Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 21

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Grease Trucks. The non-commercial content (e.g. ingredients) are already listed in the target article and mentions in media suggest sufficient notability to support a redirect. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fat Darrell

Fat Darrell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Is this a notable sandwich? Subwayguy 01:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per CSD A7. Sr13 01:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, only appears to refer to one sandwich at one university cafe. Not very notable, per nomination. Bob talk 01:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to the Grease Trucks articleDelete and redirect per nom and Cattlegirl--M8v2 02:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and no merge, as it already has a mention in Grease Trucks. This is also a bit of an advertisement- 'only $5 each'. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 02:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 03:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable - and reads to me as more than just a "bit" advertisement - as Cattle Girl points out, "only $5"? a great deal - what, no phone number for delivery? --Krich (talk) 03:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Five dollars? What a bargain! Danny Lilithborne 04:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak redirect to Grease Trucks, assuming the Maxim statement about it being the #1 sandwich in the nation can be sourced. Barring that, delete, as WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate ingredients. No WP:RS indicating this sandwich is notable beyond, well, being eaten off a Grease Truck. Mmmm, sandwichcruft. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect, there is no need to merge any information, the secret ingredients are already listed on that page. The marinara sauce always gives me indigestion, but I still eat them. The sandwich is notable but the whole story is already told in the other article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and send Grease Trucks to AfD, which is the actual Rutgerscrufty article. Note that the sources at Grease Trucks are actually about the sandwich. ~ trialsanderrors 05:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per above. Just H 05:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Grease Trucks. Google results indicate it's notable enough to warrant a redirect (USA Today and FOX News reported on its #1 sandwich status), but it doesn't need its own article. -SpuriousQ 06:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all delete comments. --teh tennisman 16:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• I have no problem deleting this form of the article because it is pathetic. I've had nothing to do with this incarnation. But I do announce that I intend within a week or two to write a decent article about the sandwich which Maxim magazine states is the best in the country (See Grease Trucks article for articles to that effect) .—ExplorerCDT 16:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable per above. - SpLoT _(*C*+u+g) 16:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep or merge into a sandwich list if there is any --Slogankid 16:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect it's already mentioned in grease trucks - 'nuf said there. SkierRMH,19:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)\
• Delete and I'm not sure it could ever have its own article, even if Maxim bestows a title on it. It isn't The Whopper and never will be.--Dmz5 05:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nothing indicates its notability. Mukadderat 18:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This seems to be nonnotable and very little information provided. Davidpdx 07:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Although this has already been redirected, the consensus here is to delete even the redirect.

[edit] Wedding Saga

Wedding Saga (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

AfD nominated by Tyar with reason: "DELETE. This saga is fake, false a sham!". This is a procedural nomination - my own opinion is Neutral. Note that the article has also been CSD'd as a hoax article - no specific CSD criterion mentioned. Tevildo 01:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Bigtop 03:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Gvisp 05:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep seems legit, but not sure. Just H 05:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional merge and redirect, gotta find out if it is a hoax or not. Even if it isn't a hoax, present article is sub-stub and should be merged. - SpLoT _(*C*+u+g) 16:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No need to merge - the little information here is already on other page. No redirect as this name is either hoax or non notable since we cant find it.Obina 17:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V and What? smells hoaxaliscious to me. SkierRMH 19:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Procedural speedy close it's been redirected. If undone delete or redirect as duplicate content. --Kunzite 01:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as has already been done. It seems to take care of the issue sufficently enough to link it to the correct usaage. Davidpdx 07:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:39Z

[edit] ESlavery

ESlavery (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Protologism. Google search yields only hits to this wiki page & the DRM page. Ripe 01:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Bigtop 01:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom--M8v2 02:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete OR Just H 02:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above responses. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 02:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, nn neologism. MER-C 03:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article admits it's a protologism. —ShadowHalo 05:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn notable neologism.--John Lake 06:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a protologism. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above responses. Tkenna 13:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above responses.--Eva ^bd 15:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the article lacks the sources to satisfy WP:NEO. Not to mention that as evil as DRM is, it is inflammatory to compare DRM to one of the most evil institutions thought up of by humanity.-- danntm ^T _C 16:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom... nn neologism. SkierRMH 19:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--Hu12 22:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete-per nom - -- Flutefluteflute ^{Talk Contributions} 11:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete See WP:NOT. Davidpdx 07:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Googlebomb. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:40Z

[edit] French military victories (practical joke)

French military victories (practical joke) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

• Delete an internet meme that I believe is not notable enough to have its own wikipedia article. Perhaps worthy of mention in the Google bomb article or Anti-French sentiment in the United States but not its own article. Jersey Devil 01:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Having studied googlebombs extensively, and I even created one myself (no further comment on that), I can tell you that no single google bomb is noteworthy in and of itself. The phenomenon as a whole is noteworthy, and is discussed properly in the article titled Googlebomb. The specific example of "French military victories" is not worthy of its own article. In addition, the article as written contains some factual errors and NPOV problems, but I won't fix them because it should just be deleted. 129.98.212.143 02:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per Jersey Devil. Meme seems like it could possibly be notable, but not sure. Just H 02:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Jersey Devil. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 02:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 03:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom Bwithh 03:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 04:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Notable, but already mentioned in Googlebomb per anon user. Sr13 04:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.ER^Talk 07:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep I recall this one being more notable than most googlebombs, having been mentioned in quite a few newspapers. At 2003 it was topical, due to the Iraq war and France using their UN veto. Perhaps since it's been a long time since then it no longer meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines, and is deserving of a merge or deletion, but at the moment for me, it's still a weak keep. Tkenna 13:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, can be covered by Googlebomb. Lord Gravitron ^{Message | Contrib} 14:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom--Eva ^bd 15:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect Information about this should be added to the Googlebomb article, as it's a well-known example, but a separate article is unnecessary. Pinball22 15:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. SupaStarGirl 17:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge A perfectly true article, and mildly amusing, but not individually notable.--Anthony.bradbury 19:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Googlebomb per Liberté, égalité, fraternité but never victoire. SkierRMH 20:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Googlebomb, where this can be readily covered.-- danntm ^T _C 21:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bigtop 23:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep indeed notable as stated with the First nomination RiseRobotRise 06:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nonsense article. Daniel5127 <Talk> 07:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Mergewith Googlebomb per above comments -- Flutefluteflute ^{Talk Contributions} 11:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Googlebomb. --- RockMFR 20:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Anomo 21:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no merge. Ephemeral joke. Mukadderat 18:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, as per Tkenna. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iicatsii (talk • contribs) 18:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

Keep Kingjeff 20:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Delete Nonesense, low noteablity. Davidpdx 07:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:44Z

Also deleted:

Template:TNAweekly (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

[edit] TNA weekly pay-per-view, weeks 1-10

TNA weekly pay-per-view, weeks 1-10 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Basically a weekly TV show. Not notable. Has just about as many as episodes of iMPACT!. Brief information already on main PPV page. Aaru Bui ^DII 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

TNA weekly pay-per-view, weeks 11-20 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

TNA weekly pay-per-view, weeks 21-30 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

TNA weekly pay-per-view, weeks 51-60 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

TNA weekly pay-per-view, weeks 81-90 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete all per nom. Bigtop 02:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. MER-C 03:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom, little more than a TV show. TJ Spyke 04:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all per WP:TV, WP:TVE--Winypoter 08:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That would only apply to the entertainment side of the show, mainly the storylines and characters, which those articles have little of and are generally about the sporting side, the wrestling. --Aaru Bui ^DII 12:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nomination. Normy132 09:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If anyone's interested: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TNA iMPACT! results, April 2006 --Aaru Bui ^DII 12:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom & precedent (Aaru Bui's link above). SkierRMH 20:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom & indiscriminate collection of information. It may also be speedy since it is essentially a recreation of previously deleted pages.--Nick Y. 21:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all. Two hour wrestling PPVs are notable enough for me (see In Your House. Mshake3 04:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well those weren't weekly and there weren't 110 of them. --Aaru Bui ^DII 04:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • 28 is still a lot, and there could have been several more if WWE wanted too. Weekly shouldn't make a difference. Mshake3 04:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Are we going to document every minute of TV ever broadcasted? We don't have articles describing every match of a certain week of the soccer season in some country, even though they all get long summaries in TV shows, and often are broadcasted completely and reported on in the mainstream media. I fail to see how this is any different, except that AFAIK it doesn't get much coverage in the mainstream press, making it even less notable. An article about the show, no problem, but not this week-after-week summary please. Fram 08:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Govvy 22:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. If people are going to get picky about PPV events, then the UK only WWE PPVs should go as well. Many are very non-notable, and seem to exist just because it's a PPV (which people always seem to assume makes it completely notable). Same goes for Heroes of Wrestling, a one time PPV event that was basically a "legends" show that flopped horribly. In my opinion, if weekly TNA PPV events go, many others need to as well. There is others I'm sure as well. RobJ1981 17:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all Nonnotable and rediculous to be covered in Wikipedia. Davidpdx 07:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete as a non-notable club/organisation, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 23:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Queen's University Chess Club

Queen's University Chess Club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD) (1st AfD)

First nomination was closed yesterday as keep, but is being brought here directly (rather than going through DRV after discussion with the closing administrator. The problem with the first AfD being closed as keep was that none of the editors who opined keep offered a valid rationale per WP policy or guidelines. In sort, having notable members, being involved in a notable game or competing in notable tournaments does not make an organization notable. The organization itself (not its tournaments, members or game) must have been the subject of multiple, independent coverage in reliable sources and this organization has not been. JChap2007 01:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete, but I'm not sure. The vast majority of chess clubs are not notable. I would say that a chess club is notable if a historic chess event took place there, or if a world-class grandmaster played there for several years. On these criteria the Marshall Chess Club in New York City would qualify, but all we have about it in Wikipedia is this line in Frank Marshall: "In 1915 he opened the Marshall Chess Club in New York." Look at the pages in Category:Chess clubs, and you will see that the notability of most of them is highly questionable. A particular offender is SKSamobor. So I think the article under discussion should be deleted, and the other chess club articles should be reviewed, perhaps in CfD. 129.98.212.143 02:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but clean up. This Club is old and has been involved with various notable chess people and events. Comment on above - we do not decide whether to delete articles or even review articles by discussing whether to delete the category they are in. Note that this article is not even in the Category:Chess clubs, but it should be. --Bduke 02:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  Well, this reasoning isn't based on the applicable notability criteria. JChap2007 03:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  Which reasoning? The main keep recommendation or the comment? The problem with this article is that it needs cleanup. I came across it by chance. I am not a chess player and I am not from Canada. "the oldest traceable recorded Canadian correspondence chess game" seems to meet notability guidelines, except I can not find the reference on the URL given. Outside verification is likely for much of this article, but has not been found. Much of the article should be trimmed out. Instead of trying to delete interesting but unverified material, we should at this stage be trying to find verified sources. Maybe in the end this will have to go, but I do not see it has to go now. --Bduke 04:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  The keep recommendation. Which notability guideline does "the oldest traceable recorded Canadian correspondence chess game" meet? It seems like another version of "This number is big." JChap2007 04:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  OK, I'm not sure where it is but something that goes back with a continuous history of 160 years is very frequently considered notable. Age for schools for example is used as a criteria. Both the Club and presumably corrspondence chess have such a continuous history. Stuff in my country that goes back to the 1840s is certainly considered notable. Remember we are using guidelines. If something is interested and can be verified we should ignore guidelines if we have to and keep. However I grant you that this article needs work, and I guess it will not happen over the Christmas holiday period. I'm going to leave to others now and sort out my holiday period. --Bduke 06:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  Notability guidelines are guidelines. There is no need to cite one when recommending keep or delete. You are even free to say that you think the article should be kept, despite the guidelines. Your opinion is still valid. The guidelines are simply a refection on what the community tends to view as notable etc.: they are descriptive not proscriptive. Some of us think notability is pretty useless as a criterion anyway.--Doc^g 09:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong delete per plenty of precedents of student societies being not notable by definition, or per WP:ORG. Quite frankly, this is not one of those exceptions which proves the rule. Don't be fooled by the smoke and mirrors, the article tries to give the impression of things which were not the case, by including some verbose POV text, tenuous links and assertions. It seems to be written in a specific attempt to avoid deletion, with too much padding not of direct relevance to the club. Some examples, the QUCC's origins within the Kingston Chess club are tenuous at best; QUCC was founded in the 1950s, not 1841!; Larry Melvyn Evans was already American champ when he played at the tournament at QU, and was not a member of the QUCC. A complete re-write will show this up clearly, but I don't see it worth the effort unless it's the only way to convince the community of the delete conclusion which is staring me in the face. I was equally surprised at the keep verdict, for the reasons given by the nom. In addition, this poorly written, excessively linked up article is a real turn-off. But then, I suspect that's also part of the smoke and mirrors. Ohconfucius 09:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ohconfucius who sums up the article well. Nuttah68 11:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. As the nominator of the first AfD, I based the original nomination on the precedent that university clubs are generally non-notable, with few exceptions. After re-reading the article based on Ohconfucius's statements, I must agree with his sentiments. The article reads to imply that the club was founded at the same time as the university; however, I'm about 99.44% certain that this is not the case. Andy Saunders 13:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - per above and vast community consensus on student clubs. Claim to notability is misleading, group is unencyclopedic. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 13:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete student club at a single school. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Reference to student clubs as an overall category is misleading. This is a club with international connections, mentioned in the article, and clearly a definite, if closely defined, notability. If it is thought that the clear and uncontested notability of some players who belong to the club does not confer notability to the club, then so be it; but in chess, the players ARE the club. Arguing admittedly by analogy and not by official policy, in WP:MUSIC a band is notable if it contains a notable member. Why should a chess club be different?--Anthony.bradbury 19:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment True, a band is notable if it contains a notable member. But this argument by analogy turns, I think, on two different senses of the word "member." A "member" of a club is merely someone who has joined the club, whearas a band is defined as that particular group of musicians. To put it another way, if the most famous member of a chess club left it, the club would still continue. The same may not be true of the most famous member of a band. Charlie 20:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. - Aditya Kabir 20:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per Ohconfucius, unless the article can be cleaned up.Charlie 20:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep interesting and its a notable university and a search turns up a lot of hits. Not sure why we have to keep having AfD's until it is deleted. --64.230.127.234 21:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, google turns up 22 hits including wikipedia[1] Bwithh 20:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment It seems like Wikipedia's AfD system is badly flawed. If an AfD fails it comes here. If it fails here it way goes back and gets re-nominated, usually many times over until finally a minority get the verdict they want (delete). There is also POV with this delete from the original mover, he says no keep voters offered rational and that clearly wasn't the case. Anyway I vote for delete (not noteable) but can't login from here so its anon - --155.144.251.120 02:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep plus a good cleanup. 03:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Without going into too much detail, I support the notion of keeping this article per the reasoning of the first AfD debate. However, the article needs improvement in terms of style, organization, citations, etc. --Jay(Reply) 19:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• General question for the people commenting "keep and clean up": what would a cleaned-up article would look like? It would just be a shorter version of the current article: a disconnected list of tournaments and matches. This is because the club itself has not been the subject of multiple, independent reliable sources, which would enable us to write a good article on it. Also, does anybody dispute Ohconfucius's analysis of the true age of this club? "It's old" was a reason offered for keep in both AfDs. Also, WP:INTERESTING is not a valid rationale for keep, nor is the connection to something else (Queen's University) that is (definitely) notable. JChap2007 19:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing encyclopedic about this school club. Agent 86 21:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, there is nothing more notable in the chess club world than this club, read its history, amazing! if this is not notable, then 3/4 of the chess articles in general will have to go under the same criteria. really, go read the article, it's notable under wp:org. --Buridan 03:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Buridan, please read Ohconfucius' comments above regarding the history of QUCC and get back to me. Andy Saunders 04:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Buridan, your claim that "there is nothing more notable in the chess club world than this club, read its history, amazing!" is extraordinary - can you back it up with reliable evidence? Bwithh 20:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

don't need to, find a comparable chess club in wikipedia. the history in the article, if cited and verified makes this club notable. how so you ask? if i were on a high school chess team and looking to go to a college with a chess club, this is the sort of chess club that would strike me as having accomplished some things in the chess world.--Buridan 13:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Buridan, the point we're trying to make here is that the history of the club as presented in the article is incredibly misleading to a reader. It needs to explicitly say when the club was founded, and provide a source saying that the club was founded in that year. Right now, it makes a misleading claim that implies that the club was founded in the same year as Queen's University itself, which I'm pretty sure is false. This goes nothing to say that the precedent set by other discussions around here that says that "student clubs are generally NOT notable", and I don't particularly see any internationally famous grandmasters that played chess at this club. Andy Saunders 15:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Buridan, you may not need verifiable, reliable sources (not to mention straightforward claims) in order to believe this club is the greatest chess club ever, but Wikipedia does Bwithh 17:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That means it needs cleanup not deletion, if they do not have sources, which I bet they easily do given the documentation of chess history, that is a different story, but to me they meet the notable test, they just need cleanup to be verifiable. I agree, student clubs are generally not notable, that is why they put the word 'generally' in there. there are exceptions to the rule, this seems to be an easy one.--Buridan 05:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you think the reliable sources will be easy to find, perhaps you can come with some? All of the hits (which aren't solid hits anyway) in Google Books relate to the Irish, not Canadian, Queen's University[2], I notice. And there's no club website on the university domain[3]. And very few google hits generally[4]. Of course google is not everything, but where do you think you will find your reliable, verifiable sources? Bwithh 09:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

History if more often found in books, and no, i'm not going to cleanup the article. what i suggest is that you tag it with cleanup, describe what needs to be cleaned up, and if no one cleans it up in a year, you put it up for afd after a year. --Buridan 22:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep an club where some people or events are notable by association. Mukadderat 18:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete: Broad failure of core non-negotiable policy WP:V I second User:Ohconfucius and the nominator's arguments. Dubious, unreferenced notability at best, which still fails WP:V. The smoke and mirrors count against the article e.g. a lot of the names dropped seem to have no direct relationship with the club at all e.g. a player's father was professor at the university but it is not asserted that the player was a member of the club; some players were contestants at a tournament held at the university, which may have been their only contact with the university ever. There also seems to be an unspoken and unsubstantiated assumption that if a chess player attended the university, they must have been part of this club - but for all we know, there may be more than one chess club on campus and they preferred the other one or perhaps they preferred attending an off-campus chess club or perhaps they preferred playing outside of a chess club Bwithh 20:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Bduke.It's notable but the article could use work.Akanksha 18:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:45Z

[edit] Kersal Massive

Kersal Massive (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

From speedy. Appears to be a YouTube meme, but there is no verifiability with reliable sources. Since there is an assertion of notability, I've brought it to AFD. Given the nature of the subject, I've preemptively placed {{afdanons}} on this debate. Coredesat 02:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable meme. No outside sources available.Only about 17000 google hits for the term Kersal Massive most pointing to a myspace page. The video itself is not even that popular on youtube--M8v2 02:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 03:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bigtop 04:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no WP:RS indicating this meme meets WP:WEB. Seems like astroturfing to me, but I'm not about to click on that YouTube link. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Just H 05:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Charlie 06:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non notable, plus much of the article is overblown lyrical analysis that can only be original research. --Tractorkingsfan 06:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Aldux 14:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn chav garbage--Slogankid 17:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no sources to pass WP:WEB.-- danntm ^T _C 17:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Cribcage 18:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - WP:V & Myspace≠notariety. SkierRMH 20:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Jhamez84 11:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.Non-notable.Akanksha 18:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:46Z

[edit] Limfjorden Overhead powerline crossing 1

Limfjorden Overhead powerline crossing 1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Limfjorden Overhead powerline crossing 2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

When proposing the Radio and TV masts for deletion, I never imagined that I would find articles for electricity pylons in wikipedia. Now I have been proven wrong. Watch out now for telephone boxes and lampadaires next! ;-) I propose the above articles for deletion first and above all because I do not see there is a place for them here in wikipedia WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO. Furthermore, I would say these utilitarian structures are of even less interest to the public than radio masts, and the articles are almost certain to remain stubs forever. SO WTF cares if they are the tallest pylons in any given country? I beg to move: Strong delete. Ohconfucius 02:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete per nom. Pyloncruft. --Sable232 02:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There's more crap in here. MER-C 03:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Mein gott!, Trainspotters must be fun people after all... Ohconfucius 09:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Bizarre in its obscurity. Chairman S. ^Talk_Contribs 04:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Just H 05:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom. Dear God, is this what passes for notable information, worthy of encyclopedic preservation? Charlie 06:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT an indiscriminate list of everything that exists or has existed. Demiurge 10:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Lacks independent reliable published references to show the notability of these pylons. Wow! The mailbox on the corner and the telephone pole behind my house don't have articles yet. Edison 18:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both wow, just wow. Absent independent sources indicating why we these particular pylons are unique and worthy of note, this article really should not exist.-- danntm ^T _C 19:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - and on my way to create an article about this really beat up old mailbox (probably the oldest in my city)... arrgh... SkierRMH 20:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per nom. Bigtop 23:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Oh, and speaking of trainspotters, there's this.... --Calton | Talk 06:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete on both. I agree WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO. Davidpdx 08:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:48Z

[edit] Pxr

Pxr (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Article is a hoax, there is no such thing as "pXr". Treadmill running with obstacles? Jumping of 40ft high structures (and surviving)? It's obviously a joke from someone in the parkour community. David Scarlett^(Talk) 03:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• DelXr. mXr roXr uXr soXr. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 03:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bigtop 04:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the French book listed as a reference doesn't seem to exist - I know, shXcking. --Krich (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I swear, that title looks exactly like someone badly trying to create French by tweaking English words and adding "L'". It isn't, but still... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, violates WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not entirely convinced this is a joke, as much of the stupid stuff was added by anons. BJAODN if deleted. --- RockMFR 05:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • True, but look at the original author's version. Catching a wall in your teeth is absurd. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Heh. Yeah.... BJAODN. --- RockMFR 01:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• BJAODN "Semi-condensed pXr involes pXring on a treadmill that has obstacles on it." I laughed so hard I cried. Ashibaka tock 05:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the picture alone makes it BJAODN-worthy, though. Danny Lilithborne 05:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Just H 05:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Charlie 06:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Should have been {{db-nonsense}} tagged. Has anyone out there SEEN the distance between the first and second stages of the Eiffel Tower? Clearly the author has not.--Anthony.bradbury 19:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, since they left out the most important thing they should be doing - attempting to stop trains by placing their genetalia on the tracks. SkierRMH 20:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bigtop 23:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, agree it violates WP:V. Davidpdx 07:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Watch Out! in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:49Z

[edit] Hey, It's Your Funeral Mama

Hey, It's Your Funeral Mama (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Coming out on muchmusic does not make you notable. And if they're too tired to play, I'm too tired to vote to keep it. Denni ^talk 03:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Bigtop 04:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence from WP:RS that this subject meets WP:MUSIC. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 05:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Just H 05:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per common sense. Charlie 06:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of any assertion that the song passes WP:MUSIC.-- danntm ^T _C 20:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:MUSIC, WP:BAND and WP:GENERAL ANGST SkierRMH 20:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC. TSO1D 23:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Common sense tells me to keep released singles. It's received airplay on a national station, worth keeping around. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The single has been mentioned in the article about the band on Wikipedia, I honestly don't think this single is noteable enough to warrent its own article. Davidpdx 07:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:49Z

[edit] New Hampshire Underground

New Hampshire Underground (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete non-notable eminent domain protesters. Just H 04:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN-group. Also, are they trying to say that eminent domain goes against the constitution? Eminent domain is in the constitution IIRC. TJ Spyke 05:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable.DaveApter 10:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable group, amongst the many others that are protesting the abuse of eminent domain by local governments. SkierRMH 20:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Notability violation: non-notable group; see Wikipedia:Notability. Bigtop 23:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-noteable only 10,800 hits on Google. Davidpdx 08:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:50Z

[edit] Jacques Legrand

Jacques Legrand (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

• Delete Founded a non-notable Judo club seems to be the only claim to fame here. It looks like one of his students put togeather a quick entry.Peter Rehse 05:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 05:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Insufficient assertion of notability. Caknuck 16:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO and the organization WP:CORP. SkierRMH 20:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - fails biography guidelines. Bigtop 23:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not only fails WP:BIO also fails WP:V. Davidpdx 08:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:50Z

[edit] Red labor

Red labor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

From deletion review, this article was not considered spammy enough for a speedy deletion but questions about notability remain, which is why it is listed here now. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 05:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete does not meet notability criteria. Danny Lilithborne 05:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:ORG. MER-C 05:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the only claims to notability are implied from the references section - which comprise almost all of the article. Those implied claims appear to fail to establish notablity. --Krich (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Just H 06:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails to establish notability. --Folantin 09:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete n-n. DaveApter 10:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, perilously close to spam. Robertissimo 12:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as low salt diet spam - verges on the real thing, but just different enough... SkierRMH 20:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bigtop 23:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails noteablity only 16,000 hits on Google. Davidpdx 08:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:51Z

[edit] List of seinen manga

List of seinen manga (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Contested WP:PROD, the deletion rationale was: "Article that served as a stand-in article until category could be filled. Category has now been filled with all entries on this page (except red links)". No opinion. Sandstein 05:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Sxwm 08:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - as the category wsa completed, this list is redundant. SkierRMH 20:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per above--Nick Y. 21:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 15:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete category dupe. Mve the reds to the Anime and Manga request page. --Kunzite 01:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per cat replacement. -- Ned Scott 07:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree, now that the category has been created, delete. Davidpdx 08:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No action. If you don't want to delete, just slap a {{merge-to}} tag on the article and discuss on the talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 20:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teleserye

Teleserye (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Also added:

List of Teleserye Actors (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) --Howard the Duck 14:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Filipinos have been basically local soap operas since time immemorial as "telenovelas" until ABS-CBN came up with "teleseryes" then GMA Network came up with "teledramas". Then Filipinos had "sineseryes", "telefantasyas (GMA's version)/fantaseryes (ABS-CBN's version), Asianovelas (Korean and Taiwanese dramas) etc. while the basic premise of a telenovela, even a soap opera wasn't changed (where the heroine is beat up all night then has revenge, etc., you know the drill.)

Now since these terms are all redundant, I won't suggest deletion, but a merge to telenovela or soap opera or a creation of Television in the Philippines for a more comprehensive look. Also, the articles in question do not cite references and are perhaps original research. --Howard the Duck 05:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect. I think there's very little to salvage for a merge, as the whole thing is original research (or at the very least unsourced). In any case, this shouldn't stand on its own as an article. --Coffee 06:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 09:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This certainly doesn't read badly, and I'm inclined to assume good faith about the contents despite its current lack of references. (I will have to continue to assume good faith even if references are added, for they're likely to be hard to access and in a language I don't read.) If these series are in fact known as telenovelas in the Philippines, I'd support moving the article to Telenovelas in the Philippines, but there's too much information here to dump it straight into the telenovela article. Agree also that we should have a Television in the Philippines article, but it should be in addition to this one. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There's not too much information to dump since teleserye and telenovela are the same. As I've said, it's a coined term. --Howard the Duck 15:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I tend to identify telenovela with Spanish language programming; that's where the word originated, and it isn't surprising that they are called something slightly different in the Philippines. "Television in the Philippines" is a bit too broad for these; at least I hope there's something on TV in the Philippines besides these shows. Perhaps something like Serial dramas on Filipino television would be the best place to merge these several articles; it seems we may have articles about several of these coined terms. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
      • There's more to Philippine TV than telenovelas, that's why I said "for a broader look...". As for Serial dramas on Filipino television, I'd oppose to a creation since it is a telenovela, plain and simple. --Howard the Duck 01:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per nom. Bigtop 23:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• While I admit that I don't know a lot about this subject, a cursory glance at the article and the nomination seems to indicate that merging them all together wouldn't be a bad idea.-Dmz5 05:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep/rename Teleserye (no need in a foreign word in this case). keepList of actors. BAN bundled deletion nominations Mukadderat 18:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What's the rationale behind this? --Howard the Duck 01:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• rename and complete rewrite Monni 18:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:52Z

[edit] TNA Hardcore War

TNA Hardcore War (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable event. Only 3,800 Google hits when you exclude wikipedia and its mirrors. Previous nomination wasn't mentioned at WP:PW either. TJ Spyke 06:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Aaru Bui ^DII 06:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 09:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bigtop 18:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom (and the relevent ghits appear to be even lower than cited). SkierRMH 20:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom--Nick Y. 21:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Low noteablity, I got 3,800 hits per Google as well. Davidpdx 08:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:54Z

[edit] Screeching Weasel

Screeching Weasel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This article contains no third-party sources. I requested on December 8 that reliable third-party sources be added, but none have been forthcoming, let alone multiple non-trivial sources. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Notability (music). Simply, as Wikipedia:Verifiability says, "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This AfD is a notice and opportunity to add such sources; without which the article must be deleted. —Centrx→talk • 06:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP I hate to say it Centrx, but I happen to have three of their CD's bought from MEDIAPLAY back in 2002. Their song My Right was used in the DVD Slednecks 6 if that helps any.

They also published 8 Albums on the LOOKOUT! label, a major indy studio (which also publishes artists like Alkaline Trio, Green Day, Me First and the Gimme Gimmes, and Rancid).

Per WP:MUSIC 5 - Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

I believe Billboard Magazine is a Reliable Source on this so you can find that information here [6] for the band and here [7] to verify "the beat is on brat", "emo", "Teen Punks In Heat", "Kill the musicians", "How to Make Enemies & Irritate People", "Anthem for a New Tomorrow", "Wiggle", and "Boogada Boogadaboogada!" were published by LOOKOUT! Incidentally, "How to Make Enemies and Irritate People" was recorded with Green Day's Mike Dirnt sitting in on bass.

I found this[8] at MTV.com about the band. Rolling Stone magazine has a small listing for the band[9], as does VH1[10]. Amazon.com lists nearly all their albums.[11]

I think with this information, it passes WP:MUSIC and WP:V. Now while I support the idea of improving wikipedia, just a little effort to even verify your claims on WP:MUSIC here on wikipedia would have kept you from making this AFD, wasting our time in the process. A simple cleanup tag should have been used. With the effort you made in creating this AFD, the same could have been made doing the 4 minutes of websearch to find this information. Hell, looking on wikipedia, all you needed to do was look at their album list, note the lables, check the label's wikipedia article and notice that it was a notable indie lable with some very notable artists. I am a deletionist myself as you can see in my history of voting but sometimes people take things too far, often to prove a point. I like to assume good faith but It's hard to do when I see an AFD on a known artist.--Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 07:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I appologize. I read your OP again and saw you were being fair and were making this afd to get help cleaning up the article. Now I understand your reasoning, the problem is, AFD is not the place to 'force the issue'. anyway, with the given information I think this is pretty much a closed case--Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 07:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no way to distinguish between a random band article that is unverifiable and one that is merely uncited. The one person interested in this article (who has added unsourced potentially libellous information to it) did not come up with any sources. —Centrx→talk • 08:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That is actually only one source: an entry in the All Music Guide copied to Billboard, VH1, and presumably MTV. Even supposing that it be perfect reliable, it is not sufficient to support this article. There is no information at all on the Rolling Stones website, and Amazon and Billboard.com discographies have no information about the band, and albums for any band can be found there by the tens or hundreds of thousands. If I had spent the 4 minutes finding this, I would still have nominated it. When the Wikipedia article is 5 times longer than the whole body of independently published text in all the world on the subject, there is a problem. —Centrx→talk • 08:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Centrx's nom and subsequent well-reasoned argument. There is no demonstration of "multiple non-trivial reliable sources" covering the topic. Zunaid©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 09:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, the nomination is preposterous as this band meets WP:MUSIC, something which is easily verifiable. Whether the article contains unsourced information is not a case for AFD. See also Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may not be needed. Punkmorten 16:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC) 19:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. Higher on the chain than WP:MUSIC is WP:V which states that "Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." Centrx posted the request for sources on December the 8th, which has gone unanswered. In WP:DELETE, an article lacking sources is to be dealt with in the manner described in WP:V, and if that doesn't work, to come back to the deletion route. I believe that is what Centrx has done. Sancho McCann 19:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • From Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may not be needed, quote: "Can't verify information in article (...) If it is truly unverifiable, it may be deleted." Clearly, this refers to the unverifiable bits of information, not the whole article. Punkmorten 22:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong WTF Keep I never thought I'd see the day when Screeching Weasel was up for deletion. Notable band with a long history, lots of records, and tons of media attention. Want proof? Look no further than Google: mentioned in a number of books, such as Turn That Down!: A Hysterical History of Rock, Roll, Pop, Soul, International Who's Who in Popular Music, The New Rolling Stone Album Guide, Rock Music in American Popular Culture II, Milk It!: Collected Musings on the Alternative Explosion and the Music of the 90s, A History of Rock Music: 1951-2000, Sonic Cool: The Life & Death of Rock 'n' Roll, Punk e hardcore (in Spanish), Punk Rock: So What?, and others. Google News has 210 press articles on the band including Chicago Sun-Times, New York Times, and many others, using adjectives including "great", "influential", "legendary" and "iconic" to describe the band. There is no way any reasonable person can claim Screeching Weasel do not pass WP:MUSIC on a number of counts. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rather obvious keep I think, as per Punkmorten. This band sucks, but they quite easily fulfill WP:MUSIC. Ford MF 17:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Usually the thing to do when an article lacks sources is to go and get them rather than put the article up for deletion. Bschott got some vital links to sources in just about the amount of time it would have taken to put the article up for deletion! Best use that energy for things like Bob Cranford. V-Man737 21:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Although somewhat weak on sources, this is a definite keep. The sources above in this AfD should be added to the article.--Nick Y. 22:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Obvious reasons that have been stated early as why this should not be deleted. I've added a few sources to things that wante citations and to some other facts that someone might question.68.114.92.56 22:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • So why are the only references at the article now All Music Guide? —Centrx→talk • 22:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The ones I added just had the url between [] next to the facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.114.92.56 (talk • contribs).
      • By the way it would be delightful if people added sources to the article, and not just mentioned them here. Punkmorten 22:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• comment I think some unnecessary incivility is being directed toward Centrx, he requested sources be added several weeks ago and none were forthcoming, but that doesn't mean the onus is on him to bring the article up to par. Perhaps an AfD was not the best way to go, but it got people's butts moving to improve the article.--Dmz5 05:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep This article is on my watchlist now, and I'll work on it after Christmas, but the holidays are a hard time to wiki, because of life getting in the way. Third party sources will be added soon.--Jude 14:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Clean Up I'm usually vote hard core delete, but if Jude and others are willing to put in some time cleaning it up, I think it's worthwhile. I also think someone might want to make sure there is no copyright violations in terms of the text just in case someone copy/pasted it from somewhere else. Davidpdx 08:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep A notable and influential band. Meets WP:MUSIC, just need references that's all. Definitely not a case for deletion. - kollision 11:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:54Z

[edit] Karekin Yarian

Karekin Yarian (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Possible vanity page. Note: I'm new at this, so please forgive any mistakes. Charlie 06:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not sourced, no assertion of notability, fails WP:BIO - wtfunkymonkey 06:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO. MER-C 09:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Chairman S. ^Talk_Contribs 13:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:NN --Anthony.bradbury 20:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete while humming My favorite Carly Simon song. SkierRMH 20:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. If we flashed up on the Jumbotron at Yankee Stadium "Does anyone know who Karekin Yarian is?" I doubt any of the 57,545 people sitting there would raise his/her hand.TruthGal 22:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bigtop 23:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO, WP:NN, WP:V. Davidpdx 08:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Burger_King#Advertising. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:56Z

[edit] Sith Sense

Sith Sense (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Delete: Wikipedia must not be a pawn in a non-notable alledged "viral" marketing campaign, otherwise every viral marketeer would simply create a "viral marketing campaign" article. No sources, no indication of notability. This should be speedily deleted as spam. Hu 07:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per nom. Charlie 07:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Burger_King#Advertising, where BK's viral marketing is mentioned. There's certainly plenty of sources to verify this ("Sith sense" gets 32,700 ghits), and it was plenty popular and a notable advertising campaign, but there's not enough content for a separate article. Sithsense.com is no longer active, this isn't part of current spam or viral campaign. Tubezone 07:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I copied and rephrased the article text, and added to Burger_King#Current_advertising. Tubezone 10:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment that was a bad idea as it ISN'T current. i kan reed 19:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment That's where the other references to the Star Wars tie-in and viral marketing are, if someone wishes to, they can edit the article... I think "current" was intended to mean "in the last few years". Tubezone 01:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Hu 11:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 09:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

*Keep Could someone indicate a policy this is breaking? Please? This isn't advertising, this is an article about advertising, it doesn't appear to violate WP:WEB. hey look washington post documentation. Forgive my sarcasm there, but no wikipedia policy has been cited here. Speedy deletion has already been xnayed by an admin because it simply does not fit CSD. Near as I can tell, it doesn't fail the criteria for deletion either. To those objecting to it being "supporting Burger King's viral campaign", the site isn't even up anymore, no is the product it was supporting sold anymore. What am I missing? i kan reed 19:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Screw it speedy delete per csd-author. I'd rather not waste my time with one little page I'm not an expert on. I don't have time to defend this article. i kan reed 19:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - my WTF article of the day! SkierRMH 20:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to BK advertizing as previously suggested. --64.230.127.234 21:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable.--Nick Y. 22:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bigtop 23:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree this doesn't seem very important. Certainly this could be mentioned in an article directly about Burger King, but it doesn't merit its own article. Davidpdx 08:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Code Lyoko in lieu of deletion. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:57Z

[edit] Mirabelle Kirkland

Mirabelle Kirkland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Seems to fail WP:BIO Charlie 07:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep 791 ghits for "Mirabelle Kirkland", 15 credits on IMdb. Article needs expansion and references, though. Tubezone 08:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - credits appear to be minor roles viz: maid, Laurent's girlfriend, etc. Some of the films linked to don't even list her. The last one appears to be a main role but in a 12 minute film. Ohconfucius 08:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge? Could this be merged with Code_Lyoko ? Charlie 09:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking, too, I wasn't familiar with the French films credited (thanks to Ohconfucius for the research), but it looks like that's the role she's best known for by far at this point. The article can of course be recreated if she attains more notability. Tubezone 10:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - non notable, per Ohconfucius. Article to tiny for a merge (or equivalent: citing the name is already a merge). - Cate | _Talk 14:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete most of the IMdb listings appear to be for bit parts, ergo fails WP:BIO. SkierRMH 20:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bigtop 23:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN and fails WP:BIO. Davidpdx 08:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:58Z

[edit] Jason Fisher

Jason Fisher (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This fellow is a Tolkien scholar who has written a number of chapters in the Tolkien encyclopedia. My knowledge of Tolkien scholarship is weak, but I can't see this article as meeting the threshold of notability for an academic. I compare it to the professor test, where we have full professors that still don't meet notability standards. Samir धर्म 07:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Seems not enough notable. The Tolkien Encyclopedia is not cited in Tolkien research, maybe an error. Eventually can be merged to that article. Also the two dogs (Max and Leo) are non notable!!! Autobiography? - Cate | _Talk 15:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless notability can be better proved- the professor test comparison seems reasonable to me. --Scimitar 17:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bigtop 23:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's spam promotion, part of a hoax or just advertising: His buddy's article was deleted already, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Telner and then recreated: Paul Telner. The show is up for deletion also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/APAULED. Delete them all and all links and all redirects and protect them from recreation. Hu 05:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete He's a hobbyist, not an academic. And he has written 42 book reviews for Amazon.com in the last 2 months, which I think counts against him.DGG 03:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Low noteablity. Davidpdx 08:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Chivington Drive. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 14:59Z

[edit] Longmont Citizens for Justice and Democracy

Longmont Citizens for Justice and Democracy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Local action group which fails WP:ORG. 75 unique Ghits. Ohconfucius 07:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 07:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. BJ^Talk 07:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Chivington Drive. No need to delete anything. --Sandy Scott 10:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Sandy Scott. If anyone provides additional information about this organization, it can easily be accommodated in the Chivington Drive article. JamesMLane t c 16:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect as per Sandy Scott. It doesn't need to be deleted, as it can be incorporated into the Chivington Drive article. Chairman S. ^Talk_Contribs 11:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bigtop 18:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above, - or Redirect to Chivington Drive - is much of this relevant there? SkierRMH 20:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete low noteablity on both. In my opinion Sandy Scott should be axed as well, but since it's not part of this AFD. Davidpdx 08:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly (Talk) 18:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jerry Klein’s 2006 Islamophobia Radio Parody

Jerry Klein’s 2006 Islamophobia Radio Parody (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Reason the page should be deleted: This article is not suitable for Wikipedia. It is a long description of a single politically motivated talk show segment. The decription combined with the reply from an advocacy organization turn Wikipedia into a soapbox. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.Elizmr 08:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC).

Arguement for keeping: The title "parody" is probably a misnomer, he is not a comedian he acted like he was for forcing American-Muslims to have special identification marks to gauge his audience's reaction.

On charge of Soapbox: in accord with wiki-standards (WP:SOAP) the article is obviously not "advertising"; nor "writing in self-promotion", so that leaves "Propaganda or advocacy". Nowhere in the article are any views expressed that are not in referenced quotations. No action is advocated, all quotes are properly sourced and can not be described as propaganda. The claim of violation of these wiki-standards is at odds with the definitions those standards present.

Notability:The story has appeared on four continents. In North America by many papers printing the Reuters story, in Europe by the “BBC and Channel 4 in England” and the London newspaper “The Guardian”; in South Asia by the “The Brunei Times” of Darussalam, Brunei; and in Africa by the "Mail & Guardian" of South Africa, and the "Daily News" of South Africa.

Notability Update: It was most recently mentioned in a review of significant events for Muslims in 2006 by The Milli Gazette of India on Dec. 23rd.

Links to other wiki-pages: The topic was first brought up on the Islamophobia wiki-page in the post 06:56, 3 December 2006 Ibnraza (Talk | contribs) (→Efforts against Islamophobia - 630 WMAL talk show hoax) and the article now under consideration provides greater background to that information and is linked to from that page. The page is also linked from the Flying Imams controversy which was the reason behind the experiment. The article in question shows that the radio host received comments on both sides of the issue to gauge if Americans were willing to use force on American-Muslims to make them receive tattoos or wear arm-bands analogous to the activities of the Nazis during World War II. Some called for American-Muslims to be placed in internment camps. This information about how some Americans are turning on others during a war with terrorist Muslim theocrats seems historically notable. Especially in light of the Quran Oath Controversy of the 110th Untied States Congress where Rep. Goode has attacked Rep-elect Ellison for his desire to use the Quran during the swearing in ceremonies as a threat to "the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America” and saying “I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies”.--Wowaconia 22:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner above--Winypoter 08:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC) — Winypoter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• keepThis article is well-sourced and describes a notable event. The fact that it reflects favorably on one political tendency isn't a reason to delete it. If you think it's one-sided, find some criticism and add it.P4k 08:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with the nom, I don't see how this article could be considered encyclopedic.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - creating a WP article about this non-notable event seems like an attempt to milk it. The NN explains the absence of criticism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 09:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Humus. yandman 10:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This was just a single talk show segment performed by a host who doesn't have an article of his own in Wikipedia. The content would probably merit a slight merge to Jerry Klein if that article existed. --Metropolitan90 16:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Cleanup/Keep This was a widely covered and discussed event in the media: Reuters (reproduced on CNN and AOL and many newspapers), The Guardian and it even has its own Wikinews article: [12]. The article should be cleaned up though. (If nothing else merge into "Jerry Klein.") --64.230.127.234 18:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This differs from the White House Correspondent's dinner incident in several important ways: 1) This did not occur at a high profile event, already warranting major media coverage by itself, and 2) It has not been hailed by third party credible media sources as "THE touchstone... event of the year." Charlie 19:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep response on notable event that the Guardian deemd notable [13], yahoo news and even incurred respons from CAIR, making it internationaly notable. --Striver 20:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per Winypoter. I have heard of Steven Colbert, but not this guy. Just H 22:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable single event. Jerry who? Morton devonshire 23:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bigtop 23:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong/Speedy Keep Notable because of all the calls and the considerable media coverage, and just because the subject is politically motivated doesn't mean that the article is. Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 01:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I also agree with the arguments made by Ibnraza and Wowaconia. Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 16:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep Notable, current, expository, significant. The nom is taking the unique stand that WP:CURRENT and WP:NPOV are bad things. Even "a small talk radio segment" can have significant and noteworthy implications, especially sociological pranks. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 01:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Also don't merge or rename to Jerry Klein. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 01:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - I am based in England, so if this US-event made BBC, Channel 4 and the Guardian then it is certainly notable in my opinion (but also a depressing sign of the times). Recently over here MP Jack Straw started a huge controversy about Muslim women wearing veils - heard about this? anyway - this led to United Kingdom debate over veils, so I see the two controversies as equally deserving of separate articles. By all means create Jerry Klein, but this event merits it's own domain. Wikipidian 02:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article offers a number of reputable sources which deal exclusively with the article's topic which serves to meet verifiability and notability requirements. There doesn't seem to be any legitimate reason for deletion. The event seems to have gotten itself quite a bit of attention in more than one country. --The Way 07:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable single event. --Gabi S. 11:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, notability of host/radio station is of comparatively little importance compared with the fact of, and the nature of, the public response. As Keith D. Tyler correctly states, ...even "a small talk radio segment" can have significant and noteworthy implications... It received non-trivial media coverage and is an interesting perspective on the wider discussion on Islam's relations with the West.

Xdamr^talk 03:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dangerous-Boy (talk • contribs) 11:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC).
• Strong keep. Reuters and The Guardian would be enough to establish notability, and that's just the beginning here. Someone needs to lecture the nominator on what exactly WP:Notability means. — coelacan talk — 15:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - per above.Bakaman 20:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• strong keep. I heard about this from some news outlet long before I saw it on wikipedia article. It is clearly notable and verifiable. The article itself might be somewhat NPOV and need cleaning up in general. But neither of these problems merit deletion. Rdore 05:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's the notability of the issue that counts, not the notability of the radio programme; and any matter referenceable from several reliable sources qualifies for a Wikipedia article.qp10qp 16:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: My first suggestion is to create Jerry Klein first and then mentioning the incident of this parody there. Surely he's notable himself? But even if this is not renamed, it should'nt be deleted. Look at the number of links in the References section. This incident is definitely notable and very famous. And now when I read this article, yes I've heard of this incident before. Notability is the principle of inclusion in Wikipedia and this incident qualifies for it without doubt.--Matt57 23:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep He seems to be notable for his notably disgusting attempt at a joke, but notability is notability. We faithfully document the prominent idiots.DGG 03:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Viruses of the Mind. Runcorn 20:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Faith-sufferer

Faith-sufferer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Fixing AfD entry only. Unclear who wants deletion. No vote on my part. --Metropolitan90 16:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Created page. Jbhood 07:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge content with Viruses of the Mind. It seems to exist only (or at least chiefly) as a phrase in that essay. Incorporated there, some of this text will do something to redress the balance in that article, which has been slanted at present so that the detractors have the final say! Snalwibma 08:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - or Merge with Viruses of the Mind. This is a neologism for which there are many more notable, historical phrases. SkierRMH 20:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bigtop 23:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • comment - what do you mean by "per nom"? The nomination was (as far as I can tell) anonymous, with no reason given. Snalwibma 11:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Viruses_of_the_Mind same reason as Snalwibma. Easier to manage one article than the two as they are so highly interrelated. Ttiotsw 03:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Smerge There was discussion about this issue on the talk page prior to the nomination. As I have already made my position clear there, I will not repeat those arguments here. I don't think a full-on merge is warranted. Snalwibma seems to think that moving this biased content to Viruses of the Mind will somehow rectify some deficit in that article, but, in my view, two wrongs don't make a right. 209.30.90.117 04:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge useful content only into Viruses of the Mind - "faith-sufferer" (or faith-suffering per WP:NAME) isn't a sufficiently well-developed concept for its own article. — mholland 12:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the useful content needed to go into Viruses of the Mind anyway, in order to give a reasonable account of the content of that essay. I've now done this. Metamagician3000 14:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Can now delete. Metamagician has done a fantastic job of bringing the content into Viruses of the Mind. Snalwibma 20:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Just H 20:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect This is a neologism. Per WP:NEO, we need reliable secondary sources independent of the creation about the neologism as a term before we can have an article on a neologism. The essay where it was originally coined isn't independent; the other references either are broken, unavailable for me, or do not even use the term. This leads to deletion, however since Metamagician3000 has merged, redirecting is required. GRBerry 03:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect now that merge has taken place.--Kubigula (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Viruses of the Mind. ← ANAS ^Talk? 20:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 2006-12-26 15:00Z

[edit] Little Fighter 2 Reinforced

Little Fighter 2 Reinforced (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable modification of freeware game; written as game guide against WP:NOT policy Scottie theNerd 08:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:SOFTWARE convincingly. MER-C 09:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. non-notable. yandman 10:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as game guide - nn software. SkierRMH 20:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN, fails WP:SOFTWARE and WP:NOT. Davidpdx 09:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Runcorn 20:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Mills

Ben Mills (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Only notable at the moment for participating in a reality show, no record deal or songs as yet. Similar articles have been deleted/redirected in the past. Recreate when he's confirmed as releasing a single or album. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

• Delete per nom. May fail WP:BIO, certainly fails WP:SELF. Ohconfucius 09:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that he finished a very credible 3rd place in this competition, it is felt that Ben has gained a certain amount of notability. It states in the criteria for musicians and ensembles that a muscian is notable if "Has won or placed in a major music competition." (Point 9). Benmillsonline 09:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. "Music" competition? Come on... Recreate if he sells any albums. yandman 10:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Given the scale and popularity of the X Factor, it should be classed as a major competition. Personal opinions as to the integrity of the show should not form part of this discussion. Benmillsonline 10:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:SELF, non-notable. Charlie 10:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Please state while why you feel this article fails WP:SELF? Benmillsonline 10:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think WP:AUTO or WP:COI may apply. As in a fair amount of the editing was done by Benmillsonline. Tubezone 10:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note, Benmillsonline is a username used by a Ben Mills fansite. Whilst we are indeed supporters of Ben Mills, the article was written by us and not by Ben Mills himself, nor on his behalf. Benmillsonline 11:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies.. what I meant to say, is WP:BIO, but WP:MUSIC addresses the issue more succinctly. To be notable, "It[he/she] has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. This criterion includes published works in all forms... except...publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves." The only source listed is an interview, thus that criteria for inclusion is not met. The only other one within WP:MUSIC That has been brought up, is "Has won or placed in a major music competition," so it seems that this discussion ought to come down to either determining whether X-Factor is a "major" competition, and whether finishing third overall counts towards the intended spirit of "win or place." As for that, I must say I am now sitting on the fence. Charlie 10:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Journey South also finished the X Factor in 3rd place last year. The history shows their page was published long before the end result and certainly long before they released their first album. It was not deleted and redirected elsewhere at any time. Benmillsonline 10:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC) — Benmillsonline (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

However, I don't believe that past articles not being deleted provides any reason not to delete this one. Charlie 10:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete unless other sources of notability turn up... like, say, references to the sordid tabloid revelations mentioned in Digital Spy. Keep provided references are added to article. There certainly seems to be enough sources. Tubezone 10:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that Journey South can provide a good basis for comparison for the kinds of changes the article needs to avoid deletion. Its focus is on biographical information, and it cites third-party sources. If some of the non-biographical information was removed, and a third party source produced, I will gladly change my opinion. Charlie 11:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to make suggestions for changes? Which content would you see removed or replaced? Benmillsonline 11:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

For example: "He states his musical influences as Joe Cocker, Tom Waits, Rod Stewart and David Bowie and some of his favourite artists are Elvis Costello, Bruce Springsteen, Dire Straits, and James Brown. He classes Jim Morrison as a legend." This information is unsourced, and does not seem particularly pertinent, unless a third party source has expressed that these statements are notable in some way. This is also a particularly tricky issue, as we are now talking about the opinions of a living person in an article. That had *better be sourced, or we face potential libel. Charlie 11:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This can be sourced and will be if I'm permitted the time to find the relevant links and edit accordingly. Benmillsonline 11:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete per nom, with no predjudice against re-creating the article if he achieves commercial success. Tevildo 15:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unsigned artist with no published albums and no AMG profile. Fails WP:MUSIC. Caknuck 16:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The above does not necessarily denote Fails WP:MUSIC. Wikipedia states notable if meets any one of the criteria listed. See no. 9 in Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Benmillsonline 17:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Just H 16:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This guy is famous in the UK, so should have his moment of fame, if you look on google etc. you can find him, so why not on here?!?! If he does not get a record deal, by the next XFactor, then it should be deleted, as weveryone will hav forgotten him, but at the moment everyone knows of him, so may wish to find out more about him. His is equally if not more famous than some of the soap actors, who have there own pages. Asics 20:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - nn person, fails WP:MUSIC and smacks of my favorite Carly Simon song. SkierRMH 21:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have already shown that Ben Mills doesn't fail WP:MUSIC. Also, your personal opinion of him has no bearing on whether or not he is notable enough to have a page here. Benmillsonline 21:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and Caknuck. If the creator truly thinks he's famous, just think how famous he'll be 12 months from now! Have the creator of the entry recreate it in December 2007.TruthGal 22:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is personal opinion and an assumption that he will fail in his bid to gain a recording contract. You cannot possibly know that. Benmillsonline 22:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And again, there's no guarantee that he will be a successful recording artist. To base notability on an assumption that the subject will be more successful once they release an album violates WP:CRYSTAL. Sorry, mate. Caknuck 04:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not basing notability on the fact that he may become a successful recording artist, and there is nothing in the article that suggests he will, only that he is planning to gather material together should the opportunity arise, so how can it fail WP:CRYSTAL? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benmillsonline (talk • contribs) 08:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

• Delete. Non-notable, regardless of fulfilling the letter of WP:MUSIC, and I'm not sure he meets WP:V. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bigtop 23:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP is not the place for people who may be famous someday. The article can be recreated if he releases an album.--Dmz5 05:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Third place in a TV music competition does not, especially on its own, confer notability. We can't speculate about whether or not he'll have a recording contract in the future as that would fail WP:Crystal. Recreate once he gets an album out. --The Way 08:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Certainly satisfies the major music competition clause of WP:MUSIC - The X Factor attracts 9 million UK viewers, and is amongst the ten most-viewed shows. Existing sources appear to satisfy the multiple references clause - there are also six non-trivial articles in The Sun relating to subject - issue date 11, 18, 27, 30 November, 2 and 11 December. Work with LA Doors may also be notable. Eludium-q36 14:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Satisfies major music competition clause (as per above), precedent established by entries from previous series of the competition - eg Journey South - as well as entries from other similarly sized competitions - eg American Idol - see Chris Daughtry entry (4th place). Concerns noted by some discussants regarding citations/references easily rectifiable, traceable to notable and credible sources (as demonstrated by copious editing post-submission for deletion by entry convenors). As noted by previous discussant, artist currently popular in the UK and more notable than a number of soap celebrities which have their own entries and many people are interested in finding out more about him. Advocate strongly for retention as not only is entry justified by satisfaction of Wiki policy but also that precedents have been established for entries of this nature. Guptatiggs 09:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • User Guptatiggs has no other edits besides thos emade within this discussion, possible single-use account. Caknuck 00:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep See reasons made above. DavidJJJ 13:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN, I agree Wikipedia is not the place for an article about someone who may or may not become famous. The appearance on the reality show alone is not enough. Davidpdx 09:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

An album is currently in the pipeline and Ben is sufficiently famous in the UK. He recently performed with a line-up of the best British comedians and had a rousing response. If there is no record by the time the next season of the X Factor comes along, then the entry can always be removed but as stated earlier, precedents have been estbalished for this sort of entry. Journey South's entry was up long before their debut album was released in March this year for eg. Guptatiggs 09:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, article has a fair assertion of notability, is moderately well written, and very well-referenced. It'd be nice if he continues to be written about, that the article could be expanded. But as it stands, the entry fulfils all policy requirements. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (for now) His fan forum is stating he just signed a record deal with Sony[14]. Obviously, this can still be classified as a rumor, but since this news is just a few days old it would be worth waiting for verification. If it turns out to be false then can be nominated again. (Also, the size of the forum - 252 members - might be a measuring stick). Citicat 17:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:00Z

[edit] Fly like a Raven

Fly like a Raven (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

First line says it all "the RUMORED fourth studio...", the entire thing is one giant uncited, rumored, crystal ball, complete with fan art album covers. WP:NOT crystal ball, WP:V, WP:OR, etc. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Total crystal ball, topped off by the addition of the fan art album cover. Viridae^Talk 09:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I still have moments of vertigo trying to imagine articles like this in a print encyclopedia. Charlie 09:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 09:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Arrgh! delete delete delete. yandman 09:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ridiculous article: complete fancruft and OR. Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if it's going to be released it will be out well before our publication deadline, so we can afford to wait. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Crystalbollocks. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 12:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete well intentioned but mind boggling article. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball, along with the obviously hackjobbed album cover. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and not-a-crystal-ball-R-us. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP is no crystal ball. TSO1D 23:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not place for Crystal Ball. Daniel5127 <Talk> 08:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unreferenced crystal balling. —ShadowHalo 22:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Senseless and unverifiable. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 23:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, PLEASE! This has gone on far enough. A few eleven-year-olds got together and came up with this one. Rhythmnation2004 19:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:01Z

[edit] Napa Chic

Napa Chic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Phrase used by wine writer Robert Parker. Not the slightest sign this phrase with this meaning is used by anyone else anywhere. Article appears to be mostly an excuse to reproduce a long Parker quote, and PROD tag and multiple requests for proof of this use elsewhere have been removed without comment. Calton | Talk 10:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: does not cite sources, appears to be original research. Charlie 10:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:OR. yandman 10:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Do not delete. Article has been edited further. I am in the fashion business and this term is used with great frequency.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.9.250.6 (talk • contribs).

• Delete. When it comes to GHits, at least, let's just say that "Napa Chic" doesn't appear to have the cultural impact that, for example, "Paris Chic" does. Fairly random phrase into which virtually any affluent community could be substituted. Robertissimo 12:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Do not delete. This is a term that does have relevance in both the wine and fashion worlds. Marylandwizard 15:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The article has been modified to include sources, kind of, but it just links to the main page of the magazines, not to the relevant articles. This term may have a great deal of relevance in both the wine and fashion "worlds," whatever that means, but it is not the place of an encylopedia to make a judgement on the truth of that, but rather to appeal to third party sources. Charlie 20:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks Charlie. Marylandwizard 20:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a member of WikiProject Wine, I have to agree that this article is unencyclopedic and the topic non-notable. The "fashion sense" of one wine region has little, if any relevance in the wine world. Agne 10:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• What Charlie said. Unless proper references (i.e. not just links to the homepages) are added, then delete. the wub "?!" 20:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silvercrest SL65

Silvercrest SL65 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. Contested prod. MER-C 04:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Rewrite and Rename - the parent company has several products, this one has 20,000 ghits in multiple languages. I would suggest this be re-written as the parent company, with the products given their own sections. Also, this reads too much like an ad. SkierRMH,07:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Silvercrest (in the home technology context) appears to be a brand name of Lidl, so if necessary, deal with it as a subsection of that.Ace of Risk 16:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment - But why does anyone wants an article with the details and functions of an unknown product? Maybe it looks like an ad but without mentioning the brand (silvercrest) of the receiver this is of no use to anyone. This shouldn't be deleted because there's no other article of wikipedia regarding this FTA receiver and it is very difficult for people to find a good structured information on google about this. AR PcPro • contribs) 18:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
• Delete. This article is about a product range from a single retail chain. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a catalogue. Under no circumstances should this article be merged with that of the retail chain: we don't detail products carried by other stores, nor should we here. To suggest, as an earlier participant in this discussion has, that this article shouldn't be deleted because there's no other article about this product in Wikipedia is to entirely misunderstand what encyclopedias are for. My own view is that this is an obvious "speedy". WMMartin 20:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as this appears to be advertising. Charlie 10:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/Cleanup useful product information, I doubt its advertising since real advertisers would do a better job with the article. --64.230.127.234 21:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree that the encyclopaedia is not a catalog. But when I search for something on an encyclopaedia I expect to find information about it, whatever the matter.

I haven’t understood yet why you want to delete this. If it’s because it could be advertising in that case let’s also delete all articles with individual products of several brands. For example when I search for Nokia 6630 it’s advertising to Nokia isn’t it???? Or if I search for Sony VAIO…But let’s suppose it is advertising and I’m here promoting this item. If someone specifically searches for it, then it is because it wants to know information about it, either with the intention of buying it or not. And my view is that the role of an encyclopaedia is to provide information to people. Plus this receiver is not sold exclusively on that particular chain. It’s a Comag receiver sold on many satellite stores around.

AR PcPro 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I think, the matter is if this article must be deleted or not. But not rewritten (perhaps made more accurate, or little changes)... If we look for what means Encyclopedia I find the following:

-An encyclopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopædia,[1] is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.

In this case, I find that this article gives knowledge about a specific product, quite popular in the Satellite receivers world, and whose info available in the net, is spread and confuse. I found this article in the net, and was very useful for me... OK... I can accept an "traditional" encyclopedia is not a catalogue, but Wikipedia is not a traditional one. It has pages with thousands of "devices", like cameras : Canon_XL-2, computers : Icube, Mobile phones Nokia_6230, cars Seat_Ibiza.... And so on.... is TRULY easy to find popular brand+model items on wikipedia, and they offer knowledge about popular devices, products, items of our life.... When a item is not popular enough to appear on wikipedia? I don't know ... It its because lack of popularity.... Someone can explain me why those products mobile phones/cars can be on wikipedia, and this not?? .... Nevertheless... I think is OBVIOUSLY not an ADVERTISEMENT, even is difficult to find/buy itself because their marketing techniques... and it uses a very objective language --

pismak 02:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:01Z

[edit] List of Tickle's Teasers (Brainiac: Science Abuse)

List of Tickle's Teasers (Brainiac: Science Abuse) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Cruft, unencyclopaedic, and possible copyvio (see discussion on the article's talk page.) "Prod" template was removed so sending to AFD. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, especially the unencyclopaedic comment. Charlie 10:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - definitely an indiscriminate collection of information. MER-C 13:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - the bits that are accurate are probably copyvio (in a large collection) and the ones that aren't don't belong here. In any case there's the link to the official site. Pseudomonas 13:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as insufficiently notable ExcellentShowCruft. -- Kicking222 20:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per Copyvio. Daniel5127 <Talk> 07:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree, unencylopaedic and has copyright issues. Davidpdx 10:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Triple Bitch Mafia

Triple Bitch Mafia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Bump from speedy. Suggest merge to Playa Fly —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-15 10:27Z

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Larry V (talk | contribs) 10:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• No indication that this song had any independent notability, merge and redirect to Playa Fly. Demiurge 10:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but perhaps merge. Does not deserve to be its own article, but could be merged. The article, though, is unsourced. SupaStarGirl 17:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If not because the first sentence of the article states that "Triple Bitch Mafia is a diss to the Three 6 Mafia from former member Playa Fly," then because it is non-notable and unverified. --The Way 08:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect low noteablity. Davidpdx 10:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:02Z

[edit] Live Under The Northern Lights

Live Under The Northern Lights (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Bootleg. Not notable - gets 4 Google hits, one of which is from Wikipedia and one of which doesn't relate to this bootleg. CLW 10:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:V. MER-C 13:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MER-C. Secateur 14:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:V and nn. Davidpdx 10:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:02Z

[edit] Football ticket prices

Football ticket prices (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Just a list of football (soccer) ticket prices. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Previously prodded but was contested Qwghlm 11:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, especially a collection that is inaccurate and gives no context. Nuttah68 11:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. This is definitely shaping up to be an indiscriminate collection of numbers. - fchd 12:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 13:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT (indiscriminate) and WP:That'sNice.., this belongs on a football website, not an encyclopedia. QuagmireDog 14:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Potentially the title can be expanded to an encyclopedic article, with history, economic, social etc. researches. But I strongly doubt that from the actual list we can improve the article. Cate | _Talk 15:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 15:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel the same, I'd be delighted to see an article on this subject with sources etc. Problem is, once someone's latched onto something and has started list-list-listing, making an article from it would mean pulling the plug and starting afresh anyways :/ QuagmireDog 17:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think a general article on the economics of football would be a good thing - but it definitely wouldn't be this. So I would go along with starting afresh as well. Qwghlm 14:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT and unencylopedic. Davidpdx 10:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:02Z

[edit] DJ Doughboy

DJ Doughboy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable musician. GHits on name + supposed charted song Aftermath Bounce = 0; Ghits on name + pseudonym = WP only; no apparent reliable sources linking him to supposed mentor Dr. Dre. Robertissimo 11:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Non-notable. Chairman S. ^Talk_Contribs 11:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 13:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete NN only 1500 hits on Google..also fails WP:V. Davidpdx 10:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:03Z

[edit] Need for Madness

Need for Madness (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

The page is about a game unheard of by most people. Similar games do not have pages - so why does this one? The page is not written in an enclclopedic style - this content belongs elsewhere on the web. Flutefluteflute ^{Talk Contributions} 12:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. In addition to nom, given the content of the article, worth noting that WP is not a how-to manual. Robertissimo 12:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a game guide. MER-C 13:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Koweja 15:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non notable and a game guide. Koweja 15:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Bag it and bin it. Game guide and non-notable. The Kinslayer 16:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Clean-up The "tips" section is a clear game guide and does not belong there. It isn't written very well and needs some editing. I don't see any evidence of it being notable or non-notable, so I vote to clean it up rather then delete it. --Pinkkeith 16:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no sources to provide notability, fails WP:V. The game guide material could be cut out in 5 seconds flat, but when the game is non-notable there's no point. QuagmireDog 20:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the developer's website (Alexa rank 29,701 [15]) has a stub here, as do some other games from RadicalPlay (all listed in its article) which are the in the same state as this one - no assertion of notability and no sources. QuagmireDog 20:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - cruft, non-notable, no reliable sources, little if any assertion of notability, no sources at all, no sources to support notability, game guide, non-real-world perspective. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No sources, non-notable and written as a gameguide, complete with a long section on 'tips'. Also seems to be a bit of an advertisement, with a link to the developer's website in the introduction. --The Way 08:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable game guide. --Folantin 11:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

'Remake Game guide but sometimes useful, re-make it!

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 2006-12-26 15:03Z

[edit] Symmi Lillington

Symmi Lillington (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This seems to be an unpublished book, neither the library of congress nor amazon knows about it Aleph-4 12:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Nom says it all, NN. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 13:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator's reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FICT and WP:BK. Wikipedia doesn't need to have an article about a character from the book when it doesn't even have an article about the book. --Metropolitan90 16:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN and fails WP:V. Davidpdx 10:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:03Z

[edit] Defibtech

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

Reads as spam--Alex 10:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as thinly disguised WP:SPAM. MER-C 13:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not so thinly!--Dmz5 05:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:04Z

[edit] Free Geek

Free Geek (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Although it looks good this article appears not to show notability --Alex 10:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep because there seems to be sources out there, just not in the article. Secateur 15:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Man, I hate to vote weak delete, because I think it's a cool concept, and I followed the link and I'll probably get a free 'pooter from them (well, in exchange for some work), but it looks like this article exists more for publicity rather than due to the organization being particularly notable at this point, I'd probably switch the vote if I saw third-party press references, not just links to their web sites. Keep looks like citations have been added. Tubezone 15:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with the comments of Tubezone above. Delete--Alex 15:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as the http://www.freegeek.org/media.php page shows loads of media references going back more than 6 years. Sourcing should be no problem. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, provided that media references are added. Otherwise, Delete. Charlie 21:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Media references and a personal sourcing added. --K7aay 09:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: At least 8 other non-profits across the country base their operations on the Free Geek non-profit/GPL/OpenSource model. I think it's a great thing to have an entry in Wikipedia! They typically run barely day-to-day able to pay non-profit part-time wages to a handful of 3/4 time staff. 200+ monthly volunteers. I don't see how a little more information about them hurts. I heard today, that they have been prodded to update the entry with more background material. And several people have stepped up to update it in the next few days. --Iain 09:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:06Z

[edit] Professional wrestling tours of Australia

Professional wrestling tours of Australia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

I've nominated this article for deletion for a second time as a believe their is no need to have a page on results for every professional wrestling tour in Australia - they are not notable enough to deserve their own page. Davnel03 19:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The first AfD debate is here. It was closed as "no consensus". --Bduke 20:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Putting a ton of non-notable wrestling events together does not make them notable. TJ Spyke 02:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Aaru Bui ^DII 03:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There is certainly a lot of information on that page. But it's useless to me! Govvy 11:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • To the closing admin: if/when this is deleted, make sure to delete the re-direct pages as well (like "WWE Global Warning"). TJ Spyke 06:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Indiscriminate listcruft. MER-C 13:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Professional wrestling is not my thing. However, this is information that would be of interest to people and isn't a list of indiscriminate information. It does require further context and sourcing. Capitalistroadster 01:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Put this type of thing (in a cleaned up form) on a wrestling wiki, not here. RobJ1981 17:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with User:MER-C...WP:NOT this is an indiscriminate list of stuff. Davidpdx 10:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:06Z

[edit] Shelectronica

Shelectronica (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Contested prod. Concern: "nn neologism, 33 ghits". Article's author notes on talk page that she coined the term: "This is a term that existed nowhere until I started using it to fill a gap in expression regarding new musical forms." Delete per WP:NOT#OR/WP:NEO. Muchness 14:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete blogger neologism. I noticed on the talk page: "I have verified this by phone with Oxford Dictionary's publisher who quoted that for a fee I can have it entered as Neologism with my name attached in the next dictionary edition" — if true, this is something to be taken into account in future AfDs. Demiurge 14:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. As for the dictionary business, I would say that if what the editor is speaking of is the Oxford English Dictionary, the tale sounds, to be kind, implausible. On the other hand, just as there are countless fee-based directories along the lines of Who's Who, I suppose it's not impossible that there's a vanity dictionary, too. Robertissimo 14:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It would be nice if the people who prod pages would explain why to the author, especially with new contributors. This is the second time the page was prodded, the first time it was deleted. The author's comment when removing the prod "I removed this as there is nothing wrong with a neologism, I thought this was a progessive site? You only need google the word to see what I have said is true!" shows that they didn't understand why the prod was placed on their page. ~ BigrTex 16:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete protologism. Danny Lilithborne 17:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as prodder per above. MER-C 01:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Admitted neologism. —ShadowHalo 03:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:07Z

[edit] Workic

Workic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

As I already wrote in May 2006: It still seems like a neologism to me. When I search Google for "workic", I get mainly pages that *mention* (rather than *use*) the word, as in "Workic" is not in the dictionary. Aleph4 14:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Workoholic. Robertissimo 14:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Seems an original research (the name). Content copied from Workoholic (see page history). Non notable word (very few ghits), so no redirect. Cate | _Talk 15:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per reasons stated by Cate. Hatch68 18:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN, Wikipedia is not a place for nonsense jargon. Davidpdx 10:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:07Z

[edit] GamAnon

GamAnon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Contested speedy. Local organisation offering no notability. Speedy contested with the suggestion the article is a merge candidate to Gamblers Anonymous. However, this appears to be a separate organisation with no links to GA Nuttah68 14:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN, Wikipedia is not a place for nonsense jargon. Davidpdx 10:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:07Z

[edit] Internet Plasticity Nodes

Internet Plasticity Nodes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Protologism. Gets zero google hits[16]. Deprodded by original author. Weregerbil 14:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; wholly non-notable protologism. Robertissimo 14:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Lord Gravitron ^{Message | Contrib} 15:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable unreferenced protologism. —ShadowHalo 09:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ok, who the hell is Bran Taylor? NN, violates WP:N and 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 DELETE. Sarah 11:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theo Clarke

Theo Clarke (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Procedural nomination of previously-speedied article Phil | Talk 14:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: the article appears to present multiple justifications for notability, and furthermore has four inward links from other articles. I cannot understand why this was a valid speedy candidate. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Inbound links are not a justification in any way. If they were, then our vandals would simply crosslink their names from all the "bands" they formed. There are no actual claims in the article of notability, as each of the listed accomplishments is certainly admirable but not actually a position of leadership, public fame, or superior placement in the field. However, if you have a question, you are supposed to use DRV, instead of simply undeleting. HTH Geogre 18:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, he has certainly had a busy career but as far as I can see he is not notable for the purposes of WP:BIO. The Royal Society of Arts has 24,999 other fellows, and Google results are mostly Wikipedia mirrors. Demiurge 15:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I just checked, it's 6000 [17]DGG 03:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment this seems a gray area to me. Several companies started, some authorship, inward links, all together suggest notability. I would tend to favour shading toward delete if the subject is a longstanding contributor who wants not to have it (that's not an open and shut reason, but a shading). But I'm seeing enough notability to build a case for keep barring that. Note that a speedy was in my view, not warranted. This is an area where some discussion would be of benefit. withhold opinion barring more information. ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete i'm gonna have to say while at first glance this guy has done alot... none of these honors/accomplishments are sufficient to satisfy WP:BIO guidelines.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 15:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: The subject of the article tagged this for speedy deletion, as he recognized, as others did, that the article fails WP:BIO, and he didn't write it or want it. The article was speedy deleted because it literally makes no claim to notability, which is a perfectly valid A7. Undeletion should not have taken place without the use of WP:DRV, which is a place that all users must employ, not just non-administrators, as there the validity of the A7 deletion could have been assessed. So, we have another week for outside sites to gather up personal details about a Wikipedian, another week of potential abuse. I'm not sure "HTH" or how this will allow anyone to "HAND." The article is a delete and was a delete. Geogre 18:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

George, I think anyone may remove a speedy tag without going to deletion review. Contested speedys come here. DGG or at least ask that it be done. 03:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Anyone wanna source it - thats really what notability is about, the ability to source it -- Tawker 00:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Geogre. Theo Clarke (the wikipedian) is entitled to his privacy. If he wanted it kept he would add further information to display his notability, he has not. He has expressed surprise that he is considered notable (not false modesty but genuine surprise) he has asserted the wish this page be deleted, and in this case his wishes should be respected. .Giano 07:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Actually, I'm fairly sympathetic to Giano's statement above. However, it would be a major change of policy to decide (a) that bio subjects are entitled to their privacy, and (b) the wishes of the subject are to be a consideration. As it stands, Wikipedia has rejected both those principles. (See Daniel Brandt and Angela Beesley). As I say, I somewhat warm to these ideas in cases of marginal notability. However, I reject the idea of special treatment for our Wikipedian friends. Either this bio stands (or is deleted), like others, on its notability/verifiability, or we make a major change policy for all bios.--Doc^g 09:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Doc is right, of course, and I did not mean to imply that this was a "Right to vanish" case that was up against demonstrated notability. Rather, I felt that the article's contents indicated a very successful career, but not one that had achieved break out "note," and that this combined with the subject not wanting the article to remain (or get userfied) made this a clearer speedy delete. (I.e. something on the fence like this should generally never be a speedy delete, as the authors and subjects are almost surely going to protest, and reasonably, but, here, we had no one stepping up on behalf of the article, except Phil Bosworth, and his actions were irregular.) Geogre 12:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • • I think that AfD was the right route here. Previous precedent is that the subject's request is NOT a valid consideration. I think we're reaching a fairly ground-breaking agreement that it is (if not a major one). I welcome that. But when something is as debatable as this, an open discussion is probably better than a quiet speedy (although I understand the motives of the speedy). However, Phil's actions were perfectly valid - speedies are really for open and shut cases; any admin should feel free to undelete any speedy and send to afd. I suppose he could have taken it to DRV instead - but then we'd just be having this same discussion in another forum. (And a forum which might well, in turn, have sent it back here).--Doc^g 13:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thank Doc, I'm not just speaking as one of Theo's friends, I'm also saying "As the page stands it is non notable and even what little is there is unreffed", and from the google hits available, unless Theo himself chooses to expand the page (he has indicated that he won't) the page fails WP:BIO. Giano 09:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, a quick bit of google research on the name and some of the terms in the article provides quite a bit of verifiable info. So, I don't think we're dependent on the subject, actually. Someone could easily reference this, and probably expand it too. However, as to whether we'd want to keep it if they did, I really don't know.--Doc^g 09:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• The article at the time of the speedy made no serious claim to notability. That being said, I actually looked at this when it was so tagged and, purely on the face of the multiple but individually non-notable claims, chickened out and went to softer targets. So Endorse balls-y deletion since that should be the venue that this is being discussed in. The article as it stands still makes no cited claim to notability, and as such should be deleted unless more evidence is introduced. Nothing to do with "niceness" or "mateship" here, but in the event that it was a line ball, we should be nice to everyone as long as we retain our integrity. - brenneman 10:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, borderline notability, as admitted by the subject. Angela and Daniel B (no, not me, the other one) were, in my opinion, substantially more notable than this. I would have probably not been inclined to give my opinion if the subject wasn't requesting deletion - just another AfD bio - and if I had of, it probably would have been a weak delete. However, the borderline notability coupled with the expressed wish of the subject, who is acting in a decent way, has swung my !vote. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• FWIT, I'm comfortable with deletion in this case. But I give notice that I will cite this debate as evidence of a consensus that the subject's request is a relevant factor in deletion decisions, although not necessarily the decisive one. This precedent must apply equally to non-Wikipedians. On that basis, delete. --Doc^g 11:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• An important distinction to make, and well-stated. We consider the request of the subject, but it isn't the be-all-and-end-all, nor the Chop (reference to the card game Thirteen, no article sadly), nor a veto, or any other word you wish to use in this context. Probably equally-important is the way the subject goes about stating their intention - Wikipedians much prefer it when somebody rationally states their feelings rather than lawyering and being generally disrespectful. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Borderline notability case which the subject's request pushes over the edge. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 15:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, borderline at best. [ælfəks] 00:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I flagged this as a speedy because I do not think that I am sufficiently notable to merit an entry here. I am not concerned about its effect upon my privacy because everything cited here is already in the public domain and I think that it is all on the internet. I have not touched the article because I believe that this contravenes WP:AUTO. I am both warmed and touched that at least three people have considered it worthwhile to write about me (even if one of them did immediately delete his/her own factually correct addition). As a matter of principle, however, I think it irrelevant that I am an established wikipedian. —Theo (Talk) 20:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with delete, disagree with speedy tagging, because the article subject is borderline enough notable (there doesn't need to be a literal statement "This subject is notable" for the article to assert notability, you know) that this was NOT a clear cut speedy. Disagree that there is any significant difference in privacy impact from it being on DRV or AfD after it was incorrectly speedied. In future, article subjects ought not to speedy tag their own articles. Perhaps WP:AUTO ought to speak to that more clearly. Am also OK with "subject's request is a relevant factor although not decisive" principle. ++Lar: t/c 09:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Borderline notable. Request by subject is something to consider; not the dominant factor here. +sj + 04:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Bastique, Giano, Daniel Bryant, Doc G, not someone we need an article on, probably not notable on the merits, and subject's wishes as the tiebreaker if it's considered a borderline case. However, subject is cautioned to avoid any more achievements and accomplishments or they may tip the balance and we may be back here. :) Newyorkbrad 04:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:08Z

[edit] Laurence Belfiore

Laurence Belfiore (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Some random post-doctorant reasearcher, which hasn't made any notable discoveries rather than a student textbook. With 313 Google hits, it's clear to me that this doesn't meet WP:BIO. I've made a lot of NPOV work on this article in my first few days on Wikipedia to remove information added by his students, but I don't see any reason for this to stay any much longer. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete article offers no notabilty. Nuttah68 20:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN, violates WP:V. The only thing this might be good for is a cure for insomnia. Davidpdx 10:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:08Z

[edit] Filmography of Joan Crawford

Filmography of Joan Crawford (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Pinkkeith 16:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It's hardly indiscriminate information, it's a filmography of a very famous actress with a significant career. Her main article is also too large to merge it into comfortably. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and tidy up for reasons given by Andrew Lenahan Yorkshiresky 17:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Starblind. Danny Lilithborne 17:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but tidy up. It contains, for example, no citations whatsoever. Charlie 20:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep normally I would want to see it merged but the main article is too long, and this is exactly what we should do when the main article is too long!--Dmz5 05:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but needs citations and a little cleanup. ← ANAS ^Talk? 13:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. —ShadowHalo 22:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:09Z

[edit] KoL Mafia

KoL Mafia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This piece of software fails WP:RS, and WP:SOFTWARE. Googling shows blog links but no independent reliable sources. The software itself is a bot client that is of interest only to Kingdom of Loathing players. Whpq 16:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No notability. --InShaneee 16:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete at best it would be a mention in the main KoL article, but as written I can't see any reason to even justify that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not big enough to get its own article. Greyhead 05:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, put a nod to it on Kingdom of Loathing. -Ryanbomber 17:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and make it as it was, mentioned in a short, concise fashion on the main KoL article. Crazysunshine 02:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:09Z

[edit] Cacoethes

Cacoethes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Simple dictionary definition. transwiki if a reference is available. Obina 16:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• del dicdef. Mukadderat 18:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary. Davidpdx 10:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:10Z

[edit] The thox

The thox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Claimed to be a comedy project started in 2004. However, my search for information failed to turn up anything outside the website mentioned. This website crashed my browser. I do not think this is notable enough for inclusion. Sam Blacketer 17:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete db-group. Danny Lilithborne 17:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Please - not notable. --JudahBlaze 00:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Not a whisper of a wisp of an assertion of notability. --Calton | Talk 02:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN, WP:V. Davidpdx 10:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to RuneScape combat. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:11Z

[edit] Blurite

Blurite (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Nn metal in MMORPG. If it is really that important it could be redirected to List of fantasy metals (or an article of similar name) but Looking at it, I can mkae a clear evaluation it is not important but nn J.J.Sagnella 17:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to the RuneScape article or affiliated Runescape article. Hatch68 18:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no way does this require a separate article. All that needs to be said about it is over at RuneScape combat: "Blurite (fictional magical alloy)", with a link to the kbase page. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JJ and the captain. The metal is used once in one of the smallest and least interesting quests in RS' catalogue of 100+, and to make one of many variants of crossbow and ammunition, neither of which are tradeable between players and both of which are less effective than some of the most commonly and cheaply available materials in RS, hence it's seldom used. What little to say on this has been said where it should be, this article is surplus to requirements. QuagmireDog 20:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn Mukadderat 18:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete nn, fails WP:V. Davidpdx 10:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:11Z

[edit] Cuts and stars

Cuts and stars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

A band with nothing particularly WP:MUSIC-ish, no sources. Deprodded. Weregerbil 17:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 03:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Mukadderat 18:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, fails WP:V. Davidpdx 10:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:12Z

[edit] Powerspace

Powerspace (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

The article was previously marked for deletion but template removed by author. Band fails WP:Music with nothing in current article that meets criteria. Article states album will be released in Summer of 2007, which could lead to criteria being met at that time. Hatch68 17:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per signing from record label that has other notable bands. Just H 17:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Being signed is not one of the criteria listed in WP:Music. See Item #5 specifically. Hatch68 17:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Dhartung | Talk 19:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete hoping to be famous is not notable. Nuttah68 20:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 03:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. Kalani ^[talk] 18:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and also delete their albums Album 0 - Rare Demo Tracks and Houston, We Have a Party for having no notability whatsoever. -- Kicking222 15:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• 'Delete Non-noteable, fails WP:MUSIC, WP:BAND, WP:V. Davidpdx 10:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:13Z

[edit] Sabrina Morris

Sabrina Morris (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

An actress whose actual credits seem to be two walk-ons: "Surgical nurse" on a soap, and "Model" on Entourage. Author removed {{Notability}} tag with the comment This actress is notible as she was cast on the hit show "Entourage," which is a topic that is notable enough that the information about it will have been researched, checked, and evaluated... I don't see that a bit part on a notable show makes you notable. Fan-1967 17:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I rewrote the thing into a stub after coming across it randomly- I didn't even notice it had been put up for deletion earlier, or I would have re-listed it myself. Sorry! She just plain fails WP:BIO. And from the ridiculous gushing tone of the article before I edited it, I have a feeling it's a vanity page too. Get rid of it. -IceCreamAntisocial 19:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence from WP:RS that subject meets WP:BIO for actors. So what if she was an extra on Entourage? There's no notability by association here. Being cast in two bit parts, likely non-speaking roles, does not make you an actor by the notability guideline's definition... you're called an extra. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• No, this is a step above extra, though not a big one. Extras don't get screen credits. Fan-1967 20:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:Bio. Hatch68 21:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Seems like everyone who's ever had any kind of walk-on on a TV show wants a Wikipedia page. This gal doesn't clear the notability bar. (I've resolved to spend some time over X-mas rooting out a few more of these folks, so take a look at my edits next week if you want to help flush these non-notable actors out of Wikipedia.)TruthGal 22:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and maybe recreate when she wins the Emmy for Best Walk-On.--Dmz5 05:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 15:13Z

[edit] Keith Pyle

Keith Pyle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable musician. Cribcage 18:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. --JudahBlaze 19:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, has two albums, but they were released under Pyle's own independent label, Running With Scissors Music. WP:MUSIC not met, no evidence from WP:RS indicating otherwise. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. —ShadowHalo 03:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Low noteablity only 3,500 Google hits. Davidpdx 10:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)