the radar; this probably merits a single sentence. RGTraynor 15:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge and redirect as per RGTraynor. References prove it exists, but it's not really notable enough for its own article. Throw it in the main article as a sentence. ♠PMC♠ 19:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge per above. --phenz^Talk 19:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge per PMC. —dima/s-ko/ 02:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to salt. KrakatoaKatie 05:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Salt crystals

There is nothing but an advertisement for lamps. Cisz Helion 02:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

For now, Delete as an advertisement. However if someone who knows about these salt crystals can rewrite the article, keep. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 03:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep 99% of the article is about a natural formation/element and has encyclopedic value. It is the notes section on GAMMA Salt Cristals, Ltd that should be deleted, as it is clearly an advertisement. The rest of the article may need improvement but should not be deleted. Betnap 03:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- What do you envision the article saying that isn't already said at Sodium chloride#Crystal structure and Edible salt#Forms of edible salt? Uncle G 03:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
~~Weak keep~~ Redirect to Sodium chloride#Crystal structure. Someone has removed the spam.--TBCΦtalk? 03:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment As far as I can tell, the claim that "heated salt emits ions" is pseudo-science. As long as there is no reliable source on this claim, there is not even a stub to keep.Cisz Helion 04:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's completely nonsensical. If you heat salt long enough, is it supposed to release all its chlorine as negative ions and turn into a chunk of sodium? I have no clue where this idea came from, but it has absolutely no basis in fact, and no place in an encyclopedia. Zetawoof^(ζ) 23:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment This still reads like a hoax or an ad. Negative Ions? Not voting to delete because I think a better article can be written.--68.40.58.255 04:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete due to lack of sources. SmokeyJoe 06:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - not actually about salt crystals, but avbout somne kind of new age lamp. Artw 14:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect as per TBC --DorisH 17:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm with TBC on this one. Let's redirect it over to Sodium chloride#Crystal structure, and make a note in that article that they are occasionally used for lamps - without mentioning anything about "heated negative ions". ♠PMC♠ 19:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Salt (verb) totally redundant. If someone didn't understand my pun, I meant delete. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 19:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Move to Salt crystal lamps and rewrite the article there, about Peter Ferreira, his "Institute of Biophysical Research Germany" and how little basis there is in science for his pet theory of salt crystal ionization. People should be able to find information on how wacky and unsupported this idea is before they buy these lamps. I don't read German, but from what I can gather through the translator, this article I found on Google Scholar would seem to be relevant. Redirect the current page to Sodium chloride#Crystal structure. I guess that means delete, after all, doesn't it. Hmmm. Well, I really would like someone to write the article about the bad science. Maybe I'll look into it. Too bad I don't read German . . . but surely someone else has written an exposé in English, right? —Carolfrog 23:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment I removed all pseudoscience. Now it's a barebones article about...crystals of salts. The actual things, not some whack lamps. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 01:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Move some of the material removed by M1ss1ontom to a new article on "salt crystal lamps" which are a legitimate topic (even if the science supporting them isn't). Crypticfirefly 04:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I copied a bunch of it to my userspace. I'll work on seeing if I can't write a good article on the lamps or on the supposed properties of the Himalayan crystals, and then I'll move it back into the mainspace at an appropriate article name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carolfrog (talk • contribs) 00:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
Redirect to salt now that the crackpottery is gone and only a dicdef is left. —David Eppstein 19:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to salt. - grubber 04:28, 15 March 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. --Core desat 01:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brookside School

Notability not asserted and not apparent. Possible vanity. Anlace 02:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete- non-notable. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 03:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No reliable sources or references to verify notability.--TBCΦtalk? 03:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per TBC, no reliable sources (actually, no sources of any kind) . TJ Spyke 04:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Definitely Delete per all above.UberCryxic 04:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Schools aren't inherently notable, and this one makes no assertion of notability. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 10:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete No information on what the school is notable for, possible advertizing and certainly unnessascary on Wikipedia.ANHL 12:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete no assertion of notability, and no sources. ♠PMC♠ 19:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. no sources. Only relevant Google hit was the page itself. --phenz^Talk 19:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete- non-notable. SkipSmith 06:54, 13 March 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. --Core desat 01:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Satter

This article is about a probation officer who may well be performing a valuable service for society yet does not seem to have attained encyclopedic notability. Although this article contains six external links, none of them appear to have to do with this person. Three of those links go to the home pages of organizations he is affiliated with but with no reference to him personally. Another link [6] supposedly describes a study in which he participated, but the article at that link does not mention this person. And the remaining two links refer to a police officer in Overland Park, Kansas being honored for catching a criminal by noticing a forged license plate. However, that incident took place in the year 2000, when the subject of this article was apparently still in community college or university in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, over 400 miles away from Overland Park. Thus, the officer honored in Overland Park is most likely a different person. The article asserts that the subject's main claim to fame is his participation in a study in 2006, yet no sources have been provided that describe that study or connect him with it, nor have I found any on my own. I previously submitted this article for proposed deletion, but the WP:PROD tag was removed by the article creator. I recommend a delete. --Metropolitan90 03:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, although it asserts notability, these are relatively common honors. Kudos to officer Satter, but achievement is not notability. -- Dhartung | Talk 03:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I'm sure that he's done great work as a probation officer, but as Dhartung mentioned, those awards are quite minor and certaintly not notable enough to merit giving him an article.--TBCΦtalk? 03:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Being one of nine participants in an obscure university study isn't enough for notability --⁪froth^t 04:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete From the link given, even the study itself sounds rather routine. Nothing establishing this person was a part of it, but even if he was, that doesn't suffice for notability. Mwelch 07:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. If he was named LEO of the year for his state, that might serve, but gosh, officers arrest people; that's not remotely notable. RGTraynor 15:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. Not notable.--Getaway 17:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete- non-notable. SkipSmith 06:55, 13 March 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. Merging this somewhere can be discussed on the article's talk page. --Core desat 01:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newfoundland and Labrador First Party

Running in one by-election with those sore results does not make this organization notable. Fails WP:ORG and google test. Delete GreenJoe 03:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge/redirect to List of political parties in Newfoundland and Labrador.--TBCΦtalk? 03:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - this is a registered political party in Newfoundland and Labrador (see reference provided in article) founded by a former Member of the House of Assembly. Also, it now passes the primary criterion of the WP:ORG test: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other." References have been provided to the Chief Electoral Officer of Newf?Lab, and to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Ground Zero | t 13:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep. This party seems to have just barely scraped the surface of notability in Newfoundland -- 158 G-hits, with the first several being this article and various Wikimirrors, is usually a sure sign of death. However, there has been sourcing to significant media outlets. RGTraynor 15:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep as it does seem to just barely muster its way past the bar for inclusion per WP:ORG. I think a better treatment for this and some other very minor party articles I have run across would be better treated by merging them into some kind of "Minor Parties in X" articles, but since the closing admin is not a slave I have to endorse the keep. Arkyan 15:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep --ImpartialCelt 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep I read WP:ORG the same way other users have done above and then I think any party that has gotten any votes in an election should be encyclopedic. However, I tend to support Arkyan's idea to have a Minor parties in Canada article. --DorisH 18:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep as a registered political party that has been in an election. -- Whpq 20:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per Ground Zero notation above. --HJKeats 00:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep notable, sufficiently sources, meets WP:ORG. WP:GOOGLE is an essay- not a policy- not even a guideline. It is internally riddled with cautions and self limiting language. It should not be used to delete the work of other editors.Edivorce 19:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Registered political parties should be important enough for Wikipedia to cover. Burntsauce 23:30, 16 March 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 to Fatal hilarity. Cbrown1023 talk 00:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Mitchell

Non-notable person. His death might be but it is mentioned enough in the article Fatal hilarity. In addition the whole entry seems to be a copy paste with a few minor alterations to the reference given. A copyright violation by any other name smells just as ... oh never mind.Peter Rehse 05:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Not sure about the copy-vio, but WP:NN requires multiple references. I think this is unlikely. --Selket ^Talk 06:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete List of unusual deaths already has all the information.--JUDE ^talk 09:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect It's adequately covered in the other article, and there is little potential for expansion here. "Alex Mitchell" is a plausible search term. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 10:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment As a search term it would yield 70,000+ ghits - of those the vast majority are someone else. This is better as a straight-up delete.Peter Rehse 10:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep I prod'd this article earlier for being questionable without reference. The notability of a person who died in a truly unique way is hard to disregard. It is true that the article could certainly do with some expansion, particularly about the person in question. Unless there is a copyright violation(copying without permission) using the phrase "copyvio" does not justify a deletion. I can see no decent reason to remove this content from wikipedia. i kan reed 18:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Check the citations at the bottom of the Snopes page, his death has been the subject of multiple non-trivial printed sources. In my opinion, anyone who has done anything notable, is notable in his or her own right. 96T 18:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Dying does not make one notable, no matter how it occurred. --Mus Musculus 21:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect. The subject of the article probably meets WP:BIO per the two references in the "Sources" section of the Snopes page. To me, the issue seems to be one of appropriate organisation of content. I am inclined to think that this is adequately covered in fatal hilarity, but believe a redirect would still be appropriate as his death was the first recorded death by laughter. -- Black Falcon 05:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- In modern times.Peter Rehse 05:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Ah, I failed to notice that. ... I still think redirecting is the appropriate action. Again, for me the issue is content organisation and I find this article to be completely unnecessary given the existence of the equal-length snippet in fatal hilarity. Still, I feel a redirect should exist as a plausible search term. Anyone who wants to create an article on another "Alex Mitchell" would still be able to do so. -- Black Falcon 06:06, 17 March 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. --Core desat 01:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Task Force to Overcome Racism in Topeka

No evidence of this existence of this organization, certainly no reliable sources, so doesn't meet Wikipedia:Attribution Xyzzyplugh 03:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

delete as not notable Anlace 04:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as an admittedly (per the article) ineffectual organization that did not achieve notability. Noting that the author, Montanean (talk • contribs), had some WP:COI problems (a college staff member writing an article about that college), it seems likely this is similar and written from personal experience or primary sources. Fails WP:ATT. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as NN, WP:OR, possible WP:COI. Let's review. We've got a nearly completely-unsourced article, written in an unencyclopedic essay style, describing an ephemeral outfit with only 31 unique G-hits (almost all of which is this article and various Wikimirrors), with a heap of external links that are either broken or which don't actually mention this outfit. The author admitted himself that it was very difficult to describe from NPOV, that "This article comes from a primary source, namely the author. Extensive searches of the web have uncovered nothing on this topic so this is a Wikipedia exclusive," and that the article was not finished ... and that was three years ago. There are so many grounds for deletion it's a pick and choose. RGTraynor 15:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - almost no assertion of notability, reads like an essay, which we hardly require more of. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 16:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - The only relevant finds from a Google search are copies of this article. SkipSmith 07:00, 13 March 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 talk 00:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Coyle BBC

Delete - not finding the independent sources that attest to the subject's notability. The page is currently sourced by the BBC page (not independent), a website for a club he's associated with and a blog. The article was written entirely by User:Mark Coyle so there are obvious WP:COI issues. Otto4711 04:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. A cursory check of the BBC weblink provided in the article turned this up: Mark Coyle's BBC bio. It attributes every particular of the article. RGTraynor 15:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that a source from the BBC for someone who works for the BBC is not independent, as I noted in the nomination. Otto4711 20:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

- Comment: So what? Do you consider the BBC an unreliable source? RGTraynor 20:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I consider an unverified, probably self-published bio on a BBC website to be an unreliable source and contributory to the COI problems inherent in the article. If the gentleman is notable, there should be multiple independent sources, meaning not self-published, and someone other than the subject of the article should be contributing to it. Otto4711 21:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I find your argument completely unconvincing. The BBC is not merely a reliable source, but damn near the gold standard of reliable media sources upon which we rely. Furthermore, I'm unsure what your premise is for claiming that this bio is "self-published," other than it is on the BBC website and that Coyle works for the BBC ... how many tens of thousands of employees must the Beeb have? Claiming that the BBC is unreliable just because the subject of the article works for it is a dizzying leap of logic for which I'd be interested in seeing your supporting evidence. Finally, while you lean heavily on the "independent" source argument, in point of fact, nothing in WP:ATT requires the use of independent sources having no connection to the article's subject. Using such sources should be done with caution, but "Primary source material that has been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution in Wikipedia ..." RGTraynor 05:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Part of his job is to publish material on the BBC website. That makes the BBC website, as it relates to him, self-published. I would not suggest that the BBC is not a reliable source for stories that are not about topics or persons directly related to the BBC, but in an instance of a BBC website maintainer it's not. The portion of the article talking about his leisure interests is sourced by the website for an organization of which he is the leader, which as far as I'm concerned also constitutes a self-published source. As far as using such sources go, the relevant section of WP:ATT states: "Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as:

it is relevant to their notability;

it is not contentious;

it is not unduly self-serving;

it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;

there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;

the article is not based primarily on such sources." (emphasis added)

This article is based entirely on self-published sources and the plain text of WP:ATT states that such sources are unacceptable. The article has no sources that meet WP:ATT Otto4711 12:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly possible that he put up that material. It is by no means self-evident, and you're presuming (based on what premise I cannot fathom) that the BBC is in the habit of letting its webmasters just put up anything they want without any internal controls whatsoever. Furthermore, you're leaving out the beginning sentence in your laundry list - that they pertain either to:

* "A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking ... Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves;" or

* "A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight."

I can think of no grounds under which a news organization with the sheer prestige of the BBC falls under either category. RGTraynor 13:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, material that has been published by the author. That's an either-or statement so if it meets either side it's self-published. It's not in the slightest unreasonable to think that a person responsible for maintaining content on the BBC website might have had something to do with writing the content of the bio found on the BBC website. You've also failed to address the fact that the remainder of the article is sourced by the website of an organization of which he is the chairman, you've failed to address the fact that there are no sources other than ones that are directly connected to the subject himself that attest to his notability and you've failed to address the conflict of interest issues. Otto4711 14:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

(shrugs) The WP:COI guideline (and it is only a guideline) discourages editors with a conflict of interest; it is neither implicitly nor explicitly prima facie grounds for deletion. You have consistently refused to tender your proof that Coyle wrote that bio himself on the BBC website, and you've consistently refused to explain which, if any, biographical elements you challenge. In effect, the sole prop for your argument to delete is the premise that the BBC must be publishing lying bios about its own employees. There comes a point where common sense should apply, and we're well past it. RGTraynor 17:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, the "prop" for my belief that the article should be deleted is that there are no independent reliable sources of which he has been the primary source that attest to the subject's notability. I'm not quite clear where the breakdown in your understanding of that is. It is not a question of "challenging" specific biographical details. It is a question that the article as a whole is not properly attributed. Nor did I ever say that the COI was in and of itself grounds for deletion but it is something that should be weighed in the process rather than just dismissed with "it's just a guideline." Can I prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Coyle himself sat at a comuter and typed out the BBC entry word-for-word? Of course not. But hey, common sense tells me that the guy who's responsible for maintaining the content of a website had a hand in creating the material. Otto4711 17:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep per source found by RGTraynor. And would someone please add to the article? Alf^Photoman 18:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment, if BBC is unreliable please check these:

+ 16000 Google hits searching "Mark Coyle" + BBC

Alf^Photoman 22:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Telegraph item is about someone named Greg Dyke. The Motherwell Athletics Club is an organization of which Coyle is the chairman, meaning that it's not independent. The Glsgow Student item is a program booklet which mentions Coyle as one of a number of speakers, in a note that's about two paragraphs long, making it a trivial reference. And the EPUK site appears to be an email list, which is one step below a blog as far as a source goes, and I didn't notice a reference to Coyle in it anyway. None of these sources meet WP:ATT. Otto4711 23:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Telegraph article is a petition against the dismissal of Greg Dyke, signed by Coyle among many others, and you have surely checked all other 16000 hits? Alf^Photoman 23:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A petition signed by dozens or hundreds of people does not establish the notability of the people who signed it. And I'm not the one seeking to keep this article, thus it is not my responsibility to check any sources. I did in fact check several dozen Google hits before nominating the article and, as noted, did not find any sources. Otto4711 23:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's see ... we have a PDF of a flier for a media convention in Glasgow in 2005 with Coyle as a panelist and a short bio [7] ... RGTraynor 17:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Two paragraphs out of a multipage document. That would constitute a trivial mention. You'd think someone bursting with such notability would be the subject of at least one substantial reference that wasn't put up by someone with a direct connection, but it's not like standards actually matter I guess. Otto4711 17:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep per RDTraynor. Edison 16:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per RGTraynor. Claiming that the BBC source is not independent in this case is like arguing that British government sources are not independent of anyone who was or is affiliated with the British government, whether its Tony Blair or a groundskeeper at an RAF installation. -- Black Falcon 05:28, 17 March 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. --Core desat 01:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Sams

Many times, a sloppy bio is worth a cleanup, but this one is just ridiculous. It's unverified, and I'm almost certain that all or part of it is false. Note also the similarity of some text to [http://www.operationdvd.us/founders.php YechielMan 04:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

delete as non notable and unsourced vanity article Anlace 04:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as per above, probable hoax. For all the enormous allegations made in the article, of the several "David Sams" listed on IMDB, three have only a single credit, one has been an actor in three shorts, and none have had anything to do with the shows cited. The only connection with infomercials coming up are this article and a Myspace page [8], the book he allegedly wrote doesn't exist on Amazon, and I've spent way too much time researching this blatant hoax as it is. RGTraynor 15:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as probable hoax until verified as per WP:ATT. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 16:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:A and WP:V Alf^Photoman 18:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete I suspect this is a vanity article. Note the similarity in style to what I think is his defunct governor's campaign website: http://216.176.200.236/ SkipSmith 07:04, 13 March 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. There are arguments to merge, but they would be calling for merging to an article that was also deleted in AFD, so there is nowhere to merge to, as any merge would constitute a recreation of that article. --Core desat 01:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anya (TimeSplitters)

Strong Delete Non notable. I also nominate all of the following articles (please excuse the large number of articles, for so many shouldn't have been created to begin with):

All of these are Wikia caliber articles and do not need to exist. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 04:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge all into List of TimeSplitters characters.--TBCΦtalk? 04:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete the one article that was actually nominated. If the OP actually nominates the others, I will suggest a merge into one article. TJ Spyke 04:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
You do know that if you want to nominate all of those, you have to place the AFD tag on all of them? Otherwise they aren't included in this AFD.
- WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY specifically instructs: "A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict." Krimpet 15:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Just a side note: I fail to see the similarity between a) avoiding a little bit of red tape when that's needed, and b) providing adequate, quite reasonable and somewhat effortlessly added notification to the people who have these things in their watchlists. The latter just happens to be the "spirit" of {{subst:afd1}}. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. Not encyclopaedic or notable on their own. Anlace 04:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete all - Incredibly crufty. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 10:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete all - no real-world assertion of notability as required per WP:FICT: WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of info. We shotgunned the Gundam articles for identical reasons. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 16:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge all into List of TimeSplitters characters or simply TimeSplitters characters if it's to be more than just a list. Tim (Xevious) 17:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete all per nom.Edison 18:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I just want to apologize for the way I've carried out this mass nomination. I'm still somewhat new to the ways some things are carried out on Wikipedia. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 19:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge all per Xevious. — RJH (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
To the "merge" voters: I can't understand how you want all of these characters to be merged. I can understand a few of them that are both recurring and play roles in the storyline, but do you really want all of them merged? That's ridiculous; the main reason why I'm nominating most of these is because they're non notable and I guarantee you that if all of these characters are merged into a "list of characters" article, I will eventually nominate that one, in turn, if the non notable characters cannot be removed from the list. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 19:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- How will having minor characters deteriorate the overall quality of the list? In fact, many lists are entirely devoted to minor characters, such as Minor characters in Seinfeld or List of minor characters on South Park.--TBCΦtalk? 08:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Ok, either you know nothing about the TimeSplitters series or you're a fanboy of the series, because many of these "minor character" lists list important minor characters; 90 % of these characters listed don't even appear in the storyline, and, if they do, it's only once. Like someone said, most of these articles consist of only the descriptive paragraph found in the "gallery" section of the games, which are not neutral and in-universe and, unfortunately, that's the most you're gonna get out of them. In the end, merge is too generous. Delete this crap. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 14:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete all, hell no to merge - there are over one hundred character models in each TimeSplitters game, each one of these has a paper-thin one paragraph storyline and absolutely no significance whatsoever. A merged list of TimeSplitters characters would be a bloated and useless monstrosity, and an incomplete one at that, considering that only a couple dozen characters are covered here. Kudos to the nominator for tracking down all this crap ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 01:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, to all the "merge" voters again: please see this past discussion about a "list of TimeSplitters" characters before suggesting a merge. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 16:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete All per nom. If one of the above merge voters would like to volunteer to merge them into a new, single article that'd be fine but I don't want to doom the closing admin to that much footwork so my opinion is a simple delete. Arkyan 17:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete all - per nom. I hardly think there's much you can write about a character named "Badass Cyborg". Wickethewok 22:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
'Delete all, nothing notable about any of these characters. --Mus Musculus 22:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
'Merge all, simply saying NN isn't enough to delete. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps you need to read my previous comments I made, specifically addressed to "merge" voters, which explains in greater detail why they don't deserve to exist. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 23:51, 15 March 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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FastLife International

Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Squidfryerchef 04:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, does not meet WP:CORP. --Mus Musculus 22:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Do Not Delete, WP:CORP states:"A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." This group has been the subject of several television & radio programs (including 60 minutes). and coutnless press articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.253.33.67 (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
- Sorry, but those citations for television segments don't outline notability. They just mention the company, and usually by the name "Fast Impressions" which is not even the title of this article. There might be that many television mentions of a missing manhole cover. --Mus Musculus 04:14, 16 March 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 for having no useful content. Friday (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 8th Gaming Generation

The article is a blatant violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Hemlock Martinis 04:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Crystal ballery, speculation, etc. Maxamegalon2000 05:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

also the article even states that there the next gerneration consoles are not officially announced. Rumors (espically unsoured) are not enough. --70.48.110.250 06:13, 12 March 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. Cbrown1023 talk 01:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yemassee (journal)

I'm not sure about the notability of this college lit journal. Some are quite well known and important but I've never heard of this one. At the least there is a WP:COI problem with someone with the same name as the reviews editor starting the article. Doubt always makes me list it here rather than speedy delete, even if I'm fairly sure of the outcome. Pig^man_dialogue 05:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:V, fails WP:BK. Only 307 Google hits on a directed search [9], and while a number of web sources mention this magazine, that falls under the "trivial mention" clause; they do no more than mention its existence or that Soandso was a co-editor of the magazine back in undergrad student days. RGTraynor 15:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Do Not Delete. This journal is notable for publishing interviews with Nobel Laureates and Booker Prize winners. Derek Walcott and Kazuo Ishiguro are among the most famous living writers. They do not grant interviews to non notable journals. This article is not original research, its information is verifiable, and it is NPOV. WP:BK does not apply to creative writing journals or scholarly monographs, both of which require far different standards. By any standards, it is a successful and notable creative writing journal. It should not be compared to the New Yorker, but to Switchback (online literary journal), diacritics, The Callaloo Journal, Pearl (literary magazine), and Sewanee Review. NONE of these articles are marked for deletion. Yemassee (journal) compares favorably to them in terms of notability. The journal is also notable as the public face of the flagship university of the State of South Carolina. It is the most important publication of its kind in the Southeast--the literary leader in the region. Creative writers know about this journal, and they know its history and its prestige. Your measure of the importance of the journal based upon its web presence doesn't really mean anything. Just because you can't come up with thousands of hits on google doesn't mean that something is not notable or important. If you can think of another way for me to make it sound more notable, then please make a suggestion, but I contend that the journal is clearly notable.
- Comment Well, first off, if you claim the information is verifiable, verify it; let's see some sources. Secondly, you make a number of unsupported claims about the magazine's notability -- THE public face of the university (I'm sure the school's sports teams would demur)? THE most important such publication in the Southeast? If it is as overwhelmingly highly regarded as all of that, that regard should be based on fact, not supposition; source any such reviews or critical acclaim (I don't consider it a positive sign that the Boston Public Library, a library exceeded in size of collection only by the Library of Congress and Harvard's, doesn't have this literary leader in its collection). Thirdly, while the article drops several names, there is nothing backing that up. If there indeed have been such interviews, issue please? Fourthly, whether the article constitutes original research or is written in NPOV style or not is irrelevant; the merits of this AfD aren't on such grounds. RGTraynor 05:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  - It is not irrelevant that the article presents no original research and is written in NPOV. The merits of the journal do not rest on its popularity with Boston Libraries but rather upon the quality of its publications. I will add the issues corresponding to the interviews that are now mentioned in the article. The journal is obviously the literary public face of the university, along with Dr. Kwame Dawes--Distinguished Poet in Residence, Director of the South Carolina Poetry Initiative, and faculty advisor to Yemassee (journal)--and Janette Turner Hospital (acclaimed novelist, Distinguished Professor, and Distinguished Sponsor of Yemassee. The claims of notability made in the article itself, backed up by the journal's website and by the printed publications of the journal, establish the notability clearly. Kwame Dawes, Janette Turner Hospital, and Dr. Matthew Bruccoli (a patron of Yemassee) do not lend their support to literary ventures of no merit. Indeed, their support contributes to the journal's notability. As mentioned above, Derek Walcott and Kazuo Ishiguro and Robert Olen Butler, winners of the Nobel, Booker, and Pulizter prizes do not grant interviews to non-notable publications. Indeed, the presence of their interviews within the pages of Yemassee are alone enough to verify its notability.
    - Fair enough -- then back up your assertions. You are quite incorrect if inferring that the quality of this publication (such as it may be) is at all pertinent here. Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion rests principally on verifiability. As you should know, the publication's own website does not suffice for verification purposes per WP:ATT. Yay for sourcing that namedropping; now all you have to do is come up with some third-party verifiable sources for the mag's reputation, or else edit those out. RGTraynor 01:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    - At the risk of being contentious, your arguments are a little circular. Notable and famous literary people are interviewed in the journal, ergo the journal is important because famous literary people wouldn't be interviewed in an unnotable journal. What I'm looking for is articles about the journal. I also notice that Yemassee is not indexed by Project Muse. And, yes, while Google hits are not a sole indication of notability, they do provide one marker or indication of possible notability. For example, although I'm not a close follower of literary journals, I have heard of diacritics and Sewanee Review. Should all of the journals you mentioned above have articles on Wikipedia? I don't know. That falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm a little concerned that your argument is one of "fame contagion". On Wikipedia, the wife or husband of a notable person isn't automatically notable because of their relationship. I'm thinking a similar standard here. --Pig^man_dialogue 02:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
      - RGTraynor, okay. You make some fair points. I'll go to the library. The journal was founded in the same year at James Dickey's 70th birthday. Dickey was the king of the University of South Carolina English Department at the time, so perhaps he was the first faculty advisor. Would that be notable? Otherwise, I'll sort through newspapers.

Pigman, literary journals achieve notability by publishing famous authors. This is not circular. It works in reverse: publications become less notable when they stop publishing famous/notable authors. What you call "fame contagion" is, in fact, the primary principle of notability for a small, tax-exempt, non-profit literary publication. In fact, such a publication cannot do much better than Yemassee has done. It is clear, that you are "not a close follower of literary journals." Another way that small literary publications achieve notability is by publishing texts that are selected for awards. See the article for new info on this front. Notice that it is cited.

Err ... perhaps you are conflating the term "notability." I mean it as it is defined on Wikipedia, not by some subjective non-Wikipedia standard. To quote: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability ... Notability is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". It is not measured by Wikipedia editors' own subjective judgements." This is where Yemassee fails completely, so far, and this is why its lack of inclusion in the collection of the United States' largest municipal library is damning. RGTraynor 14:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. As it stands, there is no verifiable proof of notability. Need secondary sources backing up claims to notability. --Mus Musculus 22:05, 15 March 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. --Core desat 02:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raytoons Cartoon Avenue

Contested prod (but not explained or improved). Self-published first issue of amateur comics magazine without any notable authors. No verifiable independent sources, no notability (awards, reviews, ...). 41 distinct Google hits[10], most an ad on "craigslist" indicating that it was looking for submissions. Fram 06:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, it's entirely non-notable and entirely non-verifiable. Moreover, the powerword self-pimping isn't endearing but creates an air of fraudulence. Established in 2006? One issue? Flagship, Known to.. Leaves the impression Ray is looking to improve business. MURGH ^disc. 12:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom; looks like nom's already done all the homework! RGTraynor 16:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - mass of red links as well. "The magazine is most known to artists as being the most open" - in other words, "the magazine is desperate for content". Heh. --Action Jackson IV 06:14, 13 March 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. --Core desat 02:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ansem Retort

Webcomic with no support for notability and no third party sources. ' 06:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - probably even speedy delete, since this doesn't even assert notability, let alone support it. --Haemo 08:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, NN. Speedy isn't warranted, as the article claims to have won an award, but the award is from some random guy's website. RGTraynor 16:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete — Non-notable, same reasons as above. Nol888_(Talk)^{(Review me please)} 18:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, lacks notabilty. Addhoc 20:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, no third party sources exist. Salad Days 22:32, 15 March 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. --Core desat 02:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of bishonen characters

This is list that is entirely original research; there are no sources to back up the loooong list of POV claims. (And, no, random people on the Internet are not acceptable as sources, we need confirmation from people who have an actual involvement with those characters, which is exceptionally unlikely. A POV that's shared by some guy with a website is still a POV.) I have deleted a similar list from bishōnen under the same reasoning. ' 06:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Unsourced and POV. TJ Spyke 06:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as a violation of WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:ATT to name just a few ... Arkyan 15:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete indescriminate list, original research, inherent point of view, etc. Koweja 01:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 01:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete For obvious reasons, as above.MightyAtom 03:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as reasons stated above, bishōnen from what I see is to broad a term to have any sort of list. Da Big Bozz 21:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Very broad/vague term thats unsuitable for a list. Wickethewok 22:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete for reasons self-evident. JuJube 02:38, 14 March 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 Sppedy Delete - NYC JD (interrogatories) 22:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hedgecore

Fails WP:NN and WP:NFT. This is a neologism promoted by (as far as I can find) a single band in a single song. Selket ^Talk 07:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Non-notable neologism. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 22:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete, no notability asserted, bollocks. --Mus Musculus 22:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to University of the Philippines, Diliman. --Core desat 02:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DZUP

Hoax article. Frequency and callsign are owned by University of the Philippines-Diliman. [11] Danngarcia 07:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy redirect to University of the Philippines, Diliman. --Howard the Duck 08:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy redirect. What DZUP in Las Pinas? UP Diliman owns DZUP way, way back even before I was born, and it has been theirs ever since as the University's radio station. Contents of the current article appears to be a hoax. --- Tito Pao 04:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to America Online. KrakatoaKatie 05:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AOL Pictures

I'm fixing an incomplete nomination. Apparently this article has been on Wikipedia for a couple of months and still is virtually devoid of content. This feature of America Online does not appear to satisfy WP:WEB on its own. --Metropolitan90 04:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, seems to exist just for See also purposes. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to America Online. --Mus Musculus 04:29, 16 March 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. --Core desat 02:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kyle and Evan Do The Movies

Previously nominated for lack of notability, and kept despite WP:SPAs/sockpuppets and absence of policy-based keep arguments. Still no real assertion of notability or cited source. No attempt has been made to clean up the article since the first AFD. Mosmof 08:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete No sources, no claims of notability. The previous AfD seems to make arguments of "it's interesting/useful" without really saying why it should be kept. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 10:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per WP:WEB or simple WP:N. Reading the first AFD, not sure why the result was a keep, when it was at best (and including the meat/sockpuppets) a no consensus. No external sources, no sign of improvement since the AFD. Ytny (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:V, NN. This is just a handful of blurry home videos uploaded by some guys over a period of several years to their own website, and must they be thankful that Youtube exists now. Looking at the previous AfD, the assertion that closing admins look at the merits of the debate rather than counting votes is a touch shaky. A directed Google search (minus Wikipedia and their own website) turns up zero hits. To their credit, this was posted to their website's own log: "In case anybody cares, the Kyle and Evan Do The Movies article on Wikipedia is on its way to an eventual death. It's been flagged with 3 seperate "this is not a good article" notices. They also have a good point, it's not notable according to the notability guidelines." RGTraynor 16:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment To be completely fair, looking at the original AfD again, most of the delete arguments weren't exactly convincing either. They were simple votes with no explanation. So I think keeping the article was the correct move, but not as a "keep", but as a "no consensus". Ytny (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - the number of Ghits is pretty damning. Non-notable and non-verifiable. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 22:48, 12 March 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, attack page. Kusma (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Gach

I can't find any evidence that this person exists. It's rather likely that this history is entirely fictitious, concocted to impugn some unknown by this name. It fails WP:ATT and probably WP:HOAX and WP:ATTACK. Deranged bulbasaur 08:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, it seems much like an attack page. SMC 09:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom, and also fails WP:V.

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

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

The result was Speedied and protected

[edit] Paragon Partition Manager

Contested prod. Speedied twice earlier as an advertisemtnt, but re-created. Non-notable software, doesn't meet any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (software). Tagged since last month, but no secondary sources or references. No assertion of notability either -- it's just one of the many such software available -- I couldn't find that should deserve it a place in Wikipedia. Delete as non-notable. utcursch | talk 09:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete and salt to avoid re-creation Alf^Photoman 15:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as above. A solo effort to create Paragon-based software articles is the sole Wiki activity of the creator, so WP:COI might be a factor as well. RGTraynor 16:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Seems pretty likely that a COI is involved, per RGTraynor. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 22:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as above. This is clearly advertising. Irene Ringworm 21:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Does not assert notability, written as an advert. -- intgr 08:51, 15 March 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. --Core desat 02:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ailene Light

There is no assertion of notability except from its own sources. There are just about no external reviews of this subject, and a search reveals very little about this subject. On concern here is Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Notability. This subject seems very obscure (not very well known) to be posted in an encyclopedia. --Snooziums 20:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Snooziums may be listing these as a response to another AFD, rather than on their particular merit or lack thereof. Snooziums, have you read WP:POINT?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Well ... while I believe Snooziums has made a string of bad faith nominations, this article deserves to be shot down on the merits. RGTraynor 05:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment You may well be right. Once I figured out what Snooziums was doing, I just slapped the note on all of the proposed deletes. I don't really have time to check every one of these for value.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 16:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, per my nomination. --Snooziums 20:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, NN. 86 directed Google hits [12], and probable WP:COI as well; the only Wiki contributions of the creator are this article and adding "Ailene Light" to various lists and links on various psychic-related articles. RGTraynor 16:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as advertisement for apparently not well known psychic; the site does not even list any references to purported articles about her--which is even less than usual.DGG 00:23, 13 March 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. --Core desat 02:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aiwass

There is no assertion of notability except from its own sources. There are just about no external reviews of this subject, and a search reveals very little about this subject. On concern here is Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Notability. This subject seems very obscure (not very well known) to be posted in an encyclopedia. --Snooziums 19:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Snooziums may be listing these as a response to another AFD, rather than on their particular merit or lack thereof. Snooziums, have you read WP:POINT?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, per my nomination. --Snooziums 20:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep Google list 83,000 uses of this word from a diverse spectrum of opinion from skeptic to a range of different occult groups. This alone fills the new independant notability criteria. Lumos3 17:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep I'm not a Thelemite, but this appears to be a major source for Crowley's work.

Wups--that was me. *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 16:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep Notable per Lumos3 comment above. Also, this article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Thelema. I am not associated with that project, but it seems to me the editors working on that project have done a lot of work in good faith to pull together notable encyclopedic material (much of which is well-sourced) of interest to many. Parzival418 18:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. A well known name to those who are familiar with the works of Aleister Crowley. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Extremely important in the Thelema 'mythology'. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 22:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Major source —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ptdecker (talk • contribs) 00:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
Keep Very important figure in Thelema and Crowley. To remove would be like removing the Holy Spirit from Christianity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LucyFyre (talk • contribs) 18:19, 16 March 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. KrakatoaKatie 05:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Betty Shine

There is no assertion of notability except from its own sources. There are just about no external reviews of this subject, and a search reveals very little about this subject. On concern here is Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Notability. This subject seems very obscure (not very well known) to be posted in an encyclopedia. --Snooziums 20:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Snooziums may be listing these as a response to another AFD, rather than on their particular merit or lack thereof. Snooziums, have you read WP:POINT?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, per my nomination. --Snooziums 20:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, it seems to be more of a personal promotion than an article. --Snooziums 20:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This cut-and-paste nomination streak is bothersome, and suggests kneejerk nomination with no attempt to uncover whether the subject is notable. In Shine's case, she appears to be. UK Google returns nearly twelve thousand hits, she's got a dozen or more books currently in print, and among those hits are reviews and citations from the Observer, the BBC and other such sources. All that took me about four minutes to research. The article certainly needs work and improved sourcing, but AfD is not the proper venue for that. RGTraynor 16:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It does need more sourcing, but I am inclined to believe that the series of nominations is an attempt to prove a WP:POINT about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Books. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 17:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Mmm, after reading that, I concur; this (and the whole chain of them, come to that) certainly now strikes me as a bad faith nomination. RGTraynor 17:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per RGTraynor and please do not do WP:POINT mass AFD nominations by cutting and pasting the same comments about supposed unsuccessful searches for sources when others can find the sources readily. Edison 17:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Very notable, most likely a bad faith nomination. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 22:51, 12 March 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, no consensus to redirect. Daniel Bryant 00:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biker comedy

The article only notes one film of the genre, the 2007 film Wild Hogs, and we don't need "genres" for every type of movie out there— what's next, Man waving a stick comedy? --Sarcha 45 06:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. We can't be inventing our own genres here on Wikipedia, and I agree - a one-off concept hardly constitues a genre, to begin with. Arkyan 15:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Outlaw biker film on the very off chance that someone might search for this term. Otto4711 20:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. 68.54.163.153 21:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect → Road movie as a sub-genre. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:10, 17 March 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. --Core desat 02:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DeChiangcization

Delete - This is not a word in the English language (Google hits=0) and we should not create new words in Wikipedia. Furthermore, the article quotes no sources. The Chinese word can be moved to Wikitionary, while the substantive contents of this article can be moved to Chiang_Kai-shek#Death_and_legacy. Niohe 01:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Neologism. --Ideogram 01:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Neologism, and even disregarding that concern, there's no justification for it having its own article. --Nlu (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NEO. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - no sources cited, and POV. --ImpartialCelt 16:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - no sources cited. --DorisH 18:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Neologism, POV.--Jerrypp772000 23:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No sources cited, no way to tell if this is just make up or not. Burntsauce 23:31, 16 March 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. KrakatoaKatie 05:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Djwal Khul

There is no assertion of notability except from its own sources. There are just about no external reviews of this subject, and a search reveals very little about this subject. On concern here is Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Notability. This subject seems very obscure (not very well known) to be posted in an encyclopedia. --Snooziums 19:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Snooziums may be listing these as a response to another AFD, rather than on their particular merit or lack thereof. Snooziums, have you read WP:POINT?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, per my nomination. --Snooziums 20:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep: 19,000 Google hits, and the article is sourced. I'm genuinely thinking now that nom's run of AfDs on psychic/New Age articles need careful examination, because this cut-and-paste approach is carrying on apparently without even the most cursory examination as to whether the subject is notable, despite nom's assertion that he has done such a search. RGTraynor 16:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per RGTraynor and please do not do WP:POINT mass AFD nominations by cutting and pasting the same comments about supposed unsuccessful searches for sources when others can find the sources readily. Edison 17:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep, meritless WP:POINT nomination Alf^Photoman 18:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
keep seems notable, but I note that there do not seem to be 3rd party sources. The refs. seem to be to his own published works. DGG 00:31, 13 March 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. KrakatoaKatie 05:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eva Pierrakos

There is no assertion of notability except from its own sources. There are just about no external reviews of this subject, and a search reveals very little about this subject. On concern here is Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Notability. This subject seems very obscure (not very well known) to be posted in an encyclopedia. --Snooziums 20:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Snooziums may be listing these as a response to another AFD, rather than on their particular merit or lack thereof. Snooziums, have you read WP:POINT?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, per my nomination. --Snooziums 20:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. 32,000 Google hits for someone who's been dead for thirty years. I'm beginning to wonder if nom is just doing serial AfDs on New Age/psychic articles. RGTraynor 16:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per RGTraynor and please do not do WP:POINT mass AFD nominations by cutting and pasting the same comments about supposed unsuccessful searches for sources when others can find the sources readily. Edison 17:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep but Wikify. It would be helpful if some people would actually read articles before submitting them to AfD Alf^Photoman 00:20, 13 March 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 talk 00:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Favorite betrayal criterion

original research. see here. Yellowbeard 15:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment "Original research" is an outright falsehood. This is a notable criterion that can be found in articles on the internet.--Fahrenheit451 22:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete as repost of deleted article. (Or so I assume since I can't see the first.) -- BPMullins | Talk 17:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep This is an established voting method criterion.--Fahrenheit451 21:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Where's it used? I'm not familiar with it (which I recognize is no reason to keep or to delete). -- BPMullins | Talk 22:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  - I suggest you follow the links in the article. Also, just do a websearch.--Fahrenheit451 22:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
keep Multiple reliable secondary sources exist. See [13]. These various voting criteria are discussed in serious, academic circles, and are characteristic of an emergent academic field with increasing publications with time. The article should be expanded. SmokeyJoe 00:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep until a good reason is cited for deletion. Give the article some time to develop. Edit: for what it's worth, regarding the previous AfD, "Voting Matters" isn't worth the paper it isn't published on. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per the sources added by Fahrenheit451, which shows that this is not OR (and probably no longer a repost of a previously-deleted article, so G4 doesn't apply anymore). -- Black Falcon 05:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete All links refer directly or indirectly to Mike Ossipoff. This criterion isn't discussed in "serious, academic circles". This criterion is not notable. Not a single paper about this criterion has ever been accepted for publication. Furthermore, this article is a repost of a previously-deleted article. Yellowbeard 20:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Lauren Fenmore Baldwin. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fenmore Baldwin

STRONG DELETE This character is an infant who was born last October - nowhere near notable. A mention in the Michael and Lauren Baldwin articles would suffice. Kogsquinge 03:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to The Young and the Restless or List of The Young and the Restless characters. The argument that an infant can't be notable only really applies to actual infants; fictional characters are a bit different. Zetawoof^(ζ) 23:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- As a side point, even a non-fictional infant may be notable. See, for example, Princess Lalla Khadija of Morocco and Prince Hisahito of Akishino. Crypticfirefly 04:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Lauren Fenmore Baldwin. The full name of the infant character is Fenmore Michael Baldwin, which should redirect to List of The Young and the Restless characters. Rather than merging this article into the list, I think its easier to create the 2 redirects and then separately add an entry for the infant to the list if/when information is available (e.g., who plays the character?). -- Black Falcon 16:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to Lauren Fenmore Baldwin. He doesn't qualify as a character yet; and he's already mentioned on both "parents" articles, so there's no need to merge; and I don't see a good rationale for redirecting to one parent over the other. Redirecting to the main Young and the Restless article would be my second choice, but I really think deletion is most appropriate here.--Kubigula (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- I suggested redirecting to the mother as "Fenmore Baldwin" is her last name, whereas the full name of the child is "Fenmore Michael Baldwin". But, a redirect to the "list of characters" article would be OK as well (in fact, so would a delete, but I feel it's a plausible search term). -- Black Falcon 20:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Based on that, I suppose it's a possible search term for either the mother or the child, and a redirect to the mother's article, which mentions both, is appropriate. Changing my position accordingly.--21:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Kubigula (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 02:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gordon Higginson

There is no assertion of notability except from its own sources. There are just about no external reviews of this subject, and a search reveals very little about this subject. On concern here is Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Notability. This subject seems very obscure (not very well known) to be posted in an encyclopedia. --Snooziums 20:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Snooziums may be listing these as a response to another AFD, rather than on their particular merit or lack thereof. Snooziums, have you read WP:POINT?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, per my nomination. --Snooziums 20:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:A, lacking sources Alf^Photoman 15:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete: The article references primary sources but that's about it. Researching the topic, I did find results about him, but nothing reliable. Legitimate sources for a Gordon Higginson seem to be about an honored engineer, not a spiritualist. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 17:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete This one does show no possible evidence of notability and no likely sources.DGG 00:35, 13 March 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. KrakatoaKatie 05:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guy Finley

There is no assertion of notability except from its own sources. There are just about no external reviews of this subject, and a search reveals very little about this subject. On concern here is Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Notability. This subject seems very obscure (not very well known) to be posted in an encyclopedia. --Snooziums 05:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Snooziums may be listing these as a response to another AFD, rather than on their particular merit or lack thereof. Snooziums, have you read WP:POINT?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, per my nomination. --Snooziums 05:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment, there are no reliable sources provided in the entry. With a search, I see phrases like "Guy Finley is the best-selling author of...", but I can't find anything reliable to back this up. When did he appear on the list of bestsellers? I also see that he was signed to Motown Records; anything to back that up as well? The subject's own website, his publisher's website, and a blog aren't quite convincing. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 11:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. You have got to be kidding me; this cut-and-paste AfD nominating is getting overripe. Finley has over 127 thousand Google hits, his website is a Google featured link, the article is extensively sourced, he has a weekly radio show, his book has an Amazon sales rank around 24,000 (which is pretty good, especially for a five year old New Age book). Can we please do some basic research? RGTraynor 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per RGTraynor and please do not do WP:POINT mass AFD nominations by cutting and pasting the same comments about supposed unsuccessful searches for sources ahen others can find the sources readily. Edison 17:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I'm not particularly convinced by the Google hits argument, as most of that is just people talking about him on their personal websites, not publications. The Google sponsored link was likely paid for by his website. The article isn't very extensively sourced, at least not to multiple independent reliable third-party publications. The book sales is the main thing to be clarified for me. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 17:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- From WP:BIO: "Notability can be determined by ... a large fan base, fan listing, or "cult" following." 127,000 hits of nothing but people talking about this guy on their blogs is a considerable cult following; we've passed Youtube "entertainers" with a tenth that much buzz. On his book sales alone he passes WP:BIO; there's the one book with an Amazon sales rank of 24,000. The next one in line is around 31,000, the next 72,000, the next 125,000; a lot of current authors have articles with poorer numbers. RGTraynor 18:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Hmm, well alright. A large fan base, fan listing, or "cult" following certainly does seem to fit the description of this individual. Weak keep, although it would make me happier to see better sources. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 19:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
keep I think it is a useful exercise evaluating the respective strengths of these articles. Some are N, others not. The comparison clarifies the distinctions.DGG 00:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep for the reasons listed above by RGTraynor. There are a lot more obscure individuals on Wikipedia who seem to have passed the "notability" test.--JayJasper 13:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per RGTraynor. --JustJimDandy 17:34, 16 March 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 03:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Internet musicians

This list seems rather vague as many artists these days distribute their work primarily through the web. Despite that there are only 4 entries. As the list is basically unused I suggest it should be deleted. Pontificake 16:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

delete subjective listcruft Cornell Rockey 16:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Way too many candidates for inclusion. Zetawoof^(ζ) 23:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, deciding who "exists mostly on the internet" is too subjective, although I guess I can see what they're getting at. Recury 13:36, 13 March 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, however I have renamed it. The confusion generated by the misspelling has tainted this AfD, making large parts of it moot (given the new references found with the correct name). Daniel Bryant 01:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Ann Wintkowski

There is no assertion of notability except except to say that she "influenced" a TV show, which is nothing unique. There are just about no external reviews of this subject, and a search reveals very little about this subject. On concern here is Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Notability. This subject seems very obscure (not very well known) to be posted in an encyclopedia. --Snooziums 20:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Snooziums may be listing these as a response to another AFD, rather than on their particular merit or lack thereof. Snooziums, have you read WP:POINT?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, per my nomination. --Snooziums 20:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:A, no sources and WP:N, no proof of notability Alf^Photoman 15:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
~~Delete~~. Regardless of whether the nom is trying to prove a point, s/he is right, the article doesn't assert any notability. --Dennisthe2 20:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up, with a side order of Move to Mary Ann Winkowski per the name correction below. Use that name on a ghits test and you get just over 2500 hits - and a fair number of them are news articles. --Dennisthe2 18:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
delete absolutely no attempt to show notability. I thank Snooziums for identifying dubious articles that are objectively worth deletion, regardless of the motives for doing so. . DGG 00:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Spell name correctly and keep. Part of the problem here is that this person's name apparently is Mary Ann Winkowski not "Mary Ann WinTkowski." The show is reportedly based on her life & she's included in the show's offical website. See: http://www.maryannghostbuster.com/html/home2.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8423881/ (note spelling error in photo caption!), http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/14835/real_ghost_whisperer_lives_in_ohio.html (note spelling error in article!) http://www.wolfmanproductions.com/whisperer.html. Also would support a merge into the "Ghost Whisperer" article. Crypticfirefly 04:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the correction. I for one have changed my mind accordingly. Bunches o' ghits for this. Note, though, there's not much - but it's something. --Dennisthe2 18:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep and rename per Crypticfirefly. The correct spelling of the name seems to produce a number of sources to establish notability. -- Black Falcon 17:02, 17 March 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. --Core desat 02:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Wilson

Seems to have only voiced one cartoon character. Does this make him notable? Montchav 18:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per above. --ImpartialCelt 17:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. If that's all he did, then no, it doesn't make him notable. Needs more coverage, see WP:N. --Dennisthe2 20:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as above. Bigman17 16:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect. I didn't delete the history so that if anyone wants to merge the article anywhere, they can from the history behind the redirect. Daniel Bryant 01:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] N-MORB

This article is just a short definition that gives no assertion of notability. This can go on wiktionary. Theredhouse7 23:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not a dicdef, it's an abbreviation for a type of--um--basalt, found in, er, ridges. In the ocean. I suppose it could be expanded into a Wikipedia (not a Wiktionary) article using sources like this, though the expansion would be easier done by people who know something about geology unlike me. Maybe MORB should be un-redirected and N-MORB merged into MORB. Pan Dan 17:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Mid-ocean ridge for now. If someone wants to write an actual article on it, they can do it whenever. Recury 13:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect and merge without prejudice against later-recreation per Recury. —David Eppstein 19:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to Mid-ocean ridge per Recury. The topic seems valid for an encyclopedia (thus, no prejudice against proper recreation), but there's too little content at this time. -- Black Falcon 17:07, 17 March 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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ogygia (Transformers)

Not a notable subject and no context is given. Theredhouse7 22:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I did a search and didn't get many results so I'm guessing it ain't notable. And the article has little real information--양복⁴² 06:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge into Transformers: Cybertron --ImpartialCelt 17:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete why does article name and article subject have different spellings?--ZayZayEM 02:59, 16 March 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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ronna Herman

There is no assertion of notability except from its own sources. There are just about no external reviews of this subject, and a search reveals very little about this subject. On concern here is Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Notability. This subject seems very obscure (not very well known) to be posted in an encyclopedia. --Snooziums 20:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Snooziums may be listing these as a response to another AFD, rather than on their particular merit or lack thereof. Snooziums, have you read WP:POINT?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, per my nomination. --Snooziums 20:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

delete This one appears not notable and with nothing resembling sources. The bad faith nom is troubling, but the article is no unsatisfactory that it is worth deleting. DGG 00:37, 13 March 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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Students Confronting Apartheid in Israel

This organisation appears to have no third-party notability whatsoever. I asked on the talk page earlier to resounding silence ... Does anyone care outside Stanford? (Does anyone care inside Stanford?) David Gerard 00:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I can't keep track of the precise invocations for AFD these days ... I'll do better next time - David Gerard 21:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete per wp:csd#a7, no notability asserted. Pan Dan 16:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, it arguably does. It's been around a few weeks, it can wait another week on AFD. Maybe they're making news somewhere, I dunno - David Gerard 21:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as NN, just another university club. With only 61 Google hits on a directed search excluding the Stanford website [14], I'd say the answer to the question as to whether anyone cares outside of Stanford is "No." RGTraynor 16:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 09:58, 13 March 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 03:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The New Culture Forum

Blatant advertising. not notable. Chompzzz 18:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete POV essay or advertisment either way its gotta go. --Daniel J. Leivick 16:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This "article is so wrong in so many ways it makes my head hurt. Editing Maniac 01:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete As per Daniel. SkipSmith 06:52, 13 March 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 Hard fantasy and no consensus on Category:Hard fantasy.

[edit] Hard fantasy and Category:Hard fantasy

This term supposedly refers to "fantasy in which the world (unlike other fantasy settings) closely follows the laws of science". This term appears to be original research, and has no clear definition or difference from other genres. The Category:Hard fantasy contains many settings that are heavy with magic, such as Tolkien's and Steven Erikson's. >Radiant< 10:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the term hard fantasy is that it is hard to define it. There seems to be two competing definitions out there, one being the above mentiond, and the other being essentially the opposite, core fantasy with little resemblance to the real world. Most of the sources I find, unfortunately, seem to be blogs and it's doubtful if there exist enough reputable sources out there to salvage it. Weak Delete for Hard fantasy unless it can be sourced and mentions the competing definitions to avoid WP:NPOV issues. Strong Delete on the category, though, as the term has no accepted definition yet any such list or category would seem nonsensical to the reader - but isn't CfD a better place to list that? Arkyan 16:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Category isn't relevant here, however poor it may be. But this subject is quite valid see [15] for one thesis about it. No idea what it says, not searchable text, but here is another book with text [16]. Here's another [17] (corrected source added). I'll go add the last one to the page now. This article may be unreferenced now, but that doesn't make it OR. Does that satisfy everybody that this is sourceable though, even if there are differences as to meaning? (And sorry, I don't know if there are sources for that disagreement, I can only say what I found. And yes, I have noted a difference before, but I'm not sure of it being covered anywhere.) Mister.Manticore 16:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The sourcing problem still exists. The first source you offer must be discounted because we don't even know what that source says. The second two you have posted are the same book, and even it is a little dubious as it admits the definition is arbitrary and perhaps even a neologism. Again with proper sourcing I'm not opposed to hanging on to this one but unfortunately all that can be found thus far is blogs or indeterminate sources. Arkyan 17:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ooops, my bad, I thought I had posted a different link. [18] was the link I meant to post. Does that change things, or is a book titled Encyclopedia of Fantasy not a perfectly good source?

It looks good to me. Drop that in there and the article does need a little cleanup but that should source it sufficiently. Changing my opinion to keep based on the addition of these references to the article, though it's still in need of cleanup. Arkyan 20:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Already added it actually. And yes, I do agree it needs cleanup, and expansion, but being a stub is not a reason to delete. Mister.Manticore 21:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as inherently POV-ridden, fails WP:OR. Unless someone can explain to me how dragons can bypass the square-cube law, the very concept is a bit cockeyed. RGTraynor 17:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Could you explain the POV problem more explicitly? Mister.Manticore 18:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Comment: I'd be happy to do so. "Closely" follows the laws of science? How closely? Are there any supernatural elements at all? If so, how are those justified? Oh, you mean they follow the laws of science because the author (or the person making the assertion) wants it to do so and has cobbled together a rationalization. And so on. From many years exposure and experience, the ability of SF&F fans to split hairs down to millimeters thick is huge, and I doubt you'd get anywhere remotely close to a consensus as to what qualifies as "hard fantasy" or not, let alone whether specific works met those criteria. RGTraynor 20:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Ah, I see. Well, as I see it, that's a problem for the people using the terminology. They're welcome to argue over it. However, it is used, so Wikipedia should include information on it. If there's more than one conflicting use, then include any that can be sourced. The lack of definitiveness, especially in genre fiction, doesn't bother me. I can accept that the subject will remain in dispute. Thus the thing to do is cover the dispute, not ignore the subject. Mister.Manticore 20:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Hard science fiction is a well-recognized genre, and it is usually fairly clear what works appropriately fall into that class. Should be the same here, though the selection seems rather sparse and the definition is a little vague. DGG 00:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just because hard scifi is recognized doesn't mean that hard fantasy is - in fact it doesn't seem like there is much academic research regarding it and the only use of the term seems to be on blogs, message boards, and the like. It's like saying that just because "hard scifi" is a legit genre then "hard horror", "hard Victorian era dramas", etc must be considered equally as legit. Koweja 01:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Question Did you see the sources I referenced earlier? At least one thesis is about Hard Fantasy, and the Encyclopedia of Fantasy saw fit to include the term. This isn't just a blog/message board term, but one of enough substance to me that I'd like to know why you're ignoring these existing usages. I don't know about your other examples. Are they used in any comparable fashion? Even on blogs? Mister.Manticore 02:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete The term might be useful, and used occasionally, but I do not think it a widely recognized or noteworthy term. Goldfritha 00:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep the article, delete the category. The term sees some use and I don't mind having an article on it - but the definitions are too vague and conflicting for us to base a category scheme on. Haukur 08:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep both article and Category - The genre is well known, and may need to be rewritten, but deletion is unneccisary. Weak keep for the article, as the category can explain what it is. Kelseyak90 19:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep the article per the sources shown by User:Mister.Manticore demonstrating this is not OR or a neologism. No comment on the category, as the appropriate venue is CFD (already taken there). -- Black Falcon 17:11, 17 March 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 - NYC JD (objection, asked and answered!) 18:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QuickBooks

Contested prod. Accounting software, with no references other than its own website. It reads like a marketing blurb and plausibly a copyvio, and appears to be promotive rather than encyclopedic. >Radiant< 10:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep but complete rewrite -- QuickBooks is a popular accounting software in the US. However I agree the article reads like an ad. I say take a slash-and-kill approach of editing: delete most of the content, call it a stub and let it grow again. Guroadrunner 11:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Notable product, many sources should be available (I've seen it reviewed in the UK computer press countless times over the years). --kingboyk 13:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep if rewritten and massively overhauled. I believe the product is well-known and quite notable, but the article is in dire need of sourcing. Arkyan 16:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. QuickBooks is one of the most notable and popular software packages in the US. The only way verifiable sources couldn't be found is if no attempt was made to find them. RGTraynor 17:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - definitely a notable software package. -- Whpq 20:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Guroadrunner, this is very notable but it does need some clean-upEditing Maniac 01:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep it is notable. While it does need cleanup this is not the place for it as messy articles are not a reason for deletion. Koweja 01:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Certainly notable. Article could use some work, though. Maxamegalon2000 05:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep The book QuickBooks for Dummies has sold 400000 copies. QuickBooks Pro 2007 is ranked #3 on Amazon. --Selket ^Talk 07:17, 13 March 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 03:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phantom nodes

Alleged to be a common term in webdesign, but it doesn't google. Appears to be a neologism, and at any rate the article has little if any encyclopedic content. >Radiant< 10:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete' Whatever it is, it seems to describe a specific bug that is not notable enough for inclusion. Wikipedia is not Bugzilla. Egil 10:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. These are called "whitespace text nodes", and are a result of inconsistencies between HTML parsers. Not a bug - in fact, the Bugzilla entry referenced was closed as INVALID. Zetawoof^(ζ) 23:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Programmercruft Citicat 23:40, 12 March 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 12:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Jerry Mandracchia

Nice guy, I'm sure, but doesn't seem like a notable encyclopedia topic Guroadrunner 10:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:A and probably also fails WP:BLP Alf^Photoman 15:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, no assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a memorial. RGTraynor 17:03, 12 March 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 talk 00:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jose Melendez-Perez

9/11 oriented article not even linked to 9/11 article. Is linked to "List of Puerto Ricans". Questionable notability, could be 9/11 researcher fancruft. Guroadrunner 10:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep and improve. The article has some OR and is slightly hagiographical, but the guy seems to pass WP:N. --Dweller 11:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Reluctant keep. This article as it stands is in bad shape and in terrible need of cleanup. I really cringe that articles like this pass WP:N, even if just barely. He was just some guy doing his job whose actions likely had little measurable impact on anything but nevertheless some people try to turn him in to a national hero. Anyway, although most of the mentions of him are from blogs - most of them security related - he does land a mention on CNN and so passes inclusion criteria. Arkyan 16:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep He was doing his job, but he was doing it notably well, as compared to others of his profession. Not the leazst reluctant to keep it, as "just doing his job" could be used for anyone who is notably successful in any profession or occupation. DGG 00:47, 13 March 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 03:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Faheem Shuaibe

Questionable notability. It is true he is a notable imam, but how notable is he for Wikipedia? Guroadrunner 10:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. By the looks of things, not notable enough. NOte, possible COI, article created by user:ibnmedia. --Dennisthe2 20:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:N Alf^Photoman 20:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Fails notability.--Sefringle 03:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:08, 13 March 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. Several requests for merging "salvageable material" but no one has even argued that any of it is salvageable. Mango juice^talk 04:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Fort on mysterious appearances and disappearances

"Charles Fort coined the term "teleportation" to cover mysterious appearances and disappearances of people or objects" Sounds like original research to me. I don't think there's need for a separate article to explain what mr. Fort thinks about disappearances. >Radiant< 11:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge salvageable material to Charles Fort and, if appropriate other articles about paranormal theories. --Dweller 11:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge as per above Alf^Photoman 15:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
merge provided that it can be shown to be more than original research Cornell Rockey 16:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Which, the article or Charles Fort's research? --Dweller 16:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  - The information in this article. Its completely unreferenced. Lets hope Charles Fort was actually conducting original research when he did his experiments, because otherwise it would be 'academic' plagiarism. Very little of Charles Fort on mysterious appearances and disappearances is salvageable, now that I look at it more carefully. Its mostly a tangent essay that just invokes his name. Cornell Rockey 16:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as OR essay. No proof is given that any of this is linked to Charles Fort. Do not merge into teleportation, as that's a far better article that already covers most of what's salvageable here (very little). -- Black Falcon 17:16, 17 March 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 speedied as CSD A7. No credible assertion of notability. Kafziel ^Talk 14:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caleb Rutkowski

Hoax. Copy-paste of Gilbert Brown. Vandalism only author. Deprodded. Weregerbil 11:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete as hoax, vandalism, possible attack. --Dweller 11:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Irishguy [19]. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Child Chapel International

Notability of this particular religion - most hits on Google relate to the Wikipedia page. An expert in religion like ~~Essjay~~ ? would be good to see if this is a notable branch of Christianity. Article reads like an advertisement, too. -- Guroadrunner 11:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete as copy vio infringement of this site --Dweller 11:45, 12 March 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. Cbrown1023 talk 00:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TrustedPlaces

This article poses a conflict of interest, as the originating editor is also apparantly one of the founders of the venture. The content is mostly speculative, considering that the working reference describes the site as being in "open beta" therefore it fails WP:CRYSTAL. The article mentions that they attracted some venture capital, but there's no indication that the website itself is notable, only perhaps the funding thereof. It's not even a particularly large amount of venture capital. The website itself appears non-notable, and the links that might confirm notability are broken. Wikipedia is not a place for you to garner publicity for your web 2.0 startups. Deranged bulbasaur 12:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The non-functional link I'm referring to is the guardian one. The others appear to be websites that afford specialty coverage to "social networking." Deranged bulbasaur 12:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete It's advertising Lurker ^oi! 16:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
delete blatent advert Cornell Rockey 16:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ - not written like a blatant advert but seems to have been created with that intention. Deranged bulbasaur's arguments are convincing. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, changing my view to a weak keep. I've corrected the Guardian link so that it works, and the site also gets a mention in The Register's list of the UK's top 25 web startups. I won't be upset if this does get deleted, but I would suggest the closing admin take a look at the sources before making a decision. Verifiable = yes. Notable = maybe. Conflict of interest = yes. It's a fine judgement call. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:16, 16 March 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 without merge or redirect. --Core desat 02:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalist slavery

POV essay. Probably original research Alex Bakharev 12:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I hate saying "per nom," but Alex is correct: this is just POV and OR. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I have no problem with saying "per nom."--Samiharris 14:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete, Article reeks in every way imaginable. Lord Metroid 15:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete, no assertion or claim of notability Alf^Photoman 15:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - essays neither needed nor wanted. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 16:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - wikify, and allow for opposite POV. --ImpartialCelt 17:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete inherently POV.-- Carabinieri 17:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge into Slavery, into the sections 'Slavery in the Americas' and 'The economics of slavery'. Some of it is already in these sections. --DorisH 18:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - POV and OR in every way. Andrew Levine 19:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete POV essay. --Folantin 21:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete/Redirect - there's nothing in this article that can't be found in slavery, and indeed this essay has serious POV problems. Patstuart^talk·edits 21:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete inherently POV.--Sefringle 02:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Really bad... Driller thriller 07:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Marxist POV Al-Bargit 17:56, 14 March 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 talk 00:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fflam

Was prod'd, prod removed with hours to go. This advertises a future event which has not yet happened: not a crystal ball. The page was updated today, the same day as press release went out. Telsa (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Future events, with booked notable artists can't be regarded as crystal ball. We have articles on forthcoming notable sporting events, elections... this is a concert. --Dweller 13:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a substantial event, worthy of having a page. It will be searched for by more people as it gains fame. If it were to be cancelled, then the article should be deleted. —The preceding borobarmy comment was added by Borobarmy (talk • contribs) 14:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Keep: Notability confirmed by Google News search. Gareth 17:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I came across this article just before it was originally prod'd. The results were rather different that day. Note that you are performing a news search on the day that all the papers ran the same story, so I think it coincides with them all getting the same press release.. Telsa (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I had prod'd it when there was little content in the article. Wickethewok 18:31, 12 March 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. KrakatoaKatie 05:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Oyler

Article is about a person who died of a disease and the subsequent books and life stories about dealing his disease, I'm pretty sure that there hundreds of similar situations as this, so notability is questioned Janarius 13:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep Prepared to be argued down on this one, but he seems notable. (He was notable enough to be the subject of a biopic.) --Dweller 13:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. True, Wikipedia is not a memorial, but the subject appears notable with the film as compelling evidence. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - wikipedia may not be a memorial, but in this case, the person in question garnered enough attention to be notable, and there are references provided. -- Whpq 16:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment It seems to me it's the book (and movie) that should have an article, not the individual. Citicat 23:46, 12 March 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 talk 00:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Katherine Cunningham-Eves

Found this on ProD patrol. Can't decide upon the level of notability here, although IMdB entry is quite long. Bubba hotep

Delete per nom. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per nominator's observation of borderline notability-- this person has appeared in a number of programs and notability is asserted in the article. Crypticfirefly 04:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per having leading roles in The Passage of Mrs. Calabash and Alaska (I just checked the first few, and there may be more). -- Black Falcon 17:22, 17 March 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 talk 00:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] K. K. Dodds

Contested PROD. This actress has only appeared in minor film and TV roles, failing WP:BIO. Very little biographical information is available which fails WP:BLP. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep I'll grant she's not the most notable of actresses, but according to IMDB, she has received first billing in five separate feature films Spiderman, Being John Malkovich, Soldier, A Life Less Ordinary, and Telling Lies in America. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep Not sure I agree with the assertion that minimal information fails WP:BLP. Fairly borderline notability, but has a small recurring role of note in Prison Break, and several major movie credits (small roles however). --Canley 10:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep per above. I don't see what limited information has to do with BLP ... . In fact, I would think that the less information there is, the less likely that some of it is false. -- Black Falcon 17:24, 17 March 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. KrakatoaKatie 05:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karen Kilgariff

Contested PROD. Actress has appeared in a few TV shows and films, mostly in minor roles. Was also a writer for The Ellen Degeneres Show, but these credits do not meet WP:BIO. Additionally, there is little biographical information available violating WP:BLP. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I believe she's a notable comedian, especially for her part on Mr. Show. Spacepotato 19:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I was sure I deprodded this, but the history says it was Spacepotato. Maybe I forgot to submit after previewing, or the contrib got eaten up in a database hiccup - I know I'd decided to save it. It was her head writer position that did it for me - I feel that behind-the-scenes work can be as important as what's on-screen, and deserves respect. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I was just watching the Ellen Show, where I've seen her a number of times. I wanted to know who she was and googled her. This article popped right up and was useful. 10:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect to Belt (clothing). Cbrown1023 talk 01:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Studded Belt

No content of any value, nothing links here, what is the point? Egil 15:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOT#INFO: an individual article on studded belts is unlikely to be of any encyclopedic value. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 16:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to belt (clothing). I added the two lines from this article to the 'Variations' section of that article. - Ozzykhan 18:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per Ozzy. Recury 13:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per Ozzy. GFDL requires preserving the history with {{R from merge}}. -- Black Falcon 17:52, 17 March 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 Gnan garra 12:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shark Island Challenge

Wholly unreferenced article about a competition with a ~~AU$1,000~~ (insert US$6,000) top prize. Delete - NYC JD (objection, asked and answered!) 16:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. - NYC JD (objection, asked and answered!) 16:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
keep - this is the most important Bodyboard competition in the world tour currently. You can't argue the notability of a competition by it's prize solely (but you seem to have misread the top prize: you only listed the prize when it wasn't an international event yet). You should have tried the article's talk page before AfD this article. Too harsh behaviour! Loudenvier 16:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Per the article, which is the only evidence a casual reader has about the event, the last competition was in 2003. If it's the most important competition, why hasn't there been one in the past four years. BTW, the top prize in 2003 was $6000 USD, hardly a large sum compared with the top prizes in other athletic events. SparklingWiggle 13:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  - The competition is still going on. I did not have the time to include the information about 2004, 2005, 2006 and upcoming 2007 event. I thought the community would take care of this. Loudenvier 13:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Prize alone does not justifies. Bodyboard is a sport with lack of sponsoring, so competitions do not amount to so high a prize as surfing yet. It's getting better. But this is the most notable event in the World Tour currently. Loudenvier 13:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Prize certianly does contribute quite a bit to an event's level of prestige. If the event had a prize on the order of $100k to $1 mil I don't think there would be as much question about its notability. We list collectible card tournaments with scant sources because their prizes can be up to a million dollars. SparklingWiggle 14:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

However - when the prize reaches $1 mil (AUD or otherwise) there is usually no shortage of information which easily meets the requirements of WP:ATT, unlike Shark Island Challenge website Ga rr ie 02:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep as per Loudenvier the value of the prize is not a reason for notability or otherwise. The challenge appears to be able to be referenced externally, for example:
globalsurfnews.com,
surfersvillage.com,
Billabong.com,
Honolulu Advertiser as the event is in Australia that it is referred to in a US newspaper, ie non local newspaper, is somewhat unusual.

--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Pending addition of sources to verify that this is in fact a notable event. —M (talk • contribs) 12:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I had not the time to add sources but there are plenty. You simply see that the article had no sources and opted to delete it before trying to find sources for yourself. Why do not make a google test? This competition has been filmed and there are many DVDs with footage from all the years it run. Loudenvier 13:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Anything from Sports Illustrated, Sporting News, or any of the many surfing magazines? SparklingWiggle 14:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Have you ever read about Bodyboard in Sports Illustrated? Perhaps you should have asked for some Bodyboarding magazines, instead of Surfing... Please, see the article again, I have provided a few sources for the stats and updated with 2004, 2005 and 2006 data. I don't think I need to provide anything from the sources above, which are mainly USA sources which tend to ignore the rest of the world, mainly a sport that is more common in Australia, Brazil, Portugal, etc. As I said to you, this is a sport which is currently suffering from lack of sponsoring. That's the same that is happening to Bodysurfing. It doesn't make it non-notable, but it can make it hard to prove its notability for readers which do not know the sport and aren't willing to research. Loudenvier 15:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Malber. SparklingWiggle 13:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: I'm currently with a lack of time to work here. I'm so sure this is a notable competition but I will have to find more sources to back it up, so I would ask for you guys not to settle this AfD without giving me time to convince you :-) I have spent too much effort on this article, and I think it deserves more consideration. I myself own 4 commercial DVDs from the 2001 to 2004 competitions. I really don't know how could this not be notable. Keep the discussion, but give me more time. Regards Loudenvier 15:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. While it's clearly important in the bodyboarding community, there is nothing notable here for an encyclopedia. Citations are all self-referential except one article in a specialized publication. A scholarly search via LexisNexis reveals nothing notable. --Mus Musculus 16:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- The self-referential citations are for the stats which came from the primary source to avoid errors. I think I'm now confused as what is a notable sports event. It is the most important bodyboard event in the tour today along with the Pipe Master. I don't know if wikipedia is running out of disk space, but I think this article is encyclopedic due to its relevancy to an international sport. Loudenvier 17:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  - The problem is - you can't ask readers to take your word for it. You have to provide reliable, independent, verifiable citations that show how important the event is. News stories covering the event and explaining its importance will be your starting place. --Mus Musculus 17:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    - I have asked for time to make this research. That's exactly what I will do but I just don't want to came back here and see the article deleted. Regards Loudenvier 17:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
      - It may happen regardless. My advice would be to copy what you have right now, and you can repost it later when you have the citations. --Mus Musculus 17:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
CommentWhat do you mean self referential? I just gave some external links above and they are not self-referential as I understand it. I will reformat for clarity. For a foreign newspaper to refer to the event seems to me to be quite unusual.--Golden Wattle ^talk 18:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think by self-referential he is referring to Shark Island Challenge#References 1-10, from Shark Island Challenge website.Ga rr ie 02:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you think references about wave conditions, prize, rankings, etc. should come not from the primary source? But I understand that these references alone does not prove the notability of the event. But User:Golden Wattle gave some external links (one from Billabong, a surfing giant company), and they were all dismissed. I think this article should be tagged for expansion rather than deletion. I had it tagged as a stub in the past because it lacked completeness, but another user removed the tag. Loudenvier 20:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, no serious sources that establish the notability of this event. The only real sources actually included seem to be the event organisers, which are hardly a reliable source in this context. Lankiveil 12:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Comment: People do not want to take the notability of this event in bodyboarding from the IBA site International Bodyboarding Association. It is the same as denying that an statement of an authoritative association like FIFA is not reliable. IBA is the authoritative association of bodyboarding in the world, it has the final word on rules and which competitions count to the tour. For example, the Shark Island Challenge here in question is the one with the biggest point award, which means that it's most important event in the World Tour which is the only tour for international bodyboarding akin to the Association of Surfing Professionals tour for surfing. By the way the articles about the World Tour and IBA are still lacking information, they are all stubs right now. Regards Loudenvier 20:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A few other links that could fare better in proving notability:

Bodyboard CSIC - this is from Rede Globo biggest brazillian open television channel
main BB brazillian site
Shark Island Challenge
Shark Island
Another Billabong Reference - from Billabong

Loudenvier 21:04, 15 March 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 g10 attack; will create new redirect to Forced conversion. NawlinWiki 20:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Convert or die

This does not read like any sort of encyclopedic article, nor does the framing of the article (its title, scope, and so on) seem particularly useful. At best, this is a series of thoughts and ideas (presented in an argumentative or persuasive style) that might be relevant to various articles on religion and politics. I notice a link was also inserted somewhat awkwardly into the middle of a paragraph in the Mandaeism article. GenkiNeko 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Unencyclopedic. Reads like the awkward answer to an essay question on a test ("Define 'convert or die'"). Style issues aside, Wikipedia already has an article on Forced conversion and this article really has no useful content that would add to it. janejellyroll 17:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete as attack page on Islam Alf^Photoman 17:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete obvious religious posturing and possibly racist.--Lostcause365 17:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete Entirely unencyclopedic. *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete as unencyclopedic, possibly violated WP:OR. Redirect Convert or die to Forced conversion. - Ozzykhan 18:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

- Comment: [[Islamic_Inquisition] currently redirects to Convert of die, it could be redirected to Forced conversion - I am not too sure about this one. - Ozzykhan 18:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete or die as unencyclopedic nonsense and per Janejellyroll. RGTraynor 18:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete — Attack page-religiously and possible racism Nol888_(Talk)^{(Review me please)} 18:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete G10, and then redirect to Forced conversion. Tagged for G10, have a nice day. --Dennisthe2 20:02, 12 March 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 03:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NamePros

Fails to meet WP:CORP and isn't even barely notable. Delete GreenJoe 22:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Non-notable and fails to meet WP:CORP. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:CORP and anyway, the only reference provided is from the company's own site. - Ozzykhan 18:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete - only link is to company's own site, so no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to establish notability per WP:CORP. Delete unless sourced by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete no assertion of notability per WP:CORP _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 20:55, 12 March 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. --Core desat 02:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tankmania Tips+tricks

The page is a player's guide for an admittedly obscure Flash game (article says it has 200 players). If the game were notable enough for Wikipedia, the player's guide still wouldn't belong here. ArglebargleIV 17:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete: WP:NOT- Ozzykhan 17:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- WP:NOT isn't a criterion for speedy deletion - see WP:CSD for a list of speedy deletion criteria. However, delete per WP:NOT a how-to guide. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, WP:NOT a game guide. NawlinWiki 18:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete, because of notability, WP:NOT and b/c it's fancruft. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Guroadrunner (talk • contribs).
Delete, we're not a player's guide. There is no reason for a speedy here, and Guroadrunner, the reasons listed are not valid under WP:CSD. --Dennisthe2 20:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - this is a game guide, and is even defined as so by the title -- Whpq 20:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete - this has absolutely no place in an encyclopaedia. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 20:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment which deletion criteria from WP:CSD would you apply for a speedy delete? It does not appear to meet the speedy delete criteria. -- Whpq 21:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable. Koweja 02:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 02:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Nothing much to say about this one. Clearly violates WP:NOT and WP:OR. --Scottie_theNerd 07:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
strong delete as a great example of what actually constitutes a game guide. — brighterorange (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete not notable and just a game guide=shouldn't be on wikipedia Da Big Bozz 21:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Don't even need to read the article. The title says it all. WP:NOT a game guide. Think maybe this can be deleted now under WP:SNOWBALL? The Kinslayer 09:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete Typos 22:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete even though this dogpile needs anyone else on it. Natalie 00:32, 17 March 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. --Core desat 02:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zombie force

Delete: non-notable film. Only 6 Google results for " Zombie force"+McKeller and 4 for "Zombie force"+Gizmo. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 18:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete no assertion of notability given. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 20:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom StuartDouglas 21:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep notability was given when it was screened in Scarborough. Notability also given when it was discussed on Radio York. Plus why are you using google to note it. Does everything have to go through google to appear in wikipedia. If this is the case how many google hits does it have to give. Stated above there is a combined total of 10. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Craigybaby84 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Comment: Where was it screened in Scarborough? When was it discussed on Radio York? What did they say? What awards has this Martin Rodgers won – specifically for his documentary on leaf migration in Cambodia? Where are the sources that substantiate the film's notability? ... discospinster _talk 00:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. --ZayZayEM 02:51, 16 March 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 Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racial memory

The article is totally unsupported by WP:reliable sources. It's a mish-mash of article fragments with a long history of POV, and OR problems (see article talk page) all tangentially related to the subject outlined in the lead section. The only section of the article that has any real redeeming qualities only duplicates material properly presented in the collective unconscious article. Perfectly valid articles on epigenetics, maternal effects, maternal impression, and collective unconscious exist, but joining them all together without secondary sources into this article is simply WP:SYNT. Pete.Hurd 18:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 18:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The fact that this article in its current state is not very good is not grounds for its deletion. This is a well known term from Jungian psychology. Jungian psychology may be a load of myth-mongering codswallop, but the better known features of its jargon such as this (41K google hits) deserve articles. If you think it covers material better handled elsewhere, turn this into a fancy disambiguation page, with brief discussions of what aspects of it are discussed elsewhere. A plausible search term, it should not be left blank, nor its history erased from public memory. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- in that case, can you suggest appropriate Jungian psychology redirect target? Pete.Hurd 19:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  - I'd have to defer to experts here, but my guess is that some would be discussed under collective unconscious, mentioned above. Archetype is also something that should be mentioned here. Both of those articles, but especially archetype, could stand improvement themselves. The Theosophical concept of root races also is deserving a mention in this context; it represents a stream of prior speculation from which Jung borrowed heavily and consciously. Surprisingly, the Theosophical article is the best one on a related subject I have seen; that bit of lore is now picturesque enough to be 'interesting'. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    - No expertise here from me, I'm not that kind of Psychology Professor. I don't think a fancy "List of topics only superficially related to the Jungian concept of Racial Memory" disambiguation page has a good prospect of achieving featured list status. From a quick look around, there doesn't seem to be an obvious redirect target. If this is to be kept, I suggest making into a Category:Jungian psychology stub. Keeping all these poor and unsourced musings is a bad idea IMHO. Pete.Hurd 20:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Why guess when one can look for those experts? Looking for sources is part of the proper study of encyclopaedists, and it certainly prevents the error of lumping Freudian concepts into Jungian psychology. Some quick research turns up this, page 24 of ISBN 069102586X and pages 385–386 of ISBN 0898623871 (both of which latter discuss Freud's postulation of a racial memory, the former in relation to the ethnopsychology of Jews and the latter in relation to perceived resistance by patients to analysis), and page 182 of ISBN 0674615409 (which also discusses Freud and racial memory). Uncle G 00:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep but with better sourcing, and possibly a better explanation of the use of "racial" in this context.--Lostcause365 20:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- The history of problems in defining "race" in WP articles is not rich in success stories. I think the closer this sticks to well-sourced Jungian topics the better. Pete.Hurd 20:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep As a key term in Jungian analysis it is notable. Needs attention from an expert.DGG 00:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep This cannot persist unreferenced, and I think it is a bunch of hooey, personally, but I certainly heard mention of it in intro psych in reference to Jungian psychology, so references exist out there for someone to write such an article. Perhaps stubbify pending well referenced edits by an expert in the subject. Edison 16:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep but revise, source, etc as needed. Notable and well-used (if controversial) concept. 23skidoo 21:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. If nothing else, important for highlighting the quacky side of Karl Jung. It was a pretty important concept to him, and there will undoubtedly be people writing papers on it looking for info online. Sources should be easily available.--Parsleyjones 02:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Just because the article sucks or will be hard to write doesn't mean it should be deleted. Michaelwsherman 15:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete: absolutely no references. While they do not need to be scientifically verified sources the information who claimed or theorized what, who is proponent or who did which experiments is missing completely. Pavel Vozenilek 00:51, 17 March 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. Cbrown1023 talk 01:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peaceful Meadows Farm

Non-notable Seems to exist solely to draw attention to a small ice cream show in Pennsylvania. No sources are given to prove notability. —Ocatecir ^Talk 18:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. No justification of notability _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 20:48, 12 March 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 _{(o rly?)} 09:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Baseball Channel

Crystal ball, same reason Baseball Channel was deleted Milchama 18:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - This appears to be nearly a done deal, and to be generating a bit of controversy. See this commentary from the S.F. Chronicle. It may be worth holding off on this deletion. -- BPMullins | Talk 19:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up Comment - There is still no official announcement. MLB previously announced plans for a network in 04, but then abandoned them for a proposed network with Fox, before this DirecTV discussion begun. The NBA and Time Warner announced a joint sports network in 2002, but that didn't materialize either. I feel that there needs to be more concrete info outside of the DirecTV deal before this proposed, yet-unnamed channel should have its own article. Milchama 20:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baseball Channel. At present this is speculation. If officially announced, the article should be written and appropriate references added. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 20:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Relisted for better consensus. Milchama 15:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It looks like this is now a reality. Deleting it is premature, I think. -- BPMullins | Talk 18:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC
- I wrote the original story, and the reason I started the page was that in the article mentioned in the link, Larry Stewart mentioned it as if it were fact. As far as I know, neither Stewart nor anyone else at the Los Angeles Times has retracted that part of the story. Even if Stewart is wrong, and MLB has still not announced The Baseball Channel, please give me permission to repost the page, as is, when MLB does announce it. - Desmond Hobson 22:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete "Baseball Channel to be offered as part of the carrier's basic package, that channel to be launched beginning in 2009." which means it's not there yet and there's not enough information to justify the article at this time. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 23:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep per the source stating "to be launched in 2009". So, it'll remain a stub for 1-2 years ... OK. -- Black Falcon 17:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, 2009? A lot can change between now and then. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Mango juice^talk 04:37, 18 March 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 —dgies^t_c 02:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2018 asian games

~~Despite being inaccurately titled (the article says the games will be held in 2011),~~ Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Ocatecir ^Talk 18:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete — Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: WP:NOT. Weak Keep - Hopefully article will get expanded later.Nol888_(Talk)^{(Review me please)} 18:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, which says

Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics.

This article about a future Asian Games is reasonable, IMO, as it discusses only things which are currently known. These games are likely to take place, and the article will likely expand as they get closer.

Incidentally, the article does not say the games will be held in 2011, it says "The host city will be announced in the Olympic Council of Asia's general assembly in summer of 2011."

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 19:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If the claims about bid cities can be verified then keep as that information elevates it above what is proscribed by WP:CRYSTAL. However if no sources to substantiate this can be found the article is nothing more than a scheduled future event with no information and as stands should be deleted. Arkyan 20:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep if reliable and verifiable sources are added before the end of this AfD. Otherwise, this should be deleted in line with WP:CRYSTAL. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 20:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless reliable sources are added by the end of the AFD. Otto4711 21:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep I know it is very far, but expected events like continental games should be kept. --JForget 21:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I'm neutral about whether to keep or delete, but either way shouldn't it be moved/redirected to 2018 Asian Games? --Miskwito 02:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per comments above about WP:Crystal and given there are now references to the bids for 2018. Rename with correct capitalisation - I have done since it is hardly controversial and the capitalisation now reflects the newspaper references.--Golden Wattle ^talk 20:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per the references added since the start of the AFD (see diff). WP:CRYSTAL no longer seems applicable (it is notable and almost certain to take place). -- Black Falcon 17:58, 17 March 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 12:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Mygind

Possible/probable hoax article. Only gets 18 google hits and no sources cited. His supposed book title gets 0 hits. Delete as not verifiable/hoax. Wickethewok 18:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:A, no sources Alf^Photoman 20:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete unless verifiable and reliable sources added before AfD ends. Likely hoax. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 20:50, 12 March 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 12:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ultrasone Headphone Technologies

Appears to be a advertisement of several technologies by Ultrasone. I have added a brief mentioning of their S-Logic to the article on Virtual surround. This should suffice --- I see no reason of having a separate article on technologies employed by this company Yavrey (est vrai) 19:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm hedging a bet on a Speedy Delete as spam. The company is notable, but the product...well, you're right, it reads like adcopy. --Dennisthe2 19:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - we've already got articles on the company, we don't need one advertising their technologies _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 20:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Much more depth than any external source seems to give. Reads like an advertisement. Irene Ringworm 21:03, 12 March 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 per guidelines. Disruptive nom, too soon after previous AfDs, nobody other than nominator is recommending deletion. Trebor 20:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essjay controversy

Article is unencyclopedic, and we don't need to publicize internal strifes to the entire world. Let's see if we can get it deleted this time, if not, hopefully we will in the end. TMF Information 19:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination:

No consensus, Keep due to dramatic article changes, March 2, 2007, see discussion
Speedy close, March 8, 2007, see discussion

Speedy close and keep Nomination by new/SPA vandal account. Keep, this is a waste of our time. Can we get a WP:RFCU on this user? - Denny 19:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I also would like to ask for a CU on the nominator ~~who meanwhile re-added a pre-formatted block of content to the article which has been repeatedly rm'd by consensus~~.Gwen Gale 20:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close and keep As per DennyColt Nol888_(Talk)^{(Review me please)} 19:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Too soon from previous nominations, nominator does not cite any policy rationale for deletion. Notability of event clearly estabilshed by press coverage. —M (talk • contribs) 19:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep, notability has been quite well established. Repeated AfDs like this are highly disruptive and obnoxious. --tjstrf talk 19:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep Clearly notable... it was well heard outside of wikipedia. Also, too soon to relist. Disruptive. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 19:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep, too soon after this has gone through 2 previous AfDs. Gwen Gale 19:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close. There are huge issues as to whether this article will ever be more than reporting on current news, nevermind the naval-gazing elements of it. I really doubt its encyclopedic value. But its too soon after previous nominations- need to wait another month or two before having this debate. WjBscribe 19:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep - clear WP:POINT nomination. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Point violation? Closer to working on a 3RR for AfD nominations... disruptive, but I'm not sure relisting was to prove a point... lack of understanding is more likely... (keeping in spirit of AGF) --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 20:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep - too soon after this has gone through 2 previous AfDs; also per tjstrf and any other number of editors. Risker 20:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep and can we quit to play games?, thank you Alf^Photoman 20:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment, it is probably necessary to protect this page from further vandal attacks, including meritless nomination for deletion Alf^Photoman 20:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Wow... I also think it should be protected. That edit history is nuts. Let this get hashed out on the talk page instead of in the edits. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 20:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep-I'm not completely sure on the merits of the article, but this sort of renomination isn't the way things should be done.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close this nomination. As I understood it the whole point in the last decision in thi thus-far greuling fight over this article was to let it cool down a while before we approach it again. Now is far too soon, merits of the article notwithstanding. Arkyan 20:30, 12 March 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 talk 01:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Angelica Garnett

Only claim to fame is her parents and aunt. No sources Dalejenkins 19:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - I disagree, that is not her only claim to fame. Surely the fact that she is a British author and artist is a better claim to fame. That may not be intrinsically notable, but as a member of the Bloomsbury Group I think she's notable enough to deserve an article. As User:Capitalistroadster pointed out on the first AfD, she won a Joe Ackerley Memorial Prize for Autobiography in 1984 for Deceived with Kindness: A Bloomsbury Childhood. No sources is not a reason to delete, although I'd agree the article clearly needs some improvement. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 20:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep but needs work. The problem here is not that there are no references, the problem is that they are not obviously placed in a department called references. Alf^Photoman 00:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
keep the book is sufficiently n for an article of its own; essentially all the major figures in the Bloomsbury Group are N in their own right, as one of the most famous aspects of 20th century literature and social history.DGG 00:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - The Ackerley prize is significant enough to suggest notability; the rest of the bio, although unsourced at the moment, is more than enough. I've added a link verifying the Ackerley. -- BPMullins | Talk 00:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I'm a little unclear on the notability of this Ackerly prize. Not that prize amounts are automatically tied to notability, but this was something set up by the guy's sister and the prize is 1,000 pounds and a silver pen? Is this award really considered notable enough to hang Garnett's article on? Otto4711 08:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Many notable prizes give you a tin medal and a warm handshake with an invitation to please pay for your own meal at the awarding ceremony.... Alf^Photoman 12:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Are there multiple independent reliable sources that attest to the claim that the award is the most prestigous of its type in England? I looked at a few dozen sources and could not find any that mentioned the award in that context or much beyond any context other than being trivially noted in articles about various recipients. Otto4711 15:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Her article, the Bloomsbury Group article and a cursory look through a number of online sources don't indicate to me that Garnett was anything more than a tangential part of the group so I'm not finding a keep argument on that basis very persuasive. I am also not finding sourcing indicating that the Ackerley prize she won is of a calibre that asserting her notability on the basis of winning it is similarly unpersuasive to me. Her notability seems to be almost exclusively a product of her relatives' and notability is non-transferable. Otto4711 16:46, 14 March 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. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 00:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Les Pages Jèrriaises

This website's subject is notable, but is the site itself notable? Contested speedy, so moving here. No opinion from nominator. NawlinWiki 20:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to show its notability—it's the most prominent site by far for the Jèrriais language (and gets over 24,000 hits on Google). It is an important repository of old Jèrriais texts (some published, some unpublished), and it has been used extensively by those trying to work with Jèrriais who do not live on-island. I wrote up the article because I felt that it would be informative and that it deserves a little treatment here on Wikipedia. The Jade Knight 21:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

keep Certainly was not a suitable speedy, which is supposed to be for undoubtable lack of notability. It should have been obvious that this would be contested. I think a good case has been made for the website being N in its own right, as the principal website for a language..DGG 00:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletions. (PS, I know Jersey is UK, but this language is more closely relate to French)-- ⇒ bsnowball 10:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Technically, Jersey isn't part of the UK, though it's a British Isle. The Jade Knight 21:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep per WP:WEB. Primary website for a notable language with multiple references to establish notability (they really should have articles titles, though). -- Black Falcon 18:06, 17 March 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. Cbrown1023 talk 01:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Korzulot

Appears to be either a hoax or OR. No sources cited, only Google-hits (all 56 of them) are Wikipedia or mirrors. --Miskwito 20:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nom --Miskwito 20:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete, clear OR. While the dialect of Korčula quite likely has some special features, the title is likely made up, no references to support it, and do we need an article about dialect specifics of every corner of the Earth? Duja► 14:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete, something remarkably similar to this has already been removed from the Dalmatian language article, with reasons on the talk page. I suspect that User:195.194.240.65, who added the OR to the Dalmatian article is the same as User:London321, who began this article. For what it's worth, the same author seems to be fond of adding OR to several Croatian topics. Dewrad 19:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't DeleteI have now amended my profile page, if you all kindly go there, you will see my views about all issues concearning Wikipedia. Mind you, I have actually written a few articles on here, during the last 2 years,.. Most of them weren't in connection with Croatia. My IP address has few months ago changed, meaning, that most articles I wrote on here, have been approved as stubs, with proper references to support them, and other users contributions.
However, I decided a few months ago to start contributing to more disputable articles...for example critisizing [Dubrovnik Highlands] article..which is totally OR...and yet, considered a stub with no references.
In the same time, my article which is part of Croatian ethnology, unfortunate for being mostly from oral traditions, is being nominated for deletion simply because they never heard of it, pretty much brings us back to the whole Dalmatian Action Party (Dalmatinska Akcija) subject. I know I can wirte an article about them, and give plenty of reliable references to go with it,... but then,.. why would I bother, when someone could just as easly, delete my article on the grounds that it isn't Croatian enough.....And, I would have wasted another hour on this site, for no reason. --London321► 16:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- How nice of you to claim that it's discrimination and anti-Dalmatian sentiment that is the reason your this article has been nominated for deletion ("And now, my latest article about the accent of Korzulot has been nominated for deletion, simply because it just might be to sensitive for a few croats.(on the grounds that its not referenced).").
  Unfortunately, I didn't nominate it for deletion because I have some vendetta against Dalmatians or because I'm a Croat apologist or whatever. I nominated it because there's no evidence this dialect exists. If it does exist, and been mentioned in a reliable published source, by all means cite it, and I'll cheerfully admit I was wrong. But if it hasn't been mentioned in a reliable published source, even if it does exist, then Wikipedia does not allow the article to exist, because it is original research. --Miskwito 18:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. No evidence is given that this is not original research and the article's author has not provided sources. Any article you create may be deleted and no one can receive "assurance from the webmaster, that the article will be protected from vandals" (from User:London321). On this matter, please refer to the policy on the ownership of articles. Also refer to the civility policy; calling another editor a "moron", as you did on this talk page, is unacceptable. Lastly, you should assume good faith with regard to other editors. Wikipedia is not dominated by roving bands of Croatian ultra-nationalists and most editors probably don't care as much about the underlying issues involved as with the conformance of the article to our policies on attribution and neutrality. -- Black Falcon 18:26, 17 March 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 12:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lin Tan

References not provided. Could not find sources to back up the claim. Fails WP:N; plus too short to be of any real value. --soum^সৌমোyasch 20:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete: CSD A1. David Mestel^(Talk) 22:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per above Alf^Photoman 22:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:00, 13 March 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. If you prefer "no consensus," fine, but the keep arguments have gone unanswered.

[edit] Fritz Klein (actor)

Contested PROD. NN Lincoln impersonator. Has made some appearances on TV and one straight to video film, but his credits do not pass WP:BIO. Little biographical info on him thus violating WP:BLP. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. - grubber 21:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - if you only look at his (apparently incomplete) screen credits on IMDB, he looks nn, but that doesn't include his personal and stage appearances. I deprodded on the basis that there were not just a couple of current Google News articles[20] about his performances, but scores of past articles just in what is covered by Google News Archive[[21]. --Groggy Dice T | C 04:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per the news results noted by User:Groggy Dice. I'm not sure why having "little biographical info" on a person violates WP:BLP. -- Black Falcon 19:53, 17 March 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. Mango juice^talk 04:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Yates

Contested PROD. NN actress with minor credits, most notable for not getting a role in the film Showgirls. Does not pass WP:BIO and the lack of biographical information violates WP:BLP. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. You seem to be ignoring her lead role in the two other films noted there. Also, there is no BLP violation as the IMDb source verifies everything in the article. -- Black Falcon 05:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Her only major roles were in direct-to-video productions. She has major roles in non-notable workd, and non-notable roles in a couple major ones. —dgies^t_c 02:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No independent sources outside of IMDB and all of her movies are redlinks (the one bluelink leads to the wrong article). I don't see a good case for notability.--Kubigula (talk) 04:02, 18 March 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. --Core desat 03:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sex Vid

Delete Article is entirely unotable. Kntrabssi 20:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete ~~Non-notable per WP:BAND~~ Fails WP:CSD#A7 (Apologies for listing the wrong reason). ↔NMajdan•talk 20:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete Since the person who created the article says "Sex Vid is far too punk for Wikipedia," I think we should oblige her/him. *Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 21:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Nmajdan's recent edit noting that this article fails A7 works, and qualifies the article for speedy deletion, and, honestly, as long as it is deleted, I don't care if it's speedy or not. Kntrabssi

Delete poor style, POV, unless he expands this article and NPOV it I say delete.--JForget 21:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete - but let it run its course. Could be a hoax. - Richard Cavell 22:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per comments above. Please. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 22:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete The original page was created against the bands consent, and posted disapproval here http://nwhardcore.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=26494. Now the whole entry is just a joke.
Delete Nothing in the article to show notability. Jules 14:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect to celebrity sex tape. JuJube 02:44, 14 March 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. --Core desat 03:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Darren Scale

No sources given, no Google hits. Possible hoax. Jvhertum 21:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete: I'd love to say speedy, but sadly doesn't come under a CSD, and I've given up IARing for lent. Note also the one ghit. David Mestel^(Talk) 22:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per David Mestel, and I found one fewer relevant ghit than he did. Should be speedied. Newyorkbrad 22:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I never said it was relevant... David Mestel^(Talk) 22:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete failing WP:A for lack of sources and WP:V, not verifiable Alf^Photoman 22:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This reads like something made up in school one day which Wikipedia is not for. Arkyan 22:52, 12 March 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. We've waited long enough for sources. Daniel Bryant 01:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FEATS (2nd nomination)

This is a resubmission. The previous AfD discussion resulted in no consensus (with limited participation). Closing admin recommended resubmission if the article was not fixed in due time. After 3 months, the article still remains largely the product of a conflict of interest per this discussion on my talk page archive with the article creator. Notability is difficult to establish with good attribution by multiple reliable sources. All together, deletion without prejudice for a new and more neutral article is recommended. ju66l3r 22:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete: per nom and still no sources after 3 months. David Mestel^(Talk) 22:11, 12 March 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] And Then There Were 10

Delete Pure episode summary of an episode of Ben 10, delete as indiscriminate collection of information, article does not establish notability outside of the TV show. Phirazo 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep There are full episode summaries of each of the episodes of this show. Deleting this one would necessitate the deletion of all of the rest. The series is notable for its presence on the Cartoon Network, a major cable network in the US. --Mattarata 23:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep The above goes for any show at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pacific Coast Highway (talk • contribs) 00:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
Comment The series is notable. This individual episode is not. Also, this AfD is not about deleting all Ben 10 episode articles; this individual episode can be delinked in the appropriate places. -- Phirazo 01:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That was not directed toward the show, I was speaking for all shows in general. Your rationale states "does not establish notablilty outside of the TV show". That's vauge. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{The internet • runs on Rainbows!}} 01:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Quote from WP:NOT: "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." I don't see any "real-world context" or "sourced analysis", and I doubt there ever could be any. --[[[User:Phirazo|Phirazo]] 01:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll try this again. You want to delete this article citing it as "indiscriminate information". Then by your definition, all the episodes should be put up for deletion, since they follow the same format. You also say that this is not notable. Care to explain how it's not, seeing as it's the pilot episode and serves as the basis of the entire show? It's one thing to cite policy, it's another thing to prove where it violates it. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{The internet • runs on Rainbows!}} 02:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

1. This is not a mass AfD. Please discuss whether or not this article should be deleted. 2. The episode in question is non-notable because there are not enough reliable, 3rd party sources to write an article. 3. The article is a scene-by-scene plot summary of a TV episode. If that is all it will ever be, then it falls under WP:NOT. --Phirazo 03:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Where did I say that this was a mass AfD? I only said that if you're going to can this one, can them all since they fall into the same category that you have placed this one in. But I do credit you for giving an explanation. My stance still stands. I also took the time to read some of the discussions surrounding this issue and they all seem to agree that AfD's like this will cause more harm than good. And TV.com no longer counts as a independent source? I'd like to note that the notabilty guidelines state "seconday sources". Not Third party. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{The internet • runs on Rainbows!}} 03:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to point you to another nomination you have made, which led to "no consensus" on the subject. There has been no agreement that it does fall into "indiscriminate information", only subjective opinion. In fact, most of the delete votes were made as a result of misreading or by ignoring parts of the policy. This debate will most likely conclude in the same fashion. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{The internet • runs on Rainbows!}} 03:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The link to the TV.com summary is here. TV.com is not a reliable source (especially for "sourced analysis", which this article is sorely lacking), since most of the content comes from general users. --Phirazo 04:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've said what I needed to say. I'll leave it up to whover closes this issue. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{The internet • runs on Rainbows!}} 05:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Some episodes of some series are notable - for instance, the Twilight Zone where Meredith breaks his glasses. But every episode of every notable series is not going to become a part of pop culture. This means that these articles will never be anything beyond plot summaries and "special guest" lists, occasionally with an item or two of dubious-quality trivia. While the information is interesting - sometimes even fascinating - to pour over, I don't believe it belongs in Wikipedia. I'm not aware of a TV-related Wiki, but there surely must be one leading candidate to which this material can be transferred. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, however - airdates and episode titles of television shows are good. WP:NOT#PAPER. Episodes of television shows which have made a timeless, lasting impression on popular culture - and yes, I am a stodgy, pole-in-the-ass academic - deserve mention. The third episode of the fourth season of Aaron Spelling's Presentation of Stephen King's Suchandwhat does not deserve an article of its own. The "keep" vote above me seems to be based on a slippery slope fallacy, with shades of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm sure that my opinion is not the most popular one there is - but if WP:NOT#IINFO, then I think it's best to begin backing that up with action - even if it means hundreds and hundreds of new AfDs. --Action Jackson IV 07:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep or at worst merge. I am fine with almost any television show broadcast on a major network having its own article. If you don't want that, then I would be content with including the information on a page like List of Ben 10 episodes. But deletion? Nope. If you want other content, see if that can be added. Especially for the premiere episode, which could have a lot of information come out about it. Has this show been released on DVD with a directory's commentary? That would be quite useful in adding more content. But seriously though, if this is about a general issue, then it's important to note that isn't just an issue which would impact one series, but literally dozens. I suggest taking it to the Village Pump instead. Mister.Manticore 23:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Individual episode articles are extensions of the main TV show article and per Mister.Manticore. -- Black Falcon 19:59, 17 March 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. Daniel Bryant 09:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal branding (2nd nomination)

linkspam, no cleanup in almost a year, pure abuse of wikipedia regardless of merits of article. The previous debate focused simply on merits of the article, rather than the content. Just because an article should exist, doesn't mean we should retain one filled with linkspam which no one but the spammers care about. --Mattarata 22:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep - this is a new trend in marketing and branding. The content will enhance, as people have a further understanding of the concept.
Comment if this is kept, but no one bothers changing the text again, I am going to blank the article and replace the text with "Personal branding is branding which is personal". --Xyzzyplugh 23:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Or you could take sources such as this article in Management Communication Quarterly, this article in Communication Research, and chapter 9 of ISBN 0471263664 and write a proper stub. ☺ Uncle G 01:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Yes, good point, assuming this is kept, one of those who votes Keep should do that. (I don't write articles myself, not even stubs) --Xyzzyplugh 02:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Great links, perhaps if they were included in the article instead of all the personal blogs and "branding experts" sites, then the article wouldn't need to be deleted. --Mattarata 04:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep The subject is notable and the article has margins for improvement. Although it's quite poorly written, it has sufficient context in order to be kept and improved.--Orthologist 20:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I didn't do the best cleanup job in the world, and it still needs work, and I don't have easy access to ISBN 0471263664 at the moment, nor did I read the entire text of those journal articles, but I did a bit of copyediting and reorganizing, and I added Uncle G's sources, so someone else could use them . . . anyway, I obviously think it should be kept. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 03:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete: simply not an encyclopedic article (at time of voting). Pavel Vozenilek 00:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep There is more than sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about personal branding. With so much available source material, the article could be turned into an FA article. -- Jreferee 06:26, 18 March 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, no consensus to merge. Any further merge proposals (outside of this AfD, in the future) should take place on the talk page (more information at WP:MM#Proposing a merger). However, there is no consensus to merge as a result of this debate; that's not to say that further discussion to try and develop a consensus either way won't be beneficial. Daniel Bryant 09:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Grimes

This is a one episode character from the Simpsons. He has no real notability besides the one episode, his arguably notable death, and a few cameos(by family and grave). The article should be merged/redirected to the episode he comes from or an appropriate character list. Nemu 23:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge per nom. BTW, merges should be listed on WP:PM if they are likely to be controversial or else you can just do it yourself. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 23:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Weird, I had no clue that existed. I usually see people use this for things like this. Nemu 00:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep - Explain to me where this article fails inclusion criteria. He's a notable character from a very notable episode and notability shouldn't be dicatated by his number of appearances. There are entire chapters of books (ie. Planet Simpson) devoted to his one appearance. I'd say that he is more important to the series than half of the characters that have pages and I have no idea why people keep going after this page when there are much less notable Simpsons characters with pages. And, the afd system is being misused. It shouldn't be used with the sole intention of getting an article merged. -- Scorpion 00:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I just saw that it was a problem article, so I decided to put it here. I really don't see how any of that earns him a page. That should be what places him apart from nameless characters. Even then, the bulk of the page is a plot summary and trivial cameos, basically the same thing as a list entry linking to the episode article. Nemu 00:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

So? Then you slap a clean up tag on it, you don't nominate it for deletion. I think The Simpsons WikiProect has pretty good about merging character pages (there are about 80 right now and I have plans to merge another 10), but I really do think that Grimes is a standout. It also isn't easy to merge pages considering that we're supposed to keep the one-time and recurring character lists short, but they fill up fast. -- Scorpion 00:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Homer's Enemy. Largely duplicate material. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge to Homer's Enemy per CanadianCaeser. He's a great character in a great episode, but he can easily be done in the episode's article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge per CC and ALTTP. He was a good character, but he was only in one episode (and mentioned in another, when his son tried to get revenge on Homer). TJ Spyke 03:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Merge to the relevant episode or other page, and once again, there is a tag for that: {{merge}}. Next time this sort of thing comes up, try that step instead. If you want to withdraw your nomination and close this, it might be a good idea. Mister.Manticore 03:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- There have already been 4 merge attempts on the article and each one has been defeated, so I think people figured that nominating it for afd would be the way to get the job done. Isn't there some sort of policy against using an afd when the nominator just wants to get the page mered? -- Scorpion 03:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Well, I don't know that there is a policy, but I find it the inappropriate thing to do. If people aren't convinced to merge though, maybe that should be a point to consider in not even proposing for deletion. Personally, I was thinking it'd be fine as a merge, but then I looked at the article and said "Hmm, ok, I can accept keeping that" . Mister.Manticore 04:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep: Article has enough information about the life and history of the character, including references in all episodes, to warrant its own article. --Mattarata 05:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Most of the content is redundant to the episode. The references and history of the character could easily fit. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep: Well I want a page for every character, but that is just unrealistic, but Frank Grimes is notable enough to stay. Gran² 06:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why is Frank Grimes on the same level as Sideshow Bob? - A Link to the Past (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Because there's no functional difference between articles, thus you might as well ask why Homer Simpson is on the same level as the president of the United States. Mister.Manticore 14:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    - No, I shouldn't. This is a one-time character who is popular among fans and the writers/animators/etc. That does not constitute notability. The problem is that there is a weak criteria for notability, and none of the members of the Simpsons WikiProject are interested in increasing the standard. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
      - Well, the notability guidelines for people does include a note that people with cult followings are notable... -- Scorpion 17:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        That seems like a crazy criteria. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
      - Well, as I see it, I think your evaluation is based on a faulty premise. An article's existence is a minimal question. There is no level between individual articles in and of themselves, whether it be Frank Grimes, Sideshow Bob, Homer Simpson or Abe Lincoln. One individual article? Means little. The length of the article, now that can mean a lot, or the existence of other articles about aspects of the subject, even a category in some cases. So, I really don't think your complaint makes a difference. Almost everybody could be said to have an article. If that's all you look at, then I'd say your perspective was myopic. Mister.Manticore 22:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        Fine - most of the article is redundant to Homer's Enemy. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment I've merged Frank Grimes into Homer's Enemy at [22]. Besides needing a little work on the transition, I see no reason why this couldn't be merged. - A Link to the Past (talk) 13:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, although I'm not removing my Keep, if it does end up being merged (like above) then I wouldn't complain. Although I wouldn't include the official Frank Grimes image, its really bad, and there are a load of other images for him there already. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gran2 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
  - Small problem: Homer's Enemy is a GA and adding a bunch of stuff to it could cause it to lose its GA status. -- Scorpion 17:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Then improve the one on my user page. I'm willing to give Frank Grimes a "stay of execution" so that the merge target can take the content well. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete The Keep arguments have all been of the "ILIKEIT" variety and there are no references available to other than the original cartoon episode the character appeared in or to a fan blog. Thus the article fails WP:N and WP:ATT. "I want a page for every character" is still just "ILIKEIT." Edison 16:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep Even though he did appear on the simpsons once, he is still a notable character.Best Regards - Tellyaddict (Talk) 18:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- That is NOT a reason to speedy keep. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep He is a notable and important Simpsons character, who although he appeared once had a major effect on the plot of that and future episodes. 210.54.2.66 21:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why do people keep saying he's importnat? He's a well-liked character. Without him, we'd have a few less one-liner jokes and two less plots out of 300. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, but trim content that merely duplicates plot summary in episode article. I predict that Frank Grimes's name will be an important component of American metaphorical language drawn from American mythology. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Predictions do not matter in this discussion, so your vote (okay, it's not a vote, but I don't want to type too much... even though explaining why I said vote is probably taking me more time than it would to simply just type something other than vote that better described what the AfD was all about) really has no reasoning. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I hope you're not planning to say that Kwyjibo's vote doesn't count just because he made a prediction. Anton Mravcek 23:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a vote. If the user doesn't have a quality argument, their "vote" is lower than someone who gave a sound argument. His "vote" is entirely based on both "I like this article" and original research. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Cromulent Kwyjibo. We wouldn't be having this discussion about Damocles. Anton Mravcek 23:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comparing an already moral anecdote to a maybe but no reason to believe will be moral anecdote? At what point are they even the same situation? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment If Leno goes 'jaywalking' and asks about Damocles, most people won't know. If they do know, they probably know because of The Simpsons. Ask them about Frank Grimes, and you'll get more correct answers than asking for Damocles. So no, at no point will they even be in the same situation. Grimes is much better known by the American proletariat than Damocles will ever hope to be. Cromulent Kwyjibo 23:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Homer's Enemy. JuJube 02:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If they know who Frank Grimes is, yes. The fact of the matter is that even despite that, Damocles deserves an article much more. The only arguments for Frank Grimes are popularity and "I like it", while those against it have redundancy to the episode's article combined with lack of a significant role in the series. Major popularity, minor importance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - he's been on one significant episode, his son mentioned him on a second episode, and his gravestone was on a third. - Richard Cavell 02:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Being in a few episodes does not make him notable. You see him in several minor jokes and two plots. Seriously, is there a pressing need for him to have his own article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Notability is not dictated by the length or number of appearances. Frank Grimes, although he made only one appearance, is a notable character on his own because, as I have said, he has been the subject of many different analysises, such as in Planet Simpson. -- Scorpion 03:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Popularity and notability are two entirely different things. The only reason that this AfD won't pass is both because someone posted that it was being AfDing on the Simpsons Project (which is really in bad form, since it looks more like a call to arms than trying to get specific editors involved) and because people use the "I like it" argument. But regardless, the closing admin should take into consideration that the AfD was skewered by the Simpsons cabal being called to arms to defend the article. And by the way, do you have any coverage by a source other than the creators, fans, or a fan site? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
      - Actually, it was added to the proect page by a non-member. -- Scorpion 03:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        On the talk page? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
      - Actually, I would say the reason this AfD won't pass is because the argument for deletion is unconvincing. Now that said, the person making the nomination really should have consulted with the project before this action anyway. Not saying whatever their opinion might have been would have forbidden this, but that would have been a better way to go about the process. However, since it was nominated, getting the involvement of editors interested in the subject of the Simpsons is very important, which is why I did add it to the main page. Adding it to the talk page? Bit redundant, but I don't see too much of a difference. Now if somebody is going out and soliciting individuals, that would be more inappropriate. Mister.Manticore 06:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Common Sense. Slickshoes3234 01:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- ...That's not a reason to keep. It might be common sense to Simpsons fanboys that every popular non-recurring Simpsons character needs an article, but not to... everyone else. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Alright, now you're really starting to get offensive. "Simpsons fanboys that every popular non-recurring Simpsons character needs an article", we have been trimming articles. Excuse me if all WikiProjects can't be as diligent as the video games project when it comes to merging character pages, but when I first joined the project, there were 120 Simpsons character pages and I think we've been doing a good job at getting rid of some while still keeping the recurring and one-timers lists relatively short. Your side still hasn't shown me any specific guidelines the article is breaking except saying it generally fails WP:N or WP:ATT -- Scorpion 01:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Homer's Enemy is one of Matt Groening's favorite episodes, according to an interview in which he describes the episode as "the Frank Grimes one." Frank Grimes is part of American cultural literacy, and is notable enough for his own article. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 03:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- What is with people talking as if Frank Grimes has any relevancy outside of Simpsons? He is NOT a moral anecdote and he is NOT a part of "American cultural literacy". He's a popular Simpsons character. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Go to your local library, borrow "Planet Simpson: How a Cartoon Masterpiece Documented an Era and Defined a Generation" and turn to page 99. There's also a lengthy section in "Leaving Springfield". -- Scorpion 12:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per WP:SS. Works best as a seperate page. Notability is a shown by the book mentioned above that talks about him. - Peregrine Fisher 10:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep as per WP:NOT#PAPER. Matthew 10:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Someones being a real Frank Grimes about getting this page deleted... Augurr 19:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for some reason why Frank Grime NEEDS an article. Are there any reliable sources? Not fan sites or fan books? Of course a Simpsons book would mention it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm still waiting for you to tell me specifically which guidelines it fails. -- Scorpion 21:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Common sense - do you honestly believe that a fan work on The Simpsons is on the same level as a non-fan source? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    - I looked that up and found nothing. Please tell me a real guideline the forbids the existance of this page. There are Simpsons characters out there with pages who have made even less of an appearance (Hank Scorpio, Fall Out Boy, Happy Little Elves, Worker and Parasite), all of which you've never gone after. This is the second or third time you've gone after ol' Grimey, which makes me think you have something against the episode. -- Scorpion 22:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
      - A quick one would be WP:N. The character really asserts no notability. All the info pretty much pertains to Homer's Enemy. Half the article is a plot summary of that episode, and the other half basically fits in the production section(if slightly reworded). Nemu 22:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
      - What are you talking about? I went after Hank. Hell, you merged him just recently. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
      - So yeah, I would like the closing admin to take into account the fact that it fails WP:N by not having secondary sources to back up the character's importance or notability. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        There, I have added sources. -- Scorpion 02:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        Four of those are from fan sites. One of them is reporting on the opinion of a Simpsons writer. And one of them is discussing the quality of the character, not his notability. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        Wait a minute, since when are EW and IGN fan sites? -- Scorpion 13:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        At what point is that question important? I said: four of them are fan sites. EW discusses MATT'S opinion of HIS OWN character, and IGN discusses their opinion of the character's quality, not his notability. - A Link to the Past (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        There are only 2 internet sources. and you said they were fan sites (your words), and I'm curious as to why you consider EW and IGN fan sites? -- Scorpion 14:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        If you can't be bothered to read a single word of my statements, I shouldn't even bother to reply. But how's this?:
        
        How many sources are there? Are there only four? - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        This is getting pointless. You said "Four of those are from fan sites." Only 2 are websites (and they are certainly not fan sites), 2 are books and 2 are DVD commentaries. You are trying to discredit my sources, but it seems that you haven't even looked at them. -- Scorpion 14:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        Fine, four of the sources are not secondary sources. Does it matter that I don't look at what kind of source they are? One is referencing the opinion of a Simpsons writer, and the other doesn't show its notability. - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        Also, the IGN link shows his quality as a Simpsons character, and doesn't assert its out-of-universe notability. - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Ok, it seems this discussion is getting a little strained. Now I know I've made more than a few long discussions on AfD's before myself, but I don't think this particular aspect of the discussion is fruitful, so maybe it might be time to realize you have made your points, whatever they may be. Mister.Manticore 15:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- The article fails WP:N. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Which section? You can't just say "fails WP:N" without citing specifically what it fails. -- Scorpion 15:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    - "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other." The EW source is a special exception, because it's not "by them", they're just repeating Matt's opinion. As for IGN, that in itself is an opinion piece which only represents the character's quality as a Simpsons character - ie, it's in-universe. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
      - And what about the two books? Planet Simpson is about The Simpsons effects on the real world. And by the way, repeating somebody's opinion is also known as an "interview", which are allowed. -- Scorpion 15:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        But how does it assert the character's notability? And the book, how does it discuss The Simpsons' effects on the real world, and what does it say that Frank Grimes effected? And regardless, Planet Simpson isn't a secondary source - like WP:N says, a secondary source is independent of the subject. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        It's an unauthorized book and nobody on The Simpsons staff had anything to do with it. -- Scorpion 23:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        Independent to the subject. It doesn't say "not involved with the subject". The book is not independent of the subject - it is a fan book OF the subject. Seriously, you talk about cleaning up cruft on the Simpsons spectrum, but are so against cleaning this massive cruft up. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        Frank Grimes has been discussed in at least three books:
        
        Leaving Springfield is written by John Alberti an associate professor of English at Nothern Kentucky University.
        
        Planet Simpson is written by Chris Turner an award-winning magazine journalist.
        
        The Simpsons and philosophy is written by William Irwin, Mark T. Conard and Aeon H. Skoble. Irwin is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at King's College, Pennsylvania.
        
        I think your attempt to dismiss this material as fan books is pretty pathetic. --Maitch 16:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        They are books about Simpsons. That is a Simpsons fan book. Who wrote it doesn't matter. It's not independent from the subject. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        With your reasoning a book about WW2 would be a WW2 fan book. --Maitch 16:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        And a book about rape would be a "rape fanbook" and the book Jewish Supremacism by David Duke would be a Jewish supremacism fanbook. Being "independent of the subject" is not the same as "about an entirely different topic". -- Black Falcon 20:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        Quick question, is it Grimes being discussed, or Homer's Enemy? For those to really show Grimes as notable, they should have little to no mention of the episode. Also, if these books do truly define his notability, why are they only used to source things that happened in the episode? And ALTTP, I believe those count as secondary sources. They're written by people that study the Simpson's effect on culture(as far as I can tell), which seems to match it's definition.Nemu 16:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        Leaving Springfield discuss both the character and the episode in two different parts of the books.
        
        Planet Simpson discusses the character.
        
        The Simpsons and philosophy discusses the character. --Maitch 16:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        Can you breifly describe how how he is talked about in them, and for how long of a duration? Also, can you answer the question: "If these books do truly define his notability, why are they only used to source things that happened in the episode?" Nemu 16:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        "Representing the real world" isn't something in the episode, it requires a source." - Peregrine Fisher 18:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        Yes, but that is something in the episode. The point of bringing up the books is to say that Grimes is a notable figure beyond the episode, that he isn't bound to it. Citing things about the episode doesn't do that. Nemu 18:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        I thought that sentence was something that would be original research if not attributed, are you saying the episode says he represents the real world? That the books talk about him is what establishes notability, it's dissecting his appearance in the episode. It's not whether he is bound to episode, but whether he is a notable enough aspect of the episode. The keeps feel he is. - Peregrine Fisher 19:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        So? If all he is is a notable character in that episode, his notability doesn't escape the episode. That would be an excellent reason to merge. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        Not true, being in multiple episodes doesn't establish notability, and being in one episode doesn't preclude it. It's all about other sources, which this article has. - Peregrine Fisher 19:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        The sources say that the episode is notable, not the character. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Augurr. CompositeFan 16:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- How can you say "per Augurr"? That's not even a legitimate reason to keep. Hell, if I was being a Frank Grimes, I would be in the right - if I'm being Frank Grimes, I would be realistic. So logically, to be a Frank Grimes is to be realistic, so to keep this article would be a Homer Simpson (unrealistic). - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  - ALTTP, it's in bad taste to hound every keep-!voter. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    - Legitimately hound them? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
      - Umm.... there's a difference between "discussing" and "hounding" and calling people who disagree with you "fanboys". I'm getting the impression that you may be taking this too personally. -- Black Falcon 20:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Homer's Enemy. One-time characters aren't notable enough for their own article. --FireV 02:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. There are more than enough arguments above, so I won't repeat them (if you want to get really technical, then keep per all the comments above by Scorpion), but let me state my initial reaction after reading this thread: WHAT THE HELL?!? Since when did "independent of the subject" become "unrelated to the topic"? -- Black Falcon 20:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? Who cares about that anymore? The sources that are not independent to the subject are also not about Frank Grimes, but rather "Homer's Enemy". - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  - Huh? Who cares!? That's the main premises for your argument in the second half of this AFD! Since you seem to equate "independent of the subject" with "about a completely different topic", I'm not even sure what sources you're referring to. -- Black Falcon 20:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    - The main defense in keeping the article is that Grimes is notable. So far, only the epsisode has been notable. Grimes is always mentioned with the episode. That asserts no notability. Nemu 20:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment I added a ref about Grimes and not the episode. - Peregrine Fisher 20:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- What you added basically equates to trivia. A random comparison asserts no notability. Nemu 20:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  - It's just another nail in the non-notable coffin. - Peregrine Fisher 20:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    - If you want him to be notable actually get something that makes him notable. Apparently, you have three books that make Grimes an important part of our culture. Use those. Nemu 20:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge - Merge with Homer's Enemy, he was only around for one episode, it doesn't seem like enough to actually make an article for him--SUIT^양복 21:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - For the various reasons listed above, he's a well known character, the amount of episodes he's in does not seem relevant to me. Sirmorphix 23:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- His relevancy outside of that episode is. All sources talking about notability discuss the episode's. Also, you have too few edits to understand notability guidelines. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  - I removed the trivia aspect of that reference, and used it to speak to his character and relationship with Homer. The entire body of the article is about Grimey, not the episode; I wish I could find refs like this more often. - Peregrine Fisher 03:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    - But it still can be done in the episode article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
      - For formatting reasons, I think a seperate article is better. When someone clicks on Homer's Enemy, they should find an article about the episode, not an article half about the episode, and half about FG. - Peregrine Fisher 04:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
        
        The only thing in the article actually about Grimes(the first two paragraphs in orgins) isn't unique to the article. It can easily be reworded slightly to fit in the production section of HE. It's pretty much already there anyways. Nemu 04:35, 18 March 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. —dgies^t_c 02:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Patient

Page for a non-notable television show. Has been deleted per proposed deletion twice and now recreated, so the deletion is contested. The article was deleted per AfD before but about a My Chemical Romance related character. Orfen ^{User Talk} | _Contribs 23:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge This and all episode articles into the main article. A show that ran for one season doesn't need that many separate articles. --Mattarata 05:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, notable television series, we have a consensus to improve these articles, not delete them (WP:EPISODE), episode meets notability guidelines. Matthew 11:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep as Matthew says, we have a consensus to improve articles like this, not delete them. The info in this page cannot be merged well, either. - Peregrine Fisher 17:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep. This article about an individual episode is an extension of the main TV show article. The consensus is to keep and improve these articles. -- Black Falcon 20:14, 17 March 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. Daniel Bryant 09:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yusuf Estes

Fails WP:BIO. There are no secondary reliable sources to confirm notablity. Second it seems the only thing he is famous for is converting to Islam, which does NOT prove notability. Sefringle 23:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Per nom. Not notable. --Mattarata 05:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, per independant, non-trivial coverage available regarding this individual: [23][24][25][26][27][28][29], among others. ITAQALLAH 06:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[30][31][32][33]. ITAQALLAH 05:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'd like to point out that most of the above links are articles written by students and not experts, and thus don't prove notability.--Sefringle 21:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Question. Why are students inherently less reliable than teachers? Student newspapers have administrative oversight, and journalism students are learning the same rigorous standards that professional journalists use. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 03:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Primary criterion. It says: person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent,6 and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.

A student newspaper is not not reliable because a student is not an expert. Anyone who goes to that school, whether a student or a professor can create a page on anything, and post it on the school website. Just because it is there does not make it reliable.--Sefringle 03:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Per nom. Not notable. --Java7837 14:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 06:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep I'm not fully convinced that the sources given by Itaqallah are non-trivial (they are all about things Estes is doing or has done, not about Estes), but I'd rather err on the side of keeping. I am willing to change my opinion to full keep if more sources directly about Estes can be given. JoshuaZ 17:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per Sefringle. Arrow740 07:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep There is sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about Yusuf Estes, including (i) Blade, David Yonke Toledo. (July 14, 2001) Journal Gazette Proselytizing preacher finds faith in Islam: Sheik Yusuf Estes. Page 1.; (ii) Tilove, Jonathan. (October 23, 2001) The Star-Ledger To be a white U.S. Muslim: Converts embrace the oddity. Section: News; Page 10.; (iii) Pinsky, Mark I. (January 6, 2003) Orlando Sentinel Muslims' radio message: we are regular people. Section: Life & Times; Page C1.; (iv) The Hamilton Spectator (February 14, 2003) A Christian attends a mosque; A visitor finds a warm welcome and wonders if he'd be as liberal.; (v) Columbia State (SC). (April 7, 2003) Chaplain to speak at USC about Islam. Section: Metro/Region; Page B5.; (vi) U-WIRE (March 1, 2004) U. New Mexico speaker asks religions to unite.; (vii) U-WIRE (April 18, 2005) Muslim speaker educates U. Northern Colorado students about faith.; (viii) US State News. (April 12, 2006) National Muslim chaplain Yusuf Estes to speak at senior center on April 14.; (ix) The Modesto Bee (April 22, 2006) Converted preacher to speak about "pure Islam." Section: Lifestyles; Page G1.; (x) Nomani , Asra Q. (October 22, 2006) Washington Post Wife-Beating, Chapter and Verse.; (xi) Wen, Sarah. (January 23, 2007 ) University Wire UCLA Muslim student group to promote Islam, religious unity. -- Jreferee 06:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Do you have any links to any of these sites for the purpose of Verifiability?--Sefringle 07:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep I can't see why some people want this article to be deleted, if he became famous after converting to Islam, why shouldn't it be enough for notability! User:Waqas.usman (Talk) 11:03, 18 March 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 03:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Umar Faruq Abd-Allah

Fails WP:BIO. There are no secondary sources to confirm notability. Second, the google search [34] under his name only turned up about 600 hits for this person. Sefringle 23:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BIO Prester John 23:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Has published several studies on religious topics, but they do not appear to be in widely circulated publications. Nor does he appear to be a cite for other authors. --Mattarata 05:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Mattarata. JoshuaZ 17:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G7.· j e r s y k o talk · 15:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motifs in William Hope Hodgson's Fiction

This list is pure original research, made evident by the lack of sources cited. Anything that can be cited could likely be discussed at William Hope Hodgson if it is not already. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - this is all in the author's article so no need to merge anything. Completely unsourced and I suspect unsourceable. From what I've read of fiction contemporaneous to this guy's, there are very few commercial writers who don't use similar motifs. Otto4711 01:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Probable original research and redundant in any case. —Cel ithemis 01:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete: List exists in main article. Doesn't really belong there either. --Mattarata 05:25, 13 March 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] Paul Todd, Dave Mac

[edit] De Viris Illustribus (Jerome)

[edit] 20th Kisei

[edit] Bell (surname)

[edit] Heart of the Universe

[edit] Ryder McPherson

[edit] Beherit (Dungeons & Dragons)

[edit] Attachment disorder

[edit] Chicago Shady Dealer

[edit] Salt crystals

[edit] Brookside School

[edit] Michael Satter

[edit] Newfoundland and Labrador First Party

[edit] Alex Mitchell

[edit] Task Force to Overcome Racism in Topeka

[edit] Mark Coyle BBC

[edit] David Sams

[edit] Anya (TimeSplitters)

[edit] FastLife International

[edit] 8th Gaming Generation

[edit] Yemassee (journal)

[edit] Raytoons Cartoon Avenue

[edit] Ansem Retort

[edit] List of bishonen characters

[edit] Hedgecore

[edit] DZUP

[edit] AOL Pictures

[edit] Kyle and Evan Do The Movies

[edit] Michael Gach

[edit] Paragon Partition Manager

[edit] Ailene Light

[edit] Aiwass

[edit] Betty Shine

[edit] Biker comedy

[edit] DeChiangcization

[edit] Djwal Khul

[edit] Eva Pierrakos

[edit] Favorite betrayal criterion

[edit] Fenmore Baldwin

[edit] Gordon Higginson

[edit] Guy Finley

[edit] List of Internet musicians

[edit] Mary Ann Wintkowski

[edit] Matt Wilson

[edit] N-MORB

[edit] Ogygia (Transformers)

[edit] Ronna Herman

[edit] Students Confronting Apartheid in Israel

[edit] The New Culture Forum

[edit] Hard fantasy and Category:Hard fantasy

[edit] QuickBooks

[edit] Phantom nodes

[edit] John Jerry Mandracchia

[edit] Jose Melendez-Perez

[edit] Faheem Shuaibe

[edit] Charles Fort on mysterious appearances and disappearances

[edit] Caleb Rutkowski

[edit] Holy Child Chapel International

[edit] TrustedPlaces

[edit] Capitalist slavery

[edit] Fflam

[edit] Ben Oyler

[edit] Katherine Cunningham-Eves

[edit] K. K. Dodds

[edit] Karen Kilgariff

[edit] Studded Belt

[edit] Shark Island Challenge

[edit] Convert or die

[edit] NamePros

[edit] Tankmania Tips+tricks

[edit] Zombie force

[edit] Racial memory

[edit] Peaceful Meadows Farm

[edit] The Baseball Channel

[edit] 2018 asian games

[edit] Carl Mygind

[edit] Ultrasone Headphone Technologies