Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 23

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

The result was Merge to International Monarchist League. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 13:48Z

[edit] Constitutional Monarchy Association

Constitutional Monarchy Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Delete - I place the "mergeto" tag on this article a month ago, but looking again realised that if the Association's journal was mentioned in International Monarchist League (its parent organisation), that would actually do the trick. The article was created on 16 May 2006 and has not been edited or expanded since. It has been tagged as unreferenced since the day it was created. The association is not notable, it would seem, and is merely an offshoot of the aforementioned Monarchist League. It doesn't need its own article - there simply isn't anything verifiable to say about it, it would seem. --SandyDancer 00:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom or redirect to International Monarchist League.--John Lake 02:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I would support redirect as John suggests. --SandyDancer 03:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The group is sometimes called upon by the media to give a response to an anti-monarchist statement, since Buckingham Palace prefers to say "No comment". I added as references two newspaper articles which quote the association in this context. This may address the concerns about verifiability and notability. --Eastmain 03:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to International Monarchist League, which has the same offices and leadership and function. This seems like an inappropriate use of AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 07:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Multiple non-trivial mainstream media references. A real group often called on to respond to republican criticisms, and republicans criticise them by name. JASpencer 11:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment They are also a seperate function from the Monarchist League as they are focussed on Commonwealth countries and they seem to have branches (Edinburgh and Lothian is quoted). Tory Reform Group, Conservative Mainstream and the Conservative Group for Europe all share the same offices but merit seperate entries because on their own they are worthy of seperate entries. The sharing of an office should not be the criteria to delete an article. JASpencer 11:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not disputing that they exist and have been referenced in mainstream media a few times. But everything that has (and I think can) be said about them can be said on the page of their parent organisation. That is why merge (which has already happened) and redirect (which hasn't) is the proper solution. --SandyDancer 12:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Then you should withdraw the AfD and put a merge tag on there. I still tink that you'd be wrong, however no one seems to want to delete this article and so an AfD is not for this article. JASpencer 15:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I already did put a merge tag on - read the nomination spiel above. Thing is, no one is concerned with the article because it is clearly going to a perpetual stub of a few lines. So merging is the correct action - which I did, simply by expanding on the reference to this offshoot of the International Monarchist League on the article for that page - here is the diff.

There seems to be a consensus forming for a merge and redirect - do you agree to that too? I expect that will be the outcome of the AFD and that outcome I would support. --SandyDancer 17:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree to a merger and I don't think that 4 votes against 2 is a concensus. This is not the forum for a merge debate which should be off AfD. JASpencer 17:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Irrespective of forum, if we get the a sensible debate that's what matters. Apart from you and one other user, the users who have particpated want the article to be either deleted or to be a redirect to International Monarchist League (effectively the same thing). --SandyDancer 20:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur, this does seem to be a jumble so far. Just H 17:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per above. Just H 17:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.Oo7565 20:19, 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.--Kchase T 08:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electric sky

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

This is a book published in November 2006 by a press that doesn't even show up on a Google search. There is no sign that it has achieved notability. However, there are signs that this article is an attempt to give Don Scott and those who share his views on physics a soapbox, namely, the self-references to Wikipedia and how Wikipedia's existing article on plasma cosmology is "disputed for its neutrality". The article contains no NPOV content about the book, only lengthy direct quotations from its author on why he is right and orthodox cosmology is wrong. In short, this is a POV fork. Antaeus Feldspar 00:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to Electric universe (concept) per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete -As above. Tonytypoon 19:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect per nom nn notable [1] and gets worse with quotes [2].--John Lake 02:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - zero results on arxiv.org. Fails WP:V, violates WP:NOT#SOAP. MER-C 03:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom- and bow to the wisdom of those that urge a merge, I just don't see anything worthy here...SkierRMH 10:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This also looks like it might be an advertisement. Dr. Submillimeter 11:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete yet more POV-pushing from the non-standard cosmologists. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Advertising and NPOV. HEL 23:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising and fails WP:V. Davidpdx 12:10, 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. Dakota 01:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual idioms

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

Redundant with all of Wikipedia's other lists of slang. Also, unverified and a bit sprawling - not everything on there is even a sexual idiom. Crystallina 01:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete original research and unreferenced despite being here for half a year. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Lists of idioms are unencyclopedic. MER-C 03:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I'm not sure how this could ever be anything but original research, and it certainly is now. Seraphimblade 05:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom most of it seems non sexual slang, WP:V- unverified and unverifiable, WP:OR- original research.--John Lake 05:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OR and WP:V, and the standing jokes' page's is much better! SkierRMH 10:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research, unverified and even if not, WP:NOT a slang or idiom guide. Guy (Help!) 12:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as an arbitrary list containing either original research or unverified information.-- danntm ^T _C 22:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is not something relivant to Wikipedia WikiMan53 T/C edits 00:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Lists of idioms are unencyclopedic also I think this article is offensive. Davidpdx 12:12, 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.--Kchase T 08:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Super Soldier Volkov

Soviet Super Soldier Volkov (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

In Soviet Russia, article deletes YOU!! Game guide article on minor character (and his dog) in game. (Volkov doesn't seem to have as much as a plot profile as say Tanya Adams -in as much video game cutscenes are "plots") Bwithh 01:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No sources besides pages that just mirror/copy Wikipedia, a Google test shows 45 unique pages, and it doesn't seem notable. J0lt C0la 01:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete What a website! Danny Lilithborne 03:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Article doesn't assert notability. Hello32020 03:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• In Soviet Russia, article on non-notable minor game character delete YOU!! MER-C 03:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Deletov. This → Image:Volkov&chitzkoi.GIF says it all. ~ trialsanderrors 04:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, half the article is about this extremely non-notable games character's appearances in mods.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, mainly because there's not enough coverage on the dog! Seriously, nn characters w/little connection to the main game. SkierRMH 10:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Soviet Super Delete per others. Punkmorten 12:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• However, both characters are the main focus of both expansion packs! They are not minor characters! Slavik262 16:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unlikely to be searched under this name, not linked from other articles, bellow threshold of notability IMHO. Pavel Vozenilek 18:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete low noteablity, fails WP:V. "You are sooo deleted." Davidpdx 12:14, 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.--Kchase T 08:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oklahoma D-Day

nn paintball tournament, no third party sources. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN paintball tournament. TJ Spyke 01:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see any reliable sources and I don't think it meets notability guidelines. J0lt C0la 01:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, just a buncha guys havin' fun. Deizio talk 02:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 04:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Achtung, Willie Joe, y'all better duck before ah delete ya! WHACK! And why do the Germans outnumber the Americans? Tubezone 05:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A paintball tournament? Maddy626 08:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, and because the submarine divisions aren't given equal time. :( SkierRMH 10:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN paintball tornament. --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 18:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-noteable, fails V:WP. Davidpdx 12:15, 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) 2006-12-28 10:29Z

[edit] Amanda Carpenter

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

non notable conservative pundit/journalist; has written one book and been the subject of a minor campus squabble, but basically she is an assistant editor at a only somewhat notable publication. Previous AFD a year ago resulted in a redirect, but article was immediately recreated. Brianyoumans 01:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Gosh darn it, could someone fix this? I can never get the whole "afdx" thing to work properly. --Brianyoumans 01:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. Next time you want to nominate a previously-nominated article, user Template:afdx. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Er, correction: read Template talk:afdx to learn how to use it properly. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as she doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO. Not much in terms of coverage in reliable sources. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable (they did write a book). 66.82.9.88 01:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC) _{This post was made by -- Chris is me (user/review/talk) when he was unable to log in}
• Delete, fails WP:V / WP:BIO. Would reassess if worked on. Deizio talk 02:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:V. --Coredesat 03:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 04:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and SALT. Didn't think we'd notice that the article had already been moved to userspace before, eh? Maddy626 08:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - only localized coverage, doesn't meet WP:BIO. SkierRMH 10:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - NN. Barnabypage 14:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep if someone will work on this artical and make it better —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oo7565 (talk • contribs)

I don't know enough to say "keep" or "delete", but I'd like to point out that there is another, better-known Amanda Carpenter, a romance novelist. So maybe if this is kept, it should be renamed to "Amanda B. Carpenter" with a redirect page from "Amanda Carpenter" set up. OinkOink 23:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep as an author of a book on Regenery Publishing, a major conservative publishing house. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails notability checks: obscure apprentice journalist, author of only one book and that from a minor publisher which owns the magazine whe works for (I assume you meant Regnery, Badly-drawn-Jeff?). If the book had not flopped, a case might be made for retention. --Orange Mike 21:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I did, I simply can't spell. The publishing world may very well have an issue with you calling Regnery "minor." --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Didn't mean to tweak ya, badly-spelt-Jef; I'm impefect myself! As far as "the publishing world": Regnery has never had much 'street cred' outside the circles of the ultra-conservative community; their sales tend to be mostly to conservative book outlets and clubs, etc. Most are aware of their past history of publishing unlabelled CIA material during the Cold War, their ties with the John Birch Society, and their record of dubiety towards such liberal enterprises as the Nuremberg Trials (only fitting for a firm founded by the son of the founder of the America First Committee). And of course, Wisconsin still remembers Al Regnery's bizarre run for Dane County district attorney against our now-governor, and his record as the "Have You Slugged Your Kid Today?" head of the Office of Juvenile Justice. --Orange Mike 23:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I never said "well-respected," after all. d;-) --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-noteable. Davidpdx 12:16, 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) 2006-12-28 10:30Z

[edit] Smokin' Hella Weed

Smokin' Hella Weed (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary Meghann 01:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Unreferenced neologism. IrishGuy ^talk 02:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not much else needs to be said- it's a neologism, and it's unsourced. That's that. -- Kicking222 02:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete dumb, unless you make an article for Snortin' a Grippa Coke. Danny Lilithborne 03:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary, though this did make me laugh a little. J0lt C0la 03:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn neologism, 89 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 04:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. At best this is a dicdef, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Metropolitan90 05:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This isn't even a dictionary definition, even of slang. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unreferenced neologism or dicdef maybe made up after a little of the "weed" .--John Lake 05:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Dumb. Maddy626 08:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• D e l e t e just got a little slower in the brain from reading that... now off for munchies... mmmmm... SkierRMH 10:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Any point at all?? WikiMan53 T/C edits 00:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 18:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, man - Are you gonna eat that, man? Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 19:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep just to be deffent sorryOo7565 20:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Wow, man. It's like, like, this article wants to us to delete it. You get what I'm saying man? Now, who has some food?-- danntm ^T _C 22:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Hella Delete Non-notable neologism. —ShadowHalo 10:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article is a stub and the term itself doesn't seem to hold any importance --Muna 12:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete C'mon. Tarinth 17:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Hella Speedy Keep. C'mon. Bookishreader45 00:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. non-noteable, dumb, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Davidpdx 12:18, 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) 2006-12-28 10:31Z

[edit] Narrows Community Theater

Narrows Community Theater (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable theater group created by JRandazzo who appears to be creating a series of article to promote himself and his friends. See: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joe_Randazzo for more information. IrishGuy ^talk 02:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Two shows a year does not make you notable whoever you are, unless you live in Oberammergau. Denni ^talk 02:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 04:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom non notable.--John Lake 05:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom... non notable, using WP:CORP. SkierRMH 10:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep let someone try to expan this artical not fair at least let some try okOo7565 20:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-noteable, fails WP:V. This should be nominated for the shortest article on Wikipedia. Davidpdx 12:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Non notable.Shawn in Montreal 02:10, 28 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) 2006-12-28 10:33Z

[edit] First Baptist Church of Sunny Side

First Baptist Church of Sunny Side (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

nn church. There were a prod and a prod2 tag, but the original author removed both without comment. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Nice to know they're out there, but we are not a directory of churches, either. --Dennisthe2 03:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:V, 2 non-wiki ghits, non-notable church, second person. MER-C 04:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:V and This t'aint the yellow pages. SkierRMH 10:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as NN local church. -- Bpmullins | Talk 22:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteNo claim of notability; does not satisfy WP:CONG aka WP:CHURCH in any way. Edison 23:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NN, WP:NOT, fails WP:V. Davidpdx 12:24, 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) 2006-12-28 10:34Z

[edit] Zoids Restoration

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

Although a useful page for collectors, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a "how-to" manual or a place to post original information not published in reliable, third party sources. This material would be excellent for a website such as Phenotype's zoids website or another fan site, but not here.

I prodded the article with the above reasoning. The article creator removed the prod and added to the talk page: "I do not believe this article is worthy of deletion. It is factual, it offers information and it can be used for reference just like all other articles on Wikipedia. Also, this is not Original Research as the techniques described within are generally well known."

I don;t believe that this addresses my original concerns, primarily that this information is not externally verified, a how-to guide, and information collated from first-party experiences (original research). There may be some obscure Japanese hobby magazine that can be used to source some of this, or some info could be merged into a sourced article on model kit repair, or the entire text could be transwikied somewhere. However, I don't think this article, in its current form, belongs on Wikipedia -- saberwyn 02:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 04:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Tsxiqu 08:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as there's no specific citations, just links to the official (and other fan) sites, it verges on OR; it also could be considered a game guide. SkierRMH 10:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki How to manuals do |not belong on Wikipedia. The author should try Wikibooks. --Kunzite 21:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a how to manual, fails WP:V. Davidpdx 12:30, 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 Merge to Brinks robbery (1981). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 10:36Z

[edit] Edward O'Grady

Edward O'Grady (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

nn bio, Wikipedia is not a memorial site. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The article on O'Grady isn't a memorial. It's a description of him and the incedent that killed him. There are many wikipedia articles on police officers who have died in famous high profile incedents, such as Daniel Faulkner and Yvonne Fletcher. User:Chainclaw|(talk) 23:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but create an article Brinks robbery (1981), I created the space and made it a redirect to Kathy Boudin. There needs to be an article on the robbery itself. Now the information is split between Kathy Boudin and Edward O'Grady. Since there is only a paragraph here on Edward O'Grady, that paragraph can be later included in the article, and there can be a paragraph synopsis for each of the criminal and police participants. When its all complete Edward O'Grady can be a redirect. I think I can get a photograph of each of the police officer and each of the captured criminals. The robbery was covered by every major New York and New Jersey paper and there may still be info on the FBI website. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Brinks robbery (1981). Otto4711 07:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Brinks robbery (1981). I'm skeptical of all these cop articles that have turned up lately. Most of them don't actually seem to have done anything except be in the wrong place at the wrong time. --Dhartung | Talk 08:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Brinks robbery (1981) per Dhartung. Most of the article does not concern Edward O'Grady but the robbery and the aftermath.--John Lake 21:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Brinks robbery (1981) Alf photoman 13:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to [[Brinks robbery {1981)]] would be more appropriate. Davidpdx 12:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to [[Brinks robbery {1981)]] is my take, as well.Shawn in Montreal 02:13, 28 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) 2006-12-28 10:39Z

[edit] Melissa Spell

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

Actress with a small handful of roles, apparently as a minor character or extra. Zero biographical information or sources. Deizio talk 02:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:BIO. A Gsearch yields either mirrors of her Wikiarticle or non-relevant results (even from the first page of results). Fabricationary 03:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 04:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. --Metropolitan90 05:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO.--John Lake 06:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete IMdb [6] - 6 roles, looks @ first glance like they're all minor/extra roles. SkierRMH 10:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO the person is nn. Davidpdx 12:35, 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) 2006-12-28 10:39Z

[edit] Dialectical method

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

Unclear what this article is about; in any case, it's based on a source that Georg Wilhelm Freidrich [sic] Hegel was a 'transformational Marxist social psychologist'. Not very reliable, I'd say. Qwertyus 02:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this article is just... bad and wrong and there is already one on dialectic, i believe. --Buridan 04:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the article on Georg Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel handles the discussion on the proposal of Hegel's dialectic quite well. This aricle seems to be off the mark in several areas, or at least so incomplete to be misleading. With a very confusing subject like this, an article would have to be quite long and involved to even begin scratching the surface of the intracicies thereof. SkierRMH 10:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A rather peculiar article. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 23:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, if someone writes about it they should know what they are talking about Alf photoman 13:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Buridian and SkierRMH. - Sam 18:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Could be speedied as patent nonsense, actually. Comprehensible or not, this content is not related to anything that usually goes by the name "dialectical method." -- Rbellin|Talk 23:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

  Actually, I tried that, but Sugarcaddy replied that 'it's not patent nonsense if it's based on a cited reference.' Qwertyus 17:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and put it out of our misery. Source's spelling of "Freidrich" comes from an ad for Total Quality Management:

  Total Quality Management [TQM] is based upon the Hegelian dialectic, invented by Georg Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel, a transformational Marxist social psychologist. Briefly, the Hegelian dialectic process works like this: a diverse group of people (in the church, this is a mixture of believers (thesis) and unbelievers (antithesis), gather in a facilitated meeting (with a trained facilitator/teacher/group leader/change agent), using group dynamics (peer pressure), to discuss a social issue (or dialogue the Word of God), and reach a pre-determined outcome (consensus, compromise, or synthesis).

I see the article has been converted to a set of quotes from Lenin, which is an improvement, but not keepable: we need something more neutral. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete It would seem like simple logic to have some sorucs. Fails WP:V. Davidpdx 12:37, 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 Keep Eluchil404 08:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Annette Richardson Dinwoodey

Annette Richardson Dinwoodey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

• Delete: Non-notable genealogist and centenarian. This was deleted via prod (by me) months ago but was recently recreated. Notability is apparently writing up family history but so do I and that doesn't make me notable. Or maybe notability is being a centenarian but my great-great-aunt was 106 when she died and that doesn't make her notable. Apparently had a local news piece done about her but every news station runs similar stories from time to time. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable because she passes WP:MUSIC as a vocalist who performed nationally (including at Carnegie Hall) and on national radio (CBS Radio). --Eastmain 04:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I found this, but there's not much else (only 27 non-wiki ghits). MER-C 04:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a touching story, no doubt, but I routinely hear a few stories like this at every family reunion. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep until more searching done. I have her getting 7 points in my system, but she needs a major newspaper reference. I'll look in the Utah papers archive. If it gets deleted, save a copy to the editors user page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't look as likely as I had figured anyway - but I'm all for userfying if things turn. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Sorry, but I'm not seeing sufficient proof of encyclopedic notability Bwithh 05:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Wikipedia is no longer, or never really was, an encyclopedia by traditional standards. It is a reference work containing elements of an encyclopedia, almanac, and gazetteer. Only a tiny fraction of its contents would be considered encyclopedic by Britannica or Americana standards. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Wikipedia is not defined in relation to "Britannica or Americana standards". It is defined by its own policies and guidelines. Please argue from our guidelines, not from comparisons with other projects. Most editors consider that material suitable for almanacs and gazetteers is quite unsuitable. Bwithh was appropriate to make an argument of encyclopedic notability. --Dhartung | Talk 08:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Then use the term "doesn't meet Wikipedia standards" not "non encyclopedic". Gazetteers info not welcome in Wikipedia? We have an article on every town in the US by default. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the link from Deseret News provided by MER-C she seems to have been a notable singer in her time before TV and music videos to have been a national soloist for CBS, performed in Carnegie Hall, London's Royal Albert Hall and an audience of more than 50,000 soldiers.--John Lake 07:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep as there seems just enough to make a proper article about someone who had historical notability. I'm not sure whether being on the radio or singing at Carnegie Hall by itself confers notability (and it is not made clear from the sources whether she was a "headliner"). --Dhartung | Talk 08:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable enough - has a collection on display at University of Utah for example. I share some of Dhartung's concerns re extent of notability. Orderinchaos78 19:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep per above.Oo7565 20:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep since she was a soloist for CBS. The Carnegie reference is less clear since we don't have evidence that she appeared there as a soloist. -- Bpmullins | Talk 22:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems notable enough-DESU 23:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If we can have articles on each of the hundreds of Pokémon entities, then certainly a person who performed nationally and on national radio merits an article. -- Mwanner | Talk 19:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • At this point, even I'm pretty much in agreement (if the article were as nice when I nominated it as it is now, I would have never brought it here). But you should probably know that you just gave a textbook example of a Pokemon test - using Pokemon as the example no less!  ;) —Wknight94 (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the link; I was unaware of the Pokemon test (though I had a feeling I was on thin ice). Interesting, though, that the Karen article, mentioned on that page, appears to have no references at all despite WP:NOTE's assertion that "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works...." I guess I haven't been hanging out in the AFD's enough lately. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Wkikpedians seem to be folks who are far more interested in videogame characters and fictional characters , who can have articles with zero independent soources, than in old people, churches, malls, and other real but 'boring' things. Edison 00:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Just keep in mind that this is what the article looked like before Richard Arthur Norton worked his magic - nothing about singing or Carnegie Hall or anything. I'll have to ask Mr. Norton to take a look before I bring articles to AFD in the future! —Wknight94 (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep A rare for me, I saw clean it up with some better sources. Davidpdx 12:39, 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 Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 10:40Z

[edit] Somari (3rd nomination)

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

A prior AfD decision to delete was overturned on review and is now back for reconsideration. I reverted to the version that was considered at the previous AfD, two recreations were speedily deleted for lack of context. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 04:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I honestly planned to vote delete, but after doing a Google search (over 200K, pretty good for a illegal NES title). The article could be expanded too if someone was willing to put time into it. TJ Spyke 04:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fangame, the end. And yes, I know all about its fame. Danny Lilithborne 06:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Fangame" does not mean "the end". What makes fangames so inherently non-notable that no circumstances could give them notability? - furrykef (Talk at me) 07:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You're also wrong. It's not a fan-made game, it's a HK pirated game. Big difference. --UsaSatsui 01:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per my opinion at Deletion Review. - furrykef (Talk at me) 07:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable, if niche. Needs citing, though. Shimeru 10:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep only with some rewriting, in cluding citations. SkierRMH 10:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep but somedome does need to work on itOo7565 20:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems some sources do exist, which is surprising considering that most illegal stuff is so incredibly difficult to source. Needs a big cleanup. --- RockMFR 21:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs a bit of work, though.--UsaSatsui 01:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - it looks notable enough, if all the claims in the article are true - needs some more sources. (Also agree that a game doesn't have to made by a major game studio to be considered notable.) Quack 688 09:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough for any reasonable guideline; disk space is cheap and it is useful content. Bryce 06:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep looks noteable, could use a rewrite as well as double checking sources. Davidpdx 12:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. My eyes generally glaze over when it comes to all this game stuff on Wikipedia. However, this is anything but a promotional corporate puff article as the game in question is a pirated one. There are, in my opinion, articles on top selling video games that are of less use and notability than this one. Shawn in Montreal 02:24, 28 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) 2006-12-28 10:41Z

[edit] William Frank Decker

William Frank Decker (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Doesn't seem all that notable. It appears that Decker wasn't a major party candidate and was just a minor candidate. Metros232 04:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:BIO. Tarret 04:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - autobiography of a non-notable person. MER-C 05:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, while humming my favourite Carly Simon song. SkierRMH 10:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete lacks adequate sourcing to pass WP:BIO.-- danntm ^T _C 22:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Do Not Delete I was one of 6 candidates for the Democratic Party Nomination, got 28,000 votes. This was the first time out into politics for the gay community in Oklahoma. I had the support of the Oklahoma Gay and Lesbian Caucus http://www.oglpc.com/ Feel free to check with their Chairman Paul Thompson. Also, check with the Chairman of the Oklahoma Decmocratic Party Lisa Pryor: http://www.okdemocrats.org/ Thanx! Will

• Delete non-noteable. I'm gonna have to give SkierRMH a pat on the head for the vain remark. Davidpdx 12:46, 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) 2006-12-28 10:43Z

[edit] The Tailor of Death

The Tailor of Death (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

(unfinished nomination) by 69.29.129.154

del nonencyclopedic; about an unknown person who is even unknown to exist. `'mikkanarxi 04:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Source or delete. MER-C 05:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Found one hit (an article about this anti-terror investigation in the UK newspaper, the Express on Sunday) on Factiva news database and that's it. Concerned I couldn't seem to get any hits on the website archives for two of Israel's leading newspapers - the Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post. No hits on Google Books/Amazon. Insufficient evidence for an article so far. And looking at the scanty general googlehits[7] which are almost all wikimirrors/spam sites, this content doesn't even seem to have been discussed much at all in the blogosphere Bwithh 06:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Jack the Ripper he ain't. Danny Lilithborne 06:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non notable unencyclopedic and checking who created it shows a now banned user.--John Lake 07:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as nn, WP:V and passes the fails everything test. SkierRMH 11:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced per MER-C, or unless he makes me a nice silver on black brocaded waistcoat. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Bwithh. -SpuriousQ 03:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, fails WP:V. Davidpdx 12:47, 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 No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 10:45Z

[edit] National Democrats (UK)

National Democrats (UK) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Tiny fringe political party with no national notability. Fielded less than the 50 candidates required to receive a national party political broadcast in the 1997 General Election, therefore their political activities must be classed as local rather than national and thus failing notability requirements for organisations as I cannot find any reliable third party sources to verify the article. It should also be noted that of the 10,829 votes they won in the 1997 election, 4,181 of these were for West Bromwich West which was the constituency of the Speaker and not contested by the major opposition parties. Political activity since then seems to have been minimal.

Would also support a merge with Ian Anderson (politician) as an alternative to deletion. One Night In Hackney 04:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ian Anderson (politician) nominated for deletion, failed candidates don't generally pass WP:BIO. Deizio talk 15:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. If their existence is verified and they have participated in elections in UK, then there is the possibility that the article could contain useful information. Djcartwright 05:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If the party exists at all and has fielded any candidates, it is a legitimate subject of enquiry. DaveApter 11:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Even though it is not an important party the article adds something to understanding of British extreme-right politics. Barnabypage 14:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, the entire organisation has precisely 2 members and contested a few seats in one election with negligible success. Allowing this to remain is basically allowing them to buy a Wikipedia page, in the same way they bought their candidacy. Not enough to give them a platform on WP. Deizio talk 15:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - verifiable, won over 10,000 votes in 1997. The fact that it has only two members now is irrelevant -- Wikipedia has lots of articles about both major and minor parties that no longer exist at all. Wikipedia would not be improved by deleting this information. Wikipedia also has articles about local parties, such as Independent Kidderminster Health Concern or whatever they're called, that would not meet your "national" criterion. Ground Zero | t 16:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment As documented above, the 10,000 votes is realistically 6,000 due to West Bromwich West. Citing other examples of articles that may not meet Wikipedia guidelines on organisations [8] does not address the failings of this article. If the article is verifiable, please introduce reliable third party sources. One Night In Hackney 16:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• (EC) I believe the Kidderminster group hold a seat in the UK Parliament, and have been the subject of many non-trivial media reports in reliable published sources. Winning an arbitrary amount of votes, which constitute a tiny fraction of votes cast, with almost half coming in a constituency uncontested by the major parties does not equal notability. If the Sunday Times report could be verified, and other information also sourced this would be a far more acceptable article. Deizio talk 16:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep They exist and can be in no way described as a 'local'!! Their influnece within the extreme-right and neo-Nazi fringes of UK politics is well-demonstrated in the article and their members have overlapped with other, perhaps better-known parties. The returns to the Electoral Commission said two members, but remember that such reports are very new and have caused some upset to fringe groups - I would not place much reliance on this. In any case, whatever the strength of the party now, it has recent historical significance and the article succeeds in demonstarting this and shows the links between organsations and individuals. Emeraude 18:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'll use the text from the Wikipedia guidelines for Notability for organisations [9] to expand upon my points:

Criteria for organizations

1. Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source.
   • Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to :warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable and verifiable sources. However, chapter information is welcome for inclusion into wikipedia in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included.
2. Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable third party sources can be found.

Assertion of notability

Notability can be asserted for organizations through:

1. Inclusion in third party published materials.
2. A significant amount of media coverage that is not trivial in nature and that deals specifically with the organization as the primary subject:
   • For example, in 2004 and 2005, UC Berkeley enforced a moratorium on alcohol for fraternities and sororities. The moratorium became a much covered topic in the media outlets in the San Francisco Bay Area. While this asserts notability for the moratorium and the Greek system at Berkeley and possibly justifies an article either on the moratorium or the Greek system in general, it does not assert notability for an individual chapter of a fraternity or sorority on campus.

The following cannot be used to assert notability:

1. Internal documents cannot be used as an assertion of notability. However, they can be used as source material for an article.
   • Internal documents can include, reports, newsletters, press releases, magazines and websites published by the organization itself.
2. Student-run newspapers.

The scope of activies are not national or international in scale. No national campaigning for the National Democrats happened in the 1997 General Election, only local compaigning for the small number of candidates they fielded. Had they fielded 50 candidates and qualified for a party political broadcast, I would happily concede that they campaigned at a national level and were therefore notable. However this did not happen, and therefore according to guidelines the organisation is not notable unless verifiable information from reliable third party sources can be found. One Night In Hackney 19:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• deleate per norm i relly see no reason why to keep this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oo7565 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

• Keep. Alter the article to reflect the fact that the group has now dwindled to insignificance but the group is part of the history of the British far right. Whiteabbey 02:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I may be a bit biased due to my strong focus on politics, but I believe that any political party that is fielding more than one or two candidates and wins some votes should be considered notable. Now, whether Wikipedia guidelines here are clear enough to say that this is definitely non-notable, I don't really believe so though I won't be upset if that is the conclusion of this afd. --The Way 07:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, All parties, even those who do not win seats in parliaments but have enough following to influence others should be included. The National Democrats have enough following to make the mainstream right jump on their bandwagon. Alf photoman 14:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if the reasoning is to keep parties who have some kind of influence - this lot have none. They are not one of the prominent English nationalist parties that have distracted the Tories into losing the last couple of elections, they are less covered than the Official Monster Raving Loony Party and have slightly less chance of forming a Government. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep My opinon is that it is noteable. The article needs to be cleaned up and sourced better for sure. Davidpdx 12:50, 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 Merge to List of star trek characters#Star Trek: The Original Series. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 10:47Z

[edit] Vincent DeSalle

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

Minor Star Trek character. Already on Memory Alpha. Crufty. Contested prod. MER-C 05:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont know that much about this site yet. Why is my article being deleted? He was in two Star Trek episodes and also on Star Trek New Voyages. In a couple of books too that I've read. -Pahuskahey 05:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. See WP:FICT for our guidelines on the notability of fictional characters. Two minor appearances in TOS is not enough material for a full article. The material in New Voyages is not canon and of lesser importance. --Dhartung | Talk 08:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and add to the appropriate List of Star Trek characters articles per WP:FICT. Otto4711 07:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Otto4711. --Dhartung | Talk 08:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Beam over to appropriate list of Trek characters. Nn as it stands per WP:FICT. SkierRMH 11:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to List of star trek characters#Star Trek: The Original Series which needs a section on recurring characters. Eluchil404 08:07, 28 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. I don't see any elaboration on the copyvio claim, but if it is, please tag the article with {{copyvio}}. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 10:51Z

[edit] Gary A. Olson

Gary A. Olson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Written entirely by one editor who worked on no other pages. Probably vanity, questionable notability. Djcartwright 05:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - easily passes WP:PROF. Otto4711 07:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Otto4711 and re: "written by one editor who worked on no other pages", while I realize that such a thing CAN imply a sockpuppet or a vanity piece, it's not an a priori given without looking at the specific edits made. Assume good faith and Please do not bite the newcomers seem to apply here lacking any other information. -Markeer 13:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Apologies, if I am botching any WP conventions; this is my first WP entry. I was researching Stanley Fish and wanted to connect that entry with a closely related figure. So, this is not a vanity piece in that the subject did not post it. I hope/think I followed the WP guidelines per neutrality, verifiability, etc. If not, I would be happy to make changes. Twtaylor 16:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It appears that the individual is rather notable though the article needs to be heavily wikified and cited in a more proper manner. --The Way 07:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if Wikified, new editors tend to forget that they are not writing an essay Alf photoman 14:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete on basis that it is clearly a WP:COPYVIO Fabhcún 20:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Question How is this clearly a copywrite violation? --The Way 21:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• keep and clean up, if there is a copywrite violation as Fabhcun says there is, then that should be taken care of ASAP. Davidpdx 12:57, 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 Redirect to Plame affair. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 10:54Z

[edit] Fitzmas

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}}

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

Yet another silly political neologism, just like santorum. Folks, could you please, please, please keep your politics out of the encyclopedia? VoiceOfReason 06:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Link to original debate. As with any political topic, a fierce target for advertisement and puppetry, as undoubtedly will be this nomination. VoiceOfReason 06:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Looking at the previous AFD, I've preemptively placed {{afdanons}} on this debate. MER-C 06:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - political neologism. MER-C 06:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete ridiculous blogism. Danny Lilithborne 06:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, blog-based neologism. Having been mentioned in a small number of news articles is not sufficient to establish this as a widely used term. Andrew Levine 09:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect Plame affair. No indication that this phrase was anything other than a short-term fad. Demiurge 10:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as has-been neologism, most ghits appear in blogospheres, nn outside of their discussions. SkierRMH 11:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DaveApter 11:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per MER-C MartinDK 15:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable neologism.--RWR8189 22:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Ho Ho Ho, i mean Delete as lacking sources to pass WP:NEO.-- danntm ^T _C 23:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. This isn't even a neologism, it looks more like something made up in school (or something) one day. --Dennisthe2 00:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment In fairness to the article's creator (and those who support it being kept), the term is more than a WP:NFT; it is in fact widely used in the conservative blogosphere to describe the anticipation in the liberal blogosphere for the outcome of Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation. That doesn't, IMHO, make it worthy of an article in the encyclopedia. VoiceOfReason 06:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm actually fairly certain it originated in the liberal blogosphere, if not in the opinion pages first. The conservative side enjoyed using it after it fizzled. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete but I support transferring some of the material in this article to the Plame affair article. - 12ptHelvetica 03:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, extremely widely used term to describe something that never happened. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Widely used term for expectation of numerous indictments by prosecutor Fitzgerald's Plame Grand Jury. 219,000 Google hits. Edison 00:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Montco 03:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete political neologism, NN. Davidpdx 13:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NN Neologism. - F.A.A.F.A. 06:27, 28 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 Eluchil404 08:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doris Brougham

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

Speedy deletion for WP:CSD A7—no assertion of notability—was overturned at deletion review and is now here for consideration. Procedural listing (the first in a series of two), so I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 06:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Moderate notability, but verifiable. Wikipedia needs more non USA biographies. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems plenty notable to me, a household name in Taiwan according to two of the reliable sources listed. Jokestress 06:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Clearly notable. See the references I just added to article and to the article talk page. I did not think this person seemed notable until I started researching this today. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Not just notable but a fascinating, larger-than-life character as I learned while digging up references to put on the article talk page today. Definitely one-of-a-kind. If you have a minute or two, read this Taipei Times feature on her 50 years on Taiwan. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable and verifiable, wonder why it was speedied in the first place Alf photoman 14:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems noteable and verifiable. I'd like to see someone spend some time cleaning up the article however. Davidpdx 13:04, 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 Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 10:55Z

[edit] Srully Blotnick

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

Speedy deletion for WP:CSD A7—no assertion of notability—was overturned at deletion review and is now here for consideration. Procedural listing (the second in a series of two), so I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 06:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Sufficient notability and verifiability for me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. See talk page for additional reliable sources not currently in the references on the main article. Jokestress 06:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability established by works being listed at Library of Congress. Eddie.willers 13:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Open and shut notability given our . See Talk:Srully Blotnick for 10 NY Times articles, including some articles about Blotnick and reviews of his books. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Now that the article has been restored and history can be reviewed, it becomes harder and harder to assume that the CSD was created in good faith. The article as deleted met standards for notability and as it stands it goes above and beyond the minimum standards for inclusion. Alansohn 23:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, what did they mean by WP:CSD A7 ? Sometimes I wonder if there should not be a safeguard against Speedy deletions Alf photoman 14:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems noteable and has good verifiable sources. It could use some expanding to fill in the missing gaps. Davidpdx 13:06, 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 Merge to American Meteorological Society. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 10:56Z

[edit] The Glossary of Meteorology

The Glossary of Meteorology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Delete - article does not assert notability, indeed, notes that the publication is of little importance. If not deleted then merge to American Meteorological Society. Otto4711 06:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to American Meteorological Society. Many organizations have publications, but not many of those have independent notability. --Dhartung | Talk 08:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Somebody altered the original article by adding language that diminished the importance of both editions of the Glossary. Actually, the article was vandalized in my opinion. The original Glossary was well used by scientists for more than forty years before a second edition was deemed required. The first edition was a major addition to science. This article should be restored to the original state and them improved, but the comments that the Glossary became quickly out of date and as such is/was useless was and is not only inaccurate but absurd. Please consider this quote from the AMS:'

"Forty-one years ago, the AMS published the Glossary of Meteorology. Containing 7900 terms, more than 10,000 copies have been sold over four decades through five printings. It is a tribute to the editors of the first edition that it has withstood the test of time and continued to be among the leading reference sources in meteorology and related sciences. This is the electronic version of the second edition of the Glossary with more than 12,000 terms. Along with the print version it should be the authoritative source for definitions of meteorological terms for many years to come."

The editing of the original article is unsupported by any evidence and is a rather silly and ill informed claim that attacks the value of this important book.

• 10,000 copies sold over 40 years? That's, what, 250 copies a year? Not too impressive. Otto4711 05:20, 28 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) 2006-12-28 12:01Z

[edit] Ralph E. Huschke

Ralph E. Huschke (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Delete - does not appear to be notable for anything other than having edited The Glossary of Meteorology, which itself appears to be a non-notable publication. Otto4711 06:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as editor of non-notable publication. --Dhartung | Talk 08:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I have already added notes regarding the Glossary itself, which is/was clearly a very important scientific publication as it stayed in print and was well used for more than forty years.

• Delete NN, fails WP:V. Davidpdx 13:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - No reference. Tonytypoon 20:14, 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) 2006-12-28 13:22Z

[edit] Martin Hospodarz

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

Non-notable person, reads like part of a geneology, nothing herein gives any claim to historical notariety, except being part of xxx family. SkierRMH 06:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:V, zero non-wiki ghits. MER-C 08:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • ghits are not the best criterion for such persons. Pavel Vozenilek 18:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and MER-C. Possible speedy under A7. --Dhartung | Talk 08:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Appears to fail WP:Bio, only potential item that attempts notibility is legacy section where decendents married into nobility, but this person himself isn't notable himself unfortunately. Marcsin 03:30, 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) 2006-12-28 13:25Z

[edit] Sons of Lioth

Sons of Lioth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC. Google returns 66 unique hits for the band name, mostly MySpace, blogs and message boards. Unsigned. No entry on AllMusic. Article states their only release is a 5-track independent demo CD. ~Matticus ^T_C 13:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Marked for quick deletion only a few minutes after I posted the first version. Allow me some time to add more information.

Links to the publication in Mindview (monthly paper-magazine distributed in Belgium and The Netherlands). Please put deletion on hold while I gather more info.

Asplitsecond 13:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD is not the same as speedy deletion. There is a seven day period of discussion, and if during that time the article is edited to address the concerns of the AfD rationale (in this case, proof is added that the band meets WP:MUSIC requirements), then there is a case for keeping. ~Matticus ^T_C 14:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:BAND. Author posted separate articles for each member of the band (all now speedied). NawlinWiki 14:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

True, error on my part, should have read more in advance, can I delete them directly? Asplitsecond 16:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I take Asplitsecond's last edit above to mean that this may be speedyable by author request as an article "for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author and was mistakenly created".Apslitsecond, could you confirm that either here or by placing {{db-g7}} on the article? Tonywalton  | Talk 17:34, 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 Redirect to Damon Hill. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 13:51Z

[edit] P1 International

P1 International (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability. This does not transfer from notability of founder. Akihabara 13:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Damon Hill (nothing to merge, as it's already mentioned there). Demiurge 10:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Appears to pass Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) criteria for clubs 1. Found several news articles from different outlets via 5590 g-hits. Marcsin 03:43, 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) 2006-12-28 13:53Z

[edit] Jacob Lyons

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

Although the article does make an assertion of notability and includes a reference, it does not appear that this breakdancer is widely known- main substantiated claim to fame is appearing in the Run DMC video. In my opinion fails WP:N - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 14:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, possibly speedy. Article is a newspaper or magazine article, and as such fails WP:NOT. It is also a copyvio: blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=264900&blogID=78958791&MyToken=6ce0ccbb-78cf-48d4-af28-d8c81f3ba304 Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 14:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • !Vote struck. WP:NOT and G12 no longer apply after the revision. I'll reread the article asap to assess the notability of the subject. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 22:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete G12 and tagged as such. MartinDK 16:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak keep - Copyright violation has been removed. If he is, as is asserted, a regular judge of competitions, he may qualify as notable on that basis. Move that the article be given thirty days to establish notability, and then revisit the discussion if necessary. Badbilltucker 18:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As pointed out by the nominator on the talk page of the article the remaining text is still copyvio. The original author was quite clearly warned in bold text like all other editors that copying from other websites will cause the text to be deleted without further notice. Hence the speedy tag stays. MartinDK 18:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral I personally don't have a clue whether this guy qualifies as notable or not. I only just found this article on the first day I was doing Dance assessments. The text of the article has been reworded so it isn't a copyright violation any more, I think. I don't really understand copyright that well, though. If someone can produce evidence that he does qualify as notable, they will probably do so. I have mentioned this discussion on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dance. Maybe someone there will know if he qualifies as notable or not. If he doesn't, I would clearly have no objections to the deletion. Badbilltucker 19:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • With the revised text I can't see any clear copyright violation. I have removed the g12 tag as a reviewing admin. Syrthiss 21:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment He basically took the original text and twisted the words around a little bit. That may or may not be copyvio but it is a creative way of trying to avoid deletion due to copyvio. Does this mean that we can copy freely from websites as long as we move the words around a little bit? I seriously doubt that's how anyone else defines copyvio including the law. He did not write the text himself. If he did he should show his sources and we already established long ago that Myspace is not a reliable source of information. MartinDK 09:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete after rereading the article. Lyons has worked in notable videos and with notable people, but it does not become clear how that makes him notable, what his role in this was. He seems to have been little more than (with all due respect) an extra. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 18:56, 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) 2006-12-28 13:54Z

[edit] Troop 729

Troop 729 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

vanity, the Scouting WikiProject does not support troop articles save for those of historcal significance, like the first troop in a country-this does not meet. Chris 08:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

For reference, also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troop 26 and ‎Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troop 34.

• Looks like a speedy delete to me, then. --Quuxplusone 09:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - unremarkable group. So tagged. MER-C 09:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Speedy declined, they assert notability as "the only Jewish sponsored troop in North Texas". Sandstein 12:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Of the tens of thousands of troops in the US, even the oldest in each state don't have articles, so that's no more notable than if they were sponsored by the Episcopalians of Pago Pago. Probably a sturdy troop, but wouldn't even merit inclusion in a larger umbrella article. Chris 12:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as a scout troup that shows no claim to notability or long term fame beyond being a scout troop. -- saberwyn 23:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. Individual scout troops are inherently non-notable. --Metropolitan90 23:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• I have to agree, a db-group is fine per Metropolitan90. Speedy Delete per A7. --Dennisthe2 00:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. They asserted notability, discussion is deeming them non-notable. If something like a controversy around their sponsorship was an issue then there might be the basis for an article around this troop. skrshawk 00:38, 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 Keep. Tyrenius 00:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gregoria de Jesus

Gregoria de Jesus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

I cannot see how this person is notable enough for an wikipedia entry. Chris 73 | Talk 08:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Keep latest rewrite -- Chris 73 | Talk 17:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I think she is noteworthy because she served as the caretaker in the Katipunan. She also became sort of the mother of the children who are caught in the crossfire between the Filipino revolutionaries and the Spaniards.D2B 09:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, or else delete and re-create better. The Andrés Bonifacio article describes Gregoria de Jesús as "a rebel leader in her own right", even though the article in question doesn't mention anything about that. So she might be notable, but the current article provides no evidence of notability. --Quuxplusone 09:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Subject seems notable. Her notability is established by her autobiography, which I found in the Filipinas Heritage Library. Also, she was featured in Tales of Courage & Compassion, Stories of Women in the Philippine Revolution, a book by Lilia Santiago. I suggest that the editor use these sources (and others; I'm sure there are many) for citation and to further improve and expand the article. ← ANAS ^Talk? 10:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  06:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if no sources are quoted by end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Cited now. ← ANAS ^Talk? 15:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep try reading the article, leadership role in an independence movement is notability. stop wasting time with nominations like this, there are tags {{cleanup}} & {{references}} for the article's problems. could nominator also please read WP:CSB  ⇒ bsnowball  15:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • According to the article she is the vice-president and the keeper of records and the seal of the Katipunan, with no indication of the significance of the Katipunan. From the article there is no indication of her significance. It seems the group is significant, and the vice president may be significant, too. I have no problems with keeping the article. Nevertheless, would the above voter also please do some WP:NPP sometimes to see what kind of garbage is coming in any minute, and how we have to check the accuracy and notability in a short time using incomplete information? -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • the article had been there for 5 days! to spell it out: tag potentially useful articles as unsourced, and in need of cleanup if you can't be bothered checking them yourself. that you (& other npp folks) "don't have the time" is because of your/their apparent need to immediately afd anything outside of your/their personal experience, this is no exageration, it is effectively what you/they are doing.  ⇒ bsnowball  15:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Where did that 5 days come from? I put up the AfD right after the article was created, since at that time i doubted the noteworthiness of the topic. This is proper procedure. You don't have to like it, but deal with it. WP:NPP is definitely needed, and no matter how hard we try there will always be some articles that survive AfD or may even get undeleted after a speedy. And, before you get too pissed off, please try to remember that we are both trying to improve Wikipedia. Have a look at the article now. I think it is much better than it was before. -- Chris 73 | Talk 17:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Come to think of it, is this a copyvio from here? -- Chris 73 | Talk 10:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll try to rewrite this article. The editor doesn't seem interested. ← ANAS ^Talk? 11:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment (rewrite) I have completely rewritten and overhauled the article with expanded information, cited from reliable sources. It actually turned out to be an interesting subject. Anyways, I think that should do it. ;-) ← ANAS ^Talk? 15:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Cool! Many thanks for your work. I changed my vote to keep (above). -- Chris 73 | Talk 17:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • No problem. :-) ← ANAS ^Talk? 17:55, 28 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) 2006-12-28 13:56Z

[edit] List of game magazines

List of game magazines (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This page is a duplicate, in list form, of Category:Games magazines. However, it is much much less comprehensive than that category, and seems to list magazines without trying to categorize them in any way (D&D next to poker next to video games). This is a niche enough category that the existing Category page should cover it just fine. Delete. --Quuxplusone 08:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• At this point, appropriate coverage is provided by Category:Games magazines and its subcategories. If kept, the list should be expanded, formatted as a table showing publisher, area of distribution, and similar stats to provide comparison. Sub-lists for the various game types would also be an idea. However, at this point in time, I personally say delete. -- saberwyn 10:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• But List of game magazines lists the dates and topics of many of the magazines, which Category:Games magazines does not. I have put it into table format. Anthony Appleyard 11:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but rework . The list itself is certainly capable of presenting information in a better form, and I don't see that it should be deleted merely because it's a work in progress. For example, it could be made more like the section here List of United States magazines#Hobby and Interest magazines. Since there's no question about the category being a problem, I see no reason to delete this list. I'd rather see it improved. FrozenPurpleCube 17:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, taking a quick look at the category, and its sub-cats, I see that it's incomplete too, very much so. FrozenPurpleCube 17:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• After Anthony Appleyard's reworking, I agree that the dates of publication make the list useful. So I guess I'll retract my nomination and say keep, but rework. (For example, the list should still be sorted by topic, not by name; and it should be at List of games magazines for consistency.) --Quuxplusone 01:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This list should be categorized in regions instead of dates( and keep the date column). This is because magazines are written in different languages and sold by different Currencies. Tonytypoon 16:29, 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) 2006-12-28 13:58Z

[edit] We fight them over there

We fight them over there (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Stub about the intepretation of a Bush quote. Unsourced original research. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 09:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT Wikiquote. Demiurge 10:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not Wikiquote. If we include this kind of thing there is an endless list of simular quotes that could be included... which I believe is exactly why we have Wikiquote to begin with. MartinDK 12:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:POINT. Commentary about arguments pro- and con- the Iraq War are sufficiently covered in many articles. e.g. American government position on invasion of Iraq. This seems a very unnecessary POV fork -Markeer 13:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain. I don't feel familiar enough with the general state of Bush or Iraq War WP articles to know if this article might be a useful addition, although I am skeptical it will be made so during the span of an AfD. Even so, I basically pushed Anetode into a nomination in case I am wrong. (I hope folks don't consider this a waste of effort.) Please note that en:Wikiquote welcomes quotes and their sources, but not the lengthy discussions and debates often surrounding them. The material transwikied from this article to q:George W. Bush has been trimmed to the quote and a neutral context statement. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete We're not Wikiquote and, though we likely all know this phrase, the lack of sources on the (small) interpretation of the quote isn't good. --The Way 07:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not every sentence uttered by a President needs a Wikipedia article. Edison 00:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Edison - if there's a page of presidential quotes or something, stick it there. Quack 688 07:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I tend to agree with Demiurge WP:NOT a place to Wikiquote. Davidpdx 13:13, 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) 2006-12-28 13:59Z

[edit] Shadley

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

Soapy, crufty and unsourced original research. Contested prod. MER-C 09:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete (and possibly redirect to The Young and the Restless if it's shown to be a widely-used term rather than something made up while watching TV one day). Demiurge 10:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Appears to be Neologism (WP:NEO) and original research. Marcsin 03:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree this is original researchand fails WP:V. Davidpdx 13:15, 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 In Absurdistan, article keeps you!. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 14:04Z

[edit] Absurdistan

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

Non-notable nickname for Turkmenistan. I don't deny that some people might refer to Turkmenistan as "Absurdistan", but the nickname certainly isn't important enough for its own article. At best it should be referred to in passing in the main Turkmenistan article. —Psychonaut 09:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• merge as suggested or merge into article about late dictator. Also listed as another connotation at -stan. Chris 09:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and rewrite, 3,300,000 Google hits. The name is used not only for Turkmenistan but also for all other absurdly ruled countries. They started to use it for the Czechoslovakia in 1980s, and since then, it was applied for other countries. See the German Wikipedia ([10]), it is well sourced there.--Ioannes Pragensis 09:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you may be misunderstanding how deletion works. We are discussing whether to delete the article in its current form, not in some hypothetical future form. Unless you (or someone else) rewrite the article into something useful which establishes the term's notability, and do so before the deletion debate is over, the article should not be kept. However, a deletion of the article in its current form will not prejudice the creation of a properly-sourced one of the same name at some point in the future. —Psychonaut 10:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I think that you misunderstand it. WP:DEL says: if "Article needs improvement" then the solution is "List on Wikipedia:Cleanup. See also Wikipedia:Pages needing attention" and not delete. AfD is more about the notability of the subject of the article and not about the current poor quality of the article. - Moreover before AfD you should have checked the history and you would probably at worst reverted it to redirect to Absurdistan (film).--Ioannes Pragensis 11:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable dicdef/WP:NEO Danny Lilithborne 11:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Bingo. A nn neologism with 3,300,000 google hits and a movie titled Absurdistan? --Ioannes Pragensis 11:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep an article about the book, which has wide coverage (I changed the article to reflect this), but the neologism we can do without. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• I tried to translate quickly from the German article to prove that the term is much more important than you think. Hope it is enough even in this Wikipedia Absurdistan.--Ioannes Pragensis 13:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Switching to delete as the editors on the article seem determined to cover the neologism (WP:NOT) instead of the arguably-notable book. Guy (Help!) 18:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Guy, just for your information, the page WP:NOT does not containt the word "neologism" :-) - the problem of neologisms in Wikipedia is covered by WP:NEO, but this guideline defines them as "words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities"; this word is used at least since 1980s, so it is not a neologism according to the definition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ioannes Pragensis (talk • contribs) 20:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

• Keep - Widely used socially critical term that has even appeared in mainstream media for more than 15 years. As notable as Cockaigne. Original deletion request no longer relevant or valid because article no longer as originally and erroneously claims this is only used as a nickname for one country. --Espoo 17:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• As notable as Cockaigne? Really? So which household name composer has written an overture called Absurdistan? Because that's pretty much the only current common usage of Cockaigne of which I'm aware. Guy (Help!) 18:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• You're confusing several things here. If you're trying to say that Cockaigne is not notable because it is not in current common usage, you haven't understood that encyclopedias also include information on older notable cultural concepts. Use of the term Cockaigne in the Brothers Grimm fairy tale and perhaps two other equally notable works of art would be sufficient reason for a separate article. In addition, you don't understand that Cockaigne is very commonly used in other languages today, so it is commonly used in English translations of these modern and older works. In addition, you're ignoring all the other points raised by myself and others concerning Absurdistan and trying to derail the discussion by only talking about my simile. Are you seriously claiming that a term regularly used even in mainstream media shouldn't have an article in WP? If Absurdistan weren't used in mainstream media and even if it didn't occur in literary magazines, WP would need an article since it already occurred in several works of art ranging from at least one novel and at least one film even to a Mickey Mouse comic book. If you think WP's coverage of cultural phenomena and concepts should be less inclusive than Disney comics, then my last hope is to make you see the fact that Absurdistan is at least as notable as banana republic and not a synonym. --Espoo 22:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Latest rewrite provided several reputable citations and shows the term has been in use for quite some time. --Dgies 17:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Article no longer only about Turkmenistan - word is a sociocultural meme in its own right. Hell- I think that for most of its 20th Century history, you could have called Mexico an Adburdistan. - Eric 17:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I must apologize, as I clearly did not know what this term was and assumed based on the context I saw it in that it only pertanied to Turkmenistan. The current version is excellent. KazakhPol 01:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but re-write, the term is used frequently to describe absurd consequences of faulty legislation Alf photoman 14:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. 1ne 19:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. - Kittybrewster 08:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - a succinct explanation of a cultural description. Peter Ellis 20:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.114.242.136 (talk • contribs)
• Keep as it is an interesting and culturally relevant term. Bonus Onus 07:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment from a Czech: the term is alive and kicking here. Pavel Vozenilek 18:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. An interesting read. Owen 21:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, more a cultural phenomenon than a nickname. —Nightstallion (?) 22:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It appears that this word has strong and notable use in Europe, and it is an important goal of WP to become less US-centric. Also, the term was used in American English in the NYT and The Nation over 15 years ago, so it's no longer a brand-new neologism in the US, either. Wittyname 00:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Hardly an ephemeral term/concept, as the multiple usages listed demonstrate. Deletion requester and supporters seem to be labouring under various misapprehensions. Larry 1624 04:45, 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 Redirect to 2006 Winter Olympics. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 14:06Z

[edit] Gliz

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

The page is tiny, is unlikely to ever become bigger and should be added into 2006 Winter Olympics. Also if you look on that page I just mentioned then the first image shows two mascots not only one. Flutefluteflute ^{Talk Contributions} 09:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge. Anthony Appleyard 11:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the caption for the image on the 2006 Winter Olympics provides the same amount of information as this stub. If someone feels inclined to make a history (like why and how Gliz was chosen) then it could be a section on the 2006 Winter Olympics article. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 11:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect - nothing worth merging. MER-C 13:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect - information is already in the main article. DavyJonesLocker 19:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect - it's just turned up on UK TV's Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, there's no question as to notability but there's no need for this whole page for a couple of lines. Edit conflicted trying to save so I'm not the only person using Wikipedia for finding questions for WMTBAM --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 19:56, 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 No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 14:11Z

[edit] Allahpundit

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

Can anyone find any reliable sources in this article? It looks to be a blogger cited by other bloggers, "notable" for blogging a defunct blog. Guy (Help!) 10:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as non-notable/non-verifiable; all the references seem to be blogs, and blogs about blogs, and blogs about blogs about blogs, and so on to infinity. Demiurge 10:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There was a previous AfD, in which it was kept on the basis of Google hits (disregarding the Google bias), WP:ILIKEIT, and being widely referenced by other blogs. Demiurge 10:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• How much is Allahpundit (alias whatever) known of among Muslims, and among people in general?, and how much has he spread information or influenced public opinion and/or awareness?, before anyone says "notable or not". Anthony Appleyard 10:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Source or delete. MER-C 13:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, As stated, there was already an AfD, though it was not kept on the basis of Google hits or WP:ILIKEIT. It was kept because, during the AfD, Allahpundit subbed for Michelle Malkin, eventually becoming the primary blogger on Hot Air [11], Malkin's "conservative Internet broadcast network." This is detailed in the article. The website's Alexa ranking is about tied with Instapundit's [12][13]. This is the third time the article has been slapped with an AfD by some enterprising user, and frankly I'm sick of how any Internet opinion source (right or left) is automatically assumed to be nonnotable, and any citations on notable blogs, Alexa rankings, significant involvement in political reporting, etc., are waved away as not being/having "reliable sources," yet "personalities" like Kibo are justified because Wired Magazine wrote a story 13 years ago. This article is sourced and this subject is notable. And, as stated in Wikipedia:Deletion_policy:

If and when you do renominate, be careful to say why you think the reasons proffered for keeping the article are poor, and why you think the article must be deleted.

which Guy does not provide. Calbaer 20:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as a notable blogger - such a thing does exist. Human Events often references him, which gives him quite a bit of cache amongst a section of the political community. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep b/c he's notable and we've already hashed all of this out once before.--Alabamaboy 17:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete While the person does seem somewhat noteable, the article is poorly sourced and fails WP:V. Davidpdx 13:20, 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) 2006-12-28 14:13Z

[edit] Ghosts (band)

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

Oh, where to start. Fails WP:NOT - The group's debut album has not been released, so fails the crystal ball test. Fails WP:BAND - The group has not released any records under a major label yet (but may release its debut in 2007). Violates WP:COI - The article was created by the band's new label User:Atlanticrecordsuk. Bobblehead 10:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Quite clearly non-notable. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 10:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Fails WP:BAND. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 10:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Barely any notability even asserted, much less found. -- Kicking222 13:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. MER-C 13:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom and the above. Eddie.willers 13:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BAND, probable conflict of interest. If "their harmony-drenched guitar-pop anthems will be impossible to avoid", then they should have a page...after they become notable. —ShadowHalo 02:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:NOT doesn't apply, WP:COI is not a reason for deletion. WP:MUSIC/WP:BAND? Well, they have a national tour of England scheduled in a few weeks. Their song "stay the night" was played on Gary Crawley's show on the BBC. They are signed to Atlantic Records, too. I think they barely meet the WP:MUSIC standard, and if they don't today, 24 Dec, they will soon and this will likely be recreated, so what's the point? --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment That this article is about a non-notable band is fairly clear. That their notability may or even probably will change is not a reason to keep it for now. The point is that what if they fail to become notable? Saving the time of recreating an article is not a good reason that we, as editors, should assume future notability. Charlie 07:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
    • See, I'm not convinced that they're a non-notable band now. If they definitely miss WP:MUSIC, then there's a problem with that guideline. Non-notable bands simply don't get major label record deals, and having a hard-to-Google name isn't helping. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Because they are not yet notable: WP:MUSIC certainly applies. The author pretty much admits as much, right in the article: "You might not be familiar with them yet, but trust us - in 2007 their harmony-drenched guitar-pop anthems will be impossible to avoid." Charlie 06:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

--While their entry is written from what looks like a biased perspective, they are the download of the week on itunes; what weight that gives them as a notable band is debateable, but still, something to keep in mind.

• Delete Non-noteable band. Davidpdx 13:23, 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) 2006-12-28 14:16Z

[edit] Clannada na Gadelica

Clannada na Gadelica (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Not notable, few or no references to this group besides its own website —Ashley Y 10:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unverifiable/non-notable, there are plenty of external references but they all seem to refer to background information about history/culture/mythology, rather than the group itself. For example, the group claims to have been founded in 1993/1994, yet the reference given for this was published in 1960. Demiurge 10:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if importance can be explained-I don't even know what it really is, but it is well written, documented, not a stub and not written by some vandal. Let's see what happens. Chris 11:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment there has been a request for external sources on the talk page for the past three weeks yet none have been added, and nobody has responded to the comment. I don't think it's likely they'll turn up in the next 5 days. Demiurge 11:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as it simply is not notable in the slightest. If anything its a combination of original research/vanity page on a tiny little group which has been posted up by that group. siarach 12:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 13:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless sources to establish notability are shown before the end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-noteable. Davidpdx 13:25, 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) 2006-12-28 14:18Z

[edit] Predator (TV Program)

Predator (TV Program) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

There is no such television show as 'Predator.' This stub refers to the Dateline segment 'To Catch a Predator' hosted by Chris Hansen. This stub also misspells the name of reporter Hansen. K-lit 11:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• weak redirect. --Aleph-4 12:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above - unlikely search term. Borderline speedy. MER-C 13:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for being wrongly directed, hopelessly stubby and flat-out, chock-full-a-misinformation. Eddie.willers 13:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this is redundant at best.-- danntm ^T _C 01:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete term is used in the wrong context in terms of the name of the program. . Davidpdx 13:27, 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) 2006-12-28 14:18Z

[edit] Solaris (Aberdeen Rock Band)

Solaris (Aberdeen Rock Band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Non-notable band that didn't release any records on a major label. Basically a local band that failed to make it big. Bobblehead 11:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no sign of meeting WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 12:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per Punkmorten. Eddie.willers 13:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 13:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BAND. —ShadowHalo 02:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BAND. Davidpdx 13:28, 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) 2006-12-28 14:19Z

[edit] Sharday

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

A person who appears in a couple of specialist magazines. No sources, no evidence of notability. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Yet more bustyness. Anthony Appleyard 12:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - if "SCORE Magazine claims that she has retired for good" then what reason is there for an article? Eddie.willers 13:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, so by your reasoning, should Norman Schwarzkopf's article be removed since he's retired from his notable position? Dismas|^(talk) 14:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, fails WP:BIO. MER-C 13:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, fails WP:BIO. I wonder if she has to check those when she gets on an airplane? Davidpdx 13:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete... no clear argument made by the article to keep. Tabercil 03:40, 28 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) 2006-12-28 14:20Z

[edit] List of vehicles in Grand Theft Auto series

List of vehicles in Grand Theft Auto series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Previous nomination was closed with no consensus because a few GTA fans commented that it should not be deleted. This article/list is highly speculative in nature and as such violates WP:V and WP:NOR; note comments such as "resembles a 1980s GMC Vandura cargo van, a 1980s Ford E-Series cargo van, or a 1980s Dodge van" (got any other guesses?). It's also written without context, using GTA-specific acronyms all over the place. Given that the cars are fictional, I doubt that anything more than a brief treatment in the main article is possible.--Eloquence* 11:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as original research; if the OR is removed you have a list of no obvious utility (and probably no reliable sources). Guy (Help!) 12:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the same arguments as above. Also we previously deleted a list of vehicles in the Simpsons including the Hit and Run game so there is at least some precedence for deleting this kind of article. MartinDK 12:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per MartinDK and for being obviously inane listcruft that has no encylopaedic merit.Eddie.willers 13:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vehicles in Unreal Tournament 2004 and other such debates. MER-C 13:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I already stated my current take on this in the talk page. It's time to put this article to rest once and for all. I just find this somewhat ironic, though. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 13:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC) ╫
  • Either that, or a move to GTA Wikia. I hate to see all the work going to waste. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 13:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC) ╫
• Delete - per AfD precedents. --tgheretford (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per previous Afd precedents. If this was anything more than a game guide list, I'd probably vote keep. However, even GameFAQs wouldn't accept crap this bad. --- RockMFR 21:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • How flattering. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.49.105.249 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC).
• Transwiki/Weak Keep - this page is more deserving of an article at a gaming wiki. I said weak keep due to the many other pages and images that link to this article. // I c e d K o l a 17:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 21:20, 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 No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 14:23Z

[edit] Angela Devi

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

A self-published pornstar, famous, apparently, for her site folding after she died. Nonsensical religion adds amusement but not rigour to the article. Direct-to-web pornstars with "tripod-mounted camera" are not, I think, covered by WP:PORNBIO. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Yet another porn actor. In the bin with it. Anthony Appleyard 12:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - utter lack of notability. Eddie.willers 13:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - doesn't seem to meet WP:PORN BIO. MER-C 13:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Does not meet WP:PORN BIO. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - If only a bot could weed out NN pornstars. /dev/null. skrshawk 00:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - She was noted for being one of the only two pornographic actresses with an Indian background who work in US porn industry. (The other actress is Sunny Leone ). She had been regularly appearing in hardcore magazine Hustler since 2002. She does meet WP:PORNBIO. (Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche.). She might not be popular in USA but both Angela Devi and sunny leone are hugely popular in India and have been mentioned in the mainstream media of India and USA multiple times. So this article should not be deleted. Preetikapoor0 23:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-757558,curpg-4.cms http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/07/04/INGFE7EQ4K1.DTL http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FH18Df03.html Preetikapoor0 23:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - She wasn't just another Porn Actress who comitted suicide; to leave it at that is to miss several points. She and the times of her life coincided with the rapid ascension of Indian Culture, and may I dare say that for many a Caucasian male (almost shamefully), isn't it safe to assume she might have been the first Indian Girl that for them was a head turner?? I'm quite sure that many of her fans (and future ones as well I might add) will be more inclined and sensitive towards learning about Indian Culture due to the significant impact she had. Furthermore, this may give the average guy a chance at a deeper reflection on Globalization, and the integration of India's economy with other World economies (think Bollywood and Hollywood). While many Wikipedians are well read of course and undoubtedly don't need Angela to have inspired them to have initiated reading on other cultures such as India's ... nevertheless, the average Joe out there might not have paid any attention to all things India otherwise. Lastly, I might add ... she stood out as a stark contrast to the Hollywood model stereotype, and was a vindication to many a male that IS NOT enamored with the thin, toothpick models thrust upon us with every year's passing. This last point is salient because in of itself, in a full discussion, could branch off into many a subject touching on deeper reflection on the dichotomy between Hollywood and the rest of us as we really are. My 2 cents ... InTears/ontheoffwing --67.101.2.130 09:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Only notable to a small group of people. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 10:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - references found by Preetikapoor0 are in my opinion sufficient to meet criteria # 4 (noteworthy news piece in mainstream media) and #3 (noted for beginning a trend - Angela is noted in said newspieces as being one of the first Indian-born porn stars to gain recognition) of WP:PORNBIO. Tabercil 16:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - per Preetikapoor0; also fits WP:PORNBIO 3, 4, and 6. more than enough to keep an article. 71.105.110.222 13:59, 28 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 Merge to INTRA FRAME. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 14:24Z

[edit] Macroblocks

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

Not sure about this one, thought I better bring it here to be on the safe side. Apologies if this is a legitimate article. J Milburn 11:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, or merge with INTRA FRAME. Part of useful info about a movie file format. Anthony Appleyard 12:39, 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 Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 14:26Z

[edit] Alicia Rhodes

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

Breastcruft, pure and simple. No assertion of meeting WP:PORNBIO, the "award" is from the British Girls Adult Film Database, not in any way an important body. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Yet another porn actor. Down the chute with it. Anthony Appleyard 12:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 13:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO on at least two counts-- #6: "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche. " 178 appearances (including three on television) listed at IMDB. #7 "There is an original film (not a compilation) named after the performer." When Layla Jade Met Alicia Rhodes, and Hand Job Heaven All Autumn & Alicia. Dekkappai 00:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Dekkappai. --Dismas|^(talk) 01:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Dekkappai. David Hain 12:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable adult film star. Anthony Appleyard, don't be a prude. There is nothing wrong with having an article on porn actors. -- TrojanMan 20:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete References are her MySpace and 3 film databases. I am not impressed with these as reliable independent sources. Edison 00:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment does WP:PORNBIO provide an a way of porn fans keeping articles which otherwise fail WP:N? Edison 00:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep This article needs cleanup beyond what has been presented here, but there is enough of a basis to keep the article. skrshawk 00:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Dekkappai, but I agree with skrshawk in that this article needs some serious work. Tabercil 18:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Just because the article is on a pornographic actor does not make the subject unnotable and unworthy of article recognition. From the evidence provided, this article meets WP:PORNBIO and therefore merits an article. Nishkid64 00:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Google finds over half a million pages with her name on. Anthony Appleyard 16:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The number of Google hits is noted in WP:PORNBIO as a dubious method of determining notability, due to the industry practise of Googlebombing. Tabercil 16:41, 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) 2006-12-28 14:28Z

[edit] RamaHanuKwanzMas

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

Yet another variant of that tired old theme that so many people seem to think is soooo funny. Well, grinch that I am, I don't see this belonging here, even though this one has the backing of a radio host - and not many other people, judging by the slightly-shy-of-500 non WP ghits it has garnered in the three years since the word was coined. That's a delete, BTW. Grutness...wha? 12:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this protologism. Guy (Help!) 12:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable religious innovation that won't get anywhere. Down the /dev/null with it. Anthony Appleyard 12:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete bah humbug. Danny Lilithborne 12:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn neologism. MER-C 13:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NFT made up on radio shows one day. Demiurge 13:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:NEO and lack of notability. Jayden54 17:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ridiculous, nn Bwithh 20:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, WP:SNOW. — coelacan talk — 23:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NEO, WP:NFT, NN, and not even funny. Bah humbug. skrshawk 01:37, 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 No consensus. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 14:31Z

[edit] Sana Fey

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

Does not assert notability, sole source is unreliable, contains speculation. Guy (Help!) 12:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable porn actor. Down the -atory with it. Anthony Appleyard 12:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO on at least two counts-- #6: "Performer has been notable or prolific within a specific genre niche. " 106 appearances (including three on television) listed at IMDB. #7 "There is an original film (not a compilation) named after the performer." Private Times Video 485: Santa Fey & KC. Dekkappai 00:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Dekkappai. --David Hain 12:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Lacks reliable independent sources. I am not impressed with 3 fil databases because they lacl editorial oversight. Not very impressed with the guideline WP:PORNBIO as a way to keep articles about nonnotable individuals. Edison 00:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Considering Dekkappai's comment I would still consider this performer NN per WP:PORNBIO, given that the number of films is a dubious criteria, and only one of those films names the performer. A better article would go a long way to changing my mind if somebody comes along to state their intent to update this. skrshawk 01:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Another with the performer's name in title, passing point #7 at WP:PORNBIO: Busty Conquests Of Sana Fey. Dekkappai 18:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:PORNBIO was written with the intent of not having any actors in the area get articles. That fact that someone meets the criteria is notable in and of itself. Also 'Lacks reliable independent sources' is not a criteria for deletion. Vegaswikian 22:44, 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) 2006-12-28 14:31Z

[edit] Tsumi

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

Fails WP:BAND. Non-notable local group. An album article had also been created and I'll be nominating that as well. Link for album was to Moth, not an actual article. Bobblehead 12:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable minor pop music band. Link for album was to Moth (the insect), not about any music. Anthony Appleyard 12:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Nom. Can find no reviews or other notice of this band or albumn Citicat 04:30, 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) 2006-12-28 14:33Z

[edit] Crizzash Bandicizzle

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

Non-notable fan-cruft about a costume on a game. Also seems to be original research, and is unreferenced. Didn't think it was quite bad enough for a Speedy, Delete from me. J Milburn 12:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or merge with Crash Bandicoot. Anthony Appleyard 12:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delitizzle per nizzle. Dizzle Linibizzle 12:44, 23 December 2006 {UTC)
• Delete per nom. It's a single costume, for god's sake. -- Kicking222 13:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 13:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, alternative character costumes/skins are generally non-notable.--Nydas^(Talk) 13:48, 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) 2006-12-28 14:34Z

[edit] Timothy P. Carney

Timothy P. Carney (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

No assertion of notability (rather the opposite, actually, stating that his one book attracted "little attention"). No independent sources. Was an assistant editor at a reasonably notable magazine, and that's about it, really. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• How many copies of his book have sold? Anthony Appleyard 12:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't meet WP:BOOK, even if it were more than a proposed guideline. Since book isn't a guideline yet, delete per A7. --Bobblehead 12:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete publishing a book may be wnough to avoid A7 but not enough to pass WP:BIO and make it through AfD. Eluchil404 09:29, 28 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 Merge to Alistair Begg. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 14:36Z

[edit] Parkside Church

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

Delete Delete or merge non notable, non verifiable per WP:CHURCH. However, the pastor has a Wikipedia article, so I would support the merge into his article. Adam Riley ^Talk 18:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment WP:CHURCH has a number of conflicting proposals, no consensus, and substantial objections. So, I don't know why you are citing it here. Which of the views expressed in that debate does this article fail?--Doc^g 15:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Church's pastor also has an article, and he at least seems to be notable if the church isn't. Perhaps the church's info should be merged to his article. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep no need to remove info--Sandy Scott 18:45, 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, Majorly (Talk) 13:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't see evidence of notability for this local church. -- Bpmullins | Talk 22:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - The article lists no reason why this church is any more notable than the hundreds of other churches in the United States Citicat 04:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable and no reliable sources. Also reads as if a church official wrote it. --The Way 08:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep WP:CHURCH allows for an article about a church was was influencial via a notable minister. Would like to see more independent sources for the church. Edison 00:29, 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 Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 14:38Z

[edit] Altporn

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

This is a neologistic term for a porn genre which may or may not exist, but I don't see a lot of evidence that those covered identify themselves under this label, and the article itself states that the definition is disputed even among them. I checked the sources, several of them do not mention the term at all, and others only allude to it. I'd say this fails WP:NEO and WP:V/WP:RS, also probably WP:OR. Guy (Help!) 13:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per WP:NEO. I think this is more of an advertisement for altporn.net. If we're going to have an article on this it should be called something like "Alternate pornography". Jayden54 17:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep – Altporn is a very important trend in contemporary pornography and strongly deserving of an article in Wikipedia. Numerous articles in the press about altporn are included as external links and references. (Just because you haven't heard the term before does not mean it isn't in wide use – try Googling it!) As for the term "altporn" rather than "alternative pornography", if you had bothered to read the talk page, you'd see that I posted a Google test demonstrating that "altporn" is the most commonly used label for this genre.
  
  I have to say, this whole AfD proposal is incredibly misguided. If you don't like the title, the first step is to propose a "Move", not a "Delete". If you think some of the links aren't suitable, delete them. (For the record, I added the Altporn.net link, because I felt it was relevant portal – I have no connection with that site.) If you think some of the facts in the article aren't supported by the references, then edit damn article, dispute it on the talk page, and/or put a cleanup tag on the article. Deleting the article as first recourse is totally inappropriate.
  
  Full disclosure – while I did not originate this article, I have been primary editor of the article and am listed on the talk page as maintaining it.
  Iamcuriousblue 21:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• So you say. But as the article makes clear, its definition is disouted and there doess not seem to be a good source for the neologism. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The precise definition and parameters of what constitutes altporn are disputed, not unlike the way the definition and parameters of any number of musical, film, and artistic genres are. The fact that altporn exists as a genre is not in dispute, however. I'll also point to this article which points out that Vivid and VCA, which are major porn production companies, are now getting into the altporn market – I don't think this genre would be getting financial backing if it wasn't seen as an important phenomenon. As for the title of the article itself, "altporn", "alternative pornography", "indie porn", etc are all more or less synonyms for this genre and the various terms (including "altporn") are all used in the various articles I have listed under "external links", however, the Google tests that I've pointed to on the Talk:Altporn page clearly point to "altporn" and "alt-porn" as by far the most commonly used term for this genre. "Altporn" is an established term for an established genre, albeit, a newly established genre. Iamcuriousblue 22:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I should also point out that I have provided external links to articles on the altporn phenomemon from Bitch, Orange County Weekly, The Stranger, Adult Video News, American Sexuality, and Der Spiegel, which are all reliable hard-copy secondary source magazines and newspapers (albeit, non-academic sources). (True, these references should be better incorporated into the article, but that's not an argument for deletion.) Clearly, news sources attesting to the fact that altporn is real-world phenomenon can and have been provided. The only point of contention, really, is whether the article should carry the title of a relative neologism or not – this means there's legitimate debate as to whether or not to move the article, but I don't think a good case has been made at all for deleting it. Iamcuriousblue 23:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Notability and verifiability issues. Anomo 04:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep As others have said, altporn has been written about by notable publications and simply because it suffers the same definitions problems as say many music genres is not sufficient justification for deleting it. I do think a debate about what to call the article on this genre of porn is valid and maybe the article name could be change but I don't think the existence of the altporn or whatever one chooses to call is debatable.--Cab88 10:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Very well-known genre, term widely used in the press. It usually appears as "alt-porn" or "alt.porn", however, and that's where most references will be found. Article has good sources, but there are plenty more for the taking. Google search results: "alt-porn" (with quotes and hyphen): 137,000 hits. Media references include the Village Voice, AVN Magazine, The Phoenix, Wired News, NY Press, Nerve Magazine, and many more. --MCB 17:47, 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) 2006-12-28 14:40Z

[edit] Eve Tyler

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

Part-time porn model, no credible evidence of meeting WP:PORNBIO, no independent sources. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - non notable per WP:BIO and of course lacks any reliable sources Jayden54 17:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without regret. --Ouro 19:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Just H 19:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Guy. This is not Pornopedia, and articles are not needed for non-notable "part time porn models." Edison 00:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Pornographic. Tonytypoon 20:06, 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 Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 14:40Z

[edit] Kayla Kleevage

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

Vague assertions of notability, but these are not backed by sources (nor is anything else in the article, for that matter). Seems to fail WP:PORNBIO. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. More cleavageology. There are infinity porn actresses in these days of sadly declining morals. Anthony Appleyard 15:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Google shows "about 159,000" finds. Anthony Appleyard 15:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You might want to look into Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and especially the disclaimer about search engine tests under WP:PORN. Google hits are very distorted measures of notability as they elevate quantity over quality, and in particular in pornography they are often artificially inflated by the website operators. ~ trialsanderrors 18:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non notable per WP:PORNBIO Jayden54 17:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - per Dekkappai's comments which shows she passes WP:PORNBIO which makes her notable enough. Jayden54 23:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Passes (at least) WP:PORNBIO point #7 "There is an original film (not a compilation) named after the performer." Hump of the Month: Kayla Kleevage. Dekkappai 22:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment also passes #5 "Performer has appeared multiple times in notable mainstream media outlets (the Air Force Amy rule)." "The Jerry Springer Show" (1991), "The Howard Stern Show" (1990) Dekkappai 22:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. as per Dekkappai. --David Hain 12:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete a few TV appearances does not establish notability, nor does entry in online movie databases which lack editorial review. Edison 00:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A few TV appearances in nationally or internationally syndicated outlets does establish notability, that's probably the definitive criteria of Wikipedia:Notability, in fact: "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself". AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Cross genre appearances establish notabiliy. Meets WP:PORNBIO good enough for me NegroSuave 15:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Dekkapai & AnonEMouse. Tabercil 03:36, 28 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 - keep for now, per claims that it can be sourced. If references don't arrive in a couple weeks, should be re-nominated. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 14:43Z

[edit] List of objects dropped on New Year's Eve

List of objects dropped on New Year's Eve (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

The article appears to be unverifiable due to the introduction of objects of varying degrees of absurdity (including a tortilla chip into salsa). I can imagine that this list could potentially (if it hasn't already) become popularity with arbitrary objects being dropped by individuals on New Year's Eve. -- tariqabjotu 13:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, no sources whatsoever. --Nydas^(Talk) 13:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep with some qualification along the lines of "verifiably dropped in public with an average audience of X or more hundred". And remove the grapes, ketchup bottles, pretzels, duck decoys and other blatant silliness with extreme prejudice. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Unsourced, unverified, and of no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Agent 86 19:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep FireSpike 20:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Tonywalton. With some qualification, most of this stuff can be verified. --- RockMFR 21:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

So we could find out who dopped an acorn in Raleigh, North Carolina, when, and why? I think not Fledgeling 02:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Anyone could drop anything. Unverifiable- and with comments like "walleye fish, named "Captain Wylie Walleye"" possible hoax. Fledgeling 02:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Most of them look legit to me and most of this stuff can be verified with a Google Search and then sourced easily enough. Here's "Captain Wylie-Walleye" for instance: http://search.cityguide.aol.com/columbus/entertainment/madness-at-midnight-walleye-drop/e-1803042

and here's a source for the Tortilla thing, it's a promotional gimmick.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/31/se.02.html

"In Tempe, Arizona, the new year begins only after a 200-pound tortilla chip drops into a giant bowl of salsa."

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.177.20.128 (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

Is there any way to keep those that can be verified with, say, an article in a local newspaper?

But many cannot be verified. Oranges. Acorns. Also, Wikipedia is not a random collection of information, its an encyclopedia, and how is this encyclopedic?? As it stands now its just a random collection of information. Fledgeling 15:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Unreferenced silly list of things dropped on New Years Eve. They left out inhibitions and drawers. Edison 00:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - as long as the criteria for inclusion on the list is tightly defined, e.g. something dropped as part of a public new year's eve ceremony, with the support of the relevant local government authority. Some guy throwing things off an apartment building into a crowd below doesn't count. If "dropping X" is part of an official ceremony, however, there should be some record of it happening in local media. Quack 688 07:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as an arbitrary collection of information per WP:NOT. Even if WP:NOR and WP:N concerns can be addressed this remains an unencyclopedic list. Eluchil404 09:33, 28 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 14:48Z

[edit] Cathy Barry

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

Many claims, all unsibstantiated. No sources. Does not appear to meet WP:PORNBIO. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - non notable per WP:PORNBIO as the fails all the criteria, although the article does claim she is the UK's top porn star, so if that's true then she's definitely notable, but I can't find any sources to back this claim. Jayden54 16:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Passes (at least) WP:PORNBIO point #7 "There is an original film (not a compilation) named after the performer." Cathy's Diaries on DVD, Cathy Does Vegas , Cathy's Diaries Volume 2, Cathy's Diaries Volume 1, Cathula, A Day with Cathy Barry, etc., etc., etc. Dekkappai 23:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Dekkappai --David Hain 12:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Lacks reliable independent sources for notability. WP:PORNBIO is just a guideline, and does not require keeping articles about nonnotable individuals. Edison 00:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Dekkappai. Clearly meets a notability criterion from WP:PORNBIO. One Night In Hackney 07:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Dekkappai. Plus she is well known in the UK and parts of Europe. Keresaspa 11:36, 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 speedy delete as G7 (author requested).--Kchase T 08:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Throval

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

Prodded by me with the following concern:
Description of a fantasy world in an unpublished book. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Additionally there's no assertion of notability, this is unverifiable and is original research.
Author removed the mention that it was in a book "started in 2006" whose publication date is "unknown""unclear", and then deleted the prod tag. So I'm listing it here Tonywalton  | Talk 13:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - sounds like a clear case of Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, as I can't find anything about this fantasy world through Google or anywhere else. Article also lacks the necessary sources, assertion of notability and fails WP:NOR. Jayden54 16:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article's first edit's comment shows that User:Richie bartels wrote the book and this article. Self-advertisement. Put the blast nozzle on the hose and jet-wash it off like all the other graffiti and flyposters. Anthony Appleyard 17:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The author even suggests that it should be deleted inside the article, but he blanked this discussion. Academic Challenger 01:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. There's also a related image, I'll leave this up to the deleting admin whether to obliterate it or not. MER-C 08:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the messages: I'll delete the article since it meets none of the rules. I'm sorry for making a such a fuss of it! I'm also sorry for being such an inexperienced user of wikipedia :P Richie bartels 13:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'm going to assume that this means you, as the author, are requesting deletion, and have tagged it as speedy G7. Charlie 08:06, 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) 2006-12-28 14:49Z

[edit] Tom Wright (British actor)

Tom Wright (British actor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Originally tagged with {{subst:prod}} for the same reasons as this AFD:

How notable is this young lad? Moreover, IMDb doesn't know of anything named Brum Doctors, and Google only picks up information about it in the form of a British forum post.

Notability does not seem to have been addressed well since removal of the template, hence this AFD. Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - perhaps the reason that IMDb has never heard of "Brum Doctors" is because you're confusing two series - Brum (television) and Doctors (BBC soap opera). He is mentioned at IMDb, BTW - here, but there seems little there to suggest his notability. Grutness...wha? 23:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "Sources: written by agent and casting directors"!!! The JPS^{talk to me} 21:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Majorly (Talk) 13:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. First written by User:Wright25, which is suspicious that this article is self-advertisement. Likely merely another out-of-work actor. Anthony Appleyard 17:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless independent quotes are added (some reviews would be helpful too) Alf photoman 14:27, 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 Merge to table d'hôte. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 14:50Z

[edit] Set Lunch

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

Delete. Seems non-notable and/or encyclopedic. Additions to it might improve it enough to be an article, but currently I think it needs deleting. Grand Slam 7 21:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wiktionary. At first I thought it was a neologism but it appears to have reasonably widespread use. That said I can't see how this article can ever become more than a dictionary definition with in limitless number of examples. Koweja 23:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki-ing (as opposed to deletion) would be fine with me also.--Grand Slam 7 01:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Why does it need deleting? It's true. Set lunches are real. It's suprising that you would not have this article. User: katakata994

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Majorly (Talk) 13:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Expand, or merge into menu? The set lunch is real and worth mentioning in the context of restaurant operation, restaurant economics etc., but as it stands it's little more than a dicdef. Barnabypage 14:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into restaurant. Set lunches are very common, and often a nuisance when I want one item but not another. Anthony Appleyard 17:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not because we shouldn't have an article on this subject, but because this isn't a meaningful article for the subject. Cedars 21:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Table d'hôte, which means the same thing, and has traditionally been the restaurant term for a set meal. (it's not heard much nowadays as dining a la carte is more popular). Tubezone 21:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect and/or merge to table d'hôte. I suspect most people just don't know this is the opposite of à la carte :-). Guy (Help!) 21:23, 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) 2006-12-28 14:52Z

[edit] Tantric Massage Association

Tantric Massage Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Related nomination to Tantra massage. Only sources don't look to be overly reliable, and this tends to make me feel the notability of this association is shaky.-- Syrthiss 22:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tantra massage closed as Delete for lack of independent sources. ~ trialsanderrors 08:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• delete though I voted keep for Tantra massage, for this I'll have to vote delete instead. Only 53 ghits, and in a lack of any further evidence (the article sure doesn't provide any) I'd have to support it's deletion. Mathmo ^Talk 16:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Majorly (Talk) 13:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not notable enough to have sources. WP:V requires multiple non-trivial publications. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 14:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There seems to be no page Tantra massage or Tantric massage to say what it is. Anthony Appleyard 17:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as insufficiently notable. No non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party sources. -- Satori Son 05:47, 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. Tyrenius 23:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Wienbarg

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

Non-notable actor/broadcaster. Has appeared in (per IMDb) two minor films, one a short and one no length provided.[16] Vague references/sources. Those immediately checkable do not show results: Washington Post [17], LATimes through 1984 [18], LATimes from 1985 [19], all 0 results for "George Wienbarg". Principal editor has been Georgewienbarg. Appears to have worked at notable places and possibly with notable people, but no clear indication, to date, that he meets WP:BIO. Robertissimo 13:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - pretty much per nom. The article lists reliable references, but they appear to be fake according to the nominator so delete per WP:BIO, and there's a bit of WP:COI going on as well. Jayden54 16:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Jayden. Just throwing around the names of publications, misspelled, (Miami Harald") in the reference section, without dates, does not inspire confidence. Edison 00:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, WP:BIO and WP:V. Google News Archive search also produces 0 results. -- Satori Son 22:36, 28 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 Merge to Virginia. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 14:54Z

[edit] Rest of Virginia

Rest of Virginia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

This is probably not a good article for Wikipedia to have. It's like having an article about E. Coli and then another about "Rest of the Bacteria on Earth". I tried to start a discussion about merging this article with Virginia, but it didn't seem to come to any solid consensus. Takeel 14:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge anything verifiable to Virginia, seems there are some identifiable trends which create a distinction, but I don't see an entire article here. Only source is a couple of Wash. Post diagrams, not an article. Deizio talk 15:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Northern Virginia, not Virginia. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 22:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• This is the opposite of Northern Virginia. There's a Southern Virginia article, but it appears to represent a narrower area than the Rest of Virginia article. Deizio talk 22:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: This term has been used prominently in the Washington Post; entire articles have been dedicated to the differences between NoVA and RoVA. It has become a very important term in the press and in the Commonwealth's politics (especially in Northern Virginia). It's very useful to have an article explaining the difference between RoVA and NoVA when the two are brought up. If Wolf is not re-elected for Senate in 2008, the term will be even more common. I can, however, see this being merged with Northern Virginia, but only if the alternative is deletion. Thomasmallen 03:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• Find a few more reliable sources that prove it's a real, defined concept, add them to the article and I'd vote keep. Deizio talk 03:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Deiz; having only one source from the Washington Post makes the term look like it was made up for that one article or is limited only to the Washington Post. One or two other sources would help determine notability. If these sources can be found and added I'd support a keep. --The Way 08:07, 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) 2006-12-28 14:56Z

[edit] List of Slovak sculptors

List of Slovak sculptors (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:LIST, as it is neither informative nor useful for navigation compared to Category:Slovak sculptors which we already have. No redlinks, so not useful for development purposes either. Punkmorten 14:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, unless he quickly intends to put plenty of info with each entry and make it into a table. Ditto the similar entries hereinunder. Anthony Appleyard 15:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is a useful navigation aide to finding articles. It compliments the use of categories. I don't see the utility of purging Wikipedia of navigational lists in favor of categories, there is room for both. Categories aren't superior to lists. Its like looking at a book and saying I have a table of contents and an index, I don't need both. WP:LIST doesn't say that a list has to be deleted once a category is created or visa versa. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Does appear to pass WP:LIST. Looks like it needs expanding however. See also Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. Unfortunately it doesn't look like there is a high chance of updating by original editor or any other editor, but I don't believe that is a valid reason for deletion. Marcsin 04:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. An unannotated list of bluelinks merely duplicates a category in its present form. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Can we delete the category since it is already served by a list? Or is that absurd? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Category is much better in this case as being a sculptor is one of defining characteristics for a person (on WP). Having a duplicate is only maintenance headache. Pavel Vozenilek 18:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete redundant to category. Eluchil404 09:37, 28 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) 2006-12-28 14:58Z

[edit] List of South Korean badminton players

List of South Korean badminton players (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:LIST, as it is neither informative nor useful for navigation compared to Category:South Korean badminton players which we already have. No redlinks, so not useful for development purposes either. Punkmorten 14:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It is a useful navigation aide to finding articles. It compliments the use of categories. I don't see the utility of purging Wikipedia of navigational lists in favor of categories, there is room for both. Categories aren't superior to lists. Its like looking at a book and saying I have a table of contents and an index, I don't need both. WP:LIST doesn't say that a list has to be deleted once a category is created. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete redudant to category. Eluchil404 09:39, 28 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 Merge to List of Andorrans. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-29 11:05Z

[edit] List of Andorran footballers

List of Andorran footballers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:LIST, as it is neither informative nor useful for navigation compared to Category:Andorran footballers which we already have. No redlinks, so not useful for development purposes either. Punkmorten 14:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. – Elisson • T • C • 16:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and previous nominations of this kind (Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Croatia). – Elisson • T • C • 16:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to List of Andorrans.--T. Anthony 18:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to List of Andorrans as per above, a good compromise for a short list. It is a useful navigation aide to finding articles. It compliments the use of categories. I don't see the utility of purging Wikipedia of navigational lists in favor of categories, there is room for both. Categories aren't superior to lists. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Bababoum 18:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to List of Andorrans, much more useful w/ the 'parent' article. SkierRMH,03:50, 29 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) 2006-12-28 15:00Z

[edit] List of Spanish footballers

List of Spanish footballers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:LIST, as it is neither informative nor useful for navigation compared to Category:Spanish footballers which we already have. No redlinks, so not useful for development purposes either. Punkmorten 14:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. – Elisson • T • C • 16:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and previous nominations of this kind (Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Croatia). – Elisson • T • C • 16:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is a useful navigation aide to finding articles. It compliments the use of categories. I don't see the utility of purging Wikipedia of navigational lists in favor of categories, there is room for both. Categories aren't superior to lists. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete redudant to category, including aspects of structure and formatting. No added benefit from a duplicate page. Eluchil404 09:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unlike lists such as List of Sweden international footballers (a featured list) this list provides no criteria for inclusion, and is therefore redundant to the category. Oldelpaso 14:37, 28 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) 2006-12-28 15:01Z

[edit] List of Iranian footballers

List of Iranian footballers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Fails WP:LIST, as it is neither informative nor useful for navigation compared to Category:Iranian footballers which we already have. No redlinks, so not useful for development purposes either. Punkmorten 14:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. – Elisson • T • C • 16:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and previous nominations of this kind (Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Croatia). – Elisson • T • C • 16:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It is a useful navigation aide to finding articles. It compliments the use of categories. I don't see the utility of purging Wikipedia of navigational lists in favor of categories, there is room for both. Categories aren't superior to lists. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fully redundant to category. Eluchil404 09:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unlike List of Sweden international footballers (a featured list) this list provides no criteria for inclusion, and is therefore redundant to the category. Oldelpaso 14:36, 28 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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-28 15:01Z

[edit] Ian Anderson (politician)

Ian Anderson (politician) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)

Failed candidate, negligible share of vote in a handful of constituency elections. Article full of unsubstantiated claims and lacking sources. Membership of a fringe political organisation =/= notability. Involved with National Democrats (UK), also nominated for deletion.Deizio talk 15:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - non notable per WP:BIO, and I couldn't find any reliable coverage through Google News. I must admit though that I'm not really up to speed to the UK political scene, so if he's a well-known politicion I'll happily change my vote. Jayden54 16:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Anderson has been a leading figure on the extreme-right and neo-Nazi fringe of British politics for twenty years or more. If you have not studied a topic, its leading protagonists and players may seem obscure, (don't get me started on rap singers!). Google News is hardly a reliable source here: pick any famous person from twenty years ago and see what comes up! So he may well appear to be unknown. The article clearly demonstrates not only his contribution to extremist politics in the UK, but provides background infrmation useful to anyone wanting to know more about the groups that preceded the British National Party and surrround it now. OK, he's never won an election, but that is not relevant because these groups never intended to win elections. To put it in terms that US readers may grasp, you have an article on David Duke, but he's never won an election either! Nominator says "negligible share of vote in a handful of constituency elections" but, again, that someone has contested FIVE elections knowing they will lose says more about the politics of the man and his parties than anything else. Emeraude 18:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Now channel that energy into a WP:HEY effort to demonstrably bring the article in line with WP:BIO. Deizio talk 18:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No, he is not a leading figure in anything. I am English, I follow English politics, and I say this person is not of note. Duke is known for things other than losing elections (including his involvement with the Klan). Bill Boaks was notable for losing elections. This guy is neither notable for losing nor notable for anything else, as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 19:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, with these guys we should concentrate more on how much they can move the mainstream parties toward their themes. In this case, how does his nationalistic rethoric influence the themes of the Tories (for example) Alf photoman 14:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)