Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 2

< December 1	December 3 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

edit • talk • log • watch
Discussion on the current notability guidelines Proposal to add 'class C' to the article grading system Revisiting status of WP:Attribution Centralized discussion on terrorism related articles ArbCom proposal to create a Sourcing Adjudication Board Discussion to work out the implementation details of flagged revisions Discussion over the approval of bots Wikipedia:Plot summaries Global blocking on Wikimedia projects SSP/RFCU merger proposal Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)
Archive

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

The result was keep. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Srul Bronshtein

Delete. Possible, wrong information. No any info in Internet: Google, Yahoo!, Ask.com.--Paukrus 22:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I am being stalked by user Paukrus: he marked this very article (and several others) in Russian for deletion citing only the fact that "this poet is of Jewish descent". There are sources cited in the article entry, including two web sources: in McGill University Library [1] and in Harvard University library (his book Moldove, mayn heym is under Brunstein, S. [2]; his biographical data are in the Lexicon of Modern Yiddish Literature, the whole chapter 6 in Yiddish writer I. Shraybman's book "Seven Years and Seven Months" (cited in main entry on the poet) is about Bronshtein; there's an entry in S. Spitalnik's book "Bessarabian style" (cited in the main entry, too).--SimulacrumDP 23:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It's slander. :( No any national difference to me! IMHO, This Article must be delete because There's no any information in Internet.--Paukrus 23:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
keep has citations, has publications.--Buridan 14:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
keep per bur, also not buying into unsubstantiated allegations (they can be linked here even tho they're in russian), but have to query good faith of nomination: assume "wrong info" means potential innacuracies, definitely not grounds for deletion, same for no info on internet (quite apart from the fact that a russian-speaker shld be well aware of probs w/ searching for transliterations of non-roman script surnames) ⇒ bsnowball 14:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 14:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Removed. Has got nothing to do with Judaism. - crz crztalk 17:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  - That board is not restricted to religious topics, it is effectively "Judaism and Jews". Given that he was a Yiddish-language writer, I think it should have remained there. - Jmabel | Talk 01:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Using google to try to look for a pre-war Yiddish poet is not intelligent (an understatement). - crz crztalk 16:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. User:Paukrus seems to be abusing non-notability notion. Valters 21:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Internet info is not required to establish notability, and historical events and figures represent common examples of notability without google listings. The publications cited appear to meet WP:N --Shirahadasha 22:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Despite our modern reliance on the internet, it is not the "be-all and end-all" of notability. Sufficient references to paper sources show notability. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 22:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, at least at this time: no reason to doubt the cited sources. - Jmabel | Talk 01:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. There's little information about the Yiddish literature on the internet -- I don't think the number of google hits is a good indicator in this case. bogdan 20:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, since when is the internet the indicator of notability? VaclavHav 00:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep seems subject is notable and sources are there. ← ANAS ^Talk? 15:30, 6 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saif Energy Ltd

Non notable company. Plenty of google hits, but most of them belong to the company's website. No google news results [3] at all. Delete this page as company is still a start up and having no mention at all in the media Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating these articles for deletion because they are related directly to Saif energy ltd, and are non notable and having very few google results.

Ahmed Nawaz Khan
Saif Group of Companies --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Article is mostly written in future tense ("is eagerly looking forward", "The company will operate ", etc) so a large element of notability via crystal ball. Also, User:Jawadrox has no edits apart from these 3 articles. Emeraude 13:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, agreed, the fact that it's all in future tense does not bode well. It also has the faint smell of a press release about it. Lankiveil 01:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC).
Keep, as it is an actual company that does exist today. If they do make any notable advances in oil exploration, it can be updated on the Wiki. Sharkface217 03:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Existence is not a criterion for keeping. I exist, yet an article about me would be deleted in a heartbeat. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

- You can still do that when the page is deleted, by writing a verifiable article about a notable company. Right now, the articles are neither. And existance isn't an argument for keeping, vanity articles about some random school kid get deleted all the time. MER-C 03:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:CORP per above. MER-C 03:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. No evidence of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 06:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Not notable, all articles should be deleted. ← ANAS ^Talk? 08:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. There is a press release regarding the company here, but otherwise it fails WP:CORP. Black-Velvet 12:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. --SonicChao ^talk 15:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, obvious case. - SpLoT _{(*T* C+u+g+v)} 16:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete vanispamcruftisement. Danny Lilithborne 22:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Kyo cat^{¿Qué tal?♥meow!} 00:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete straight away per nom. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:39, 3 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammed Taib

Fails WP:V and WP:BIO -Nv8200p talk 17:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 00:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete, liberalism in Saudi Arabia is to be championed, but the utter lack of ghits makes this fellow's notability tenuous at best. Lankiveil 01:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC).
delete, Can't find sources, none in article. ∴ here…♠ 01:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- keep - based on gulf news, needs more. ∴ here…♠ 00:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Saudi Arabia isn't a country like the US where you can find anyone on the Internet. Considering how their government regulates Internet usage in country, this man may exist but it is punishable in Saudi Arabia to publish info about him.

You guys gotta remember that not everything is on the internet (yet). I think we should keep this article in. Sharkface217 03:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

- The reason why there are no sources is irrelevant. Sources are still needed. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Source or delete. MER-C 04:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, This article fails W:P and WP:BIO, and per Lankiveli's comment. Daniel5127 <Talk> 04:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Lol at W:P. :) -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, nn-bio, V.Keep - I added one source, needs more. Crum375 04:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep many sources are available, maybe not many in English, but there are many Arabic sources. Islam Today, Arabic Wikipedia, Al-Jazirah Magazine (search "محمد سعيد طيب") should be enough to prove his notability. I think English sources are available, but maybe his name is transliterated differently. Hold on, here is a reliable English source Gulf News. Keep? :) ← ANAS ^Talk? 08:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep does appear to be sourceable, just google-resistant. BCoates 09:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I want sources, but it would appear they exist. Black-Velvet 12:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - (conditional: more sources!) /Blaxthos 15:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep per WP:V. Although Saudi Arabia might be a country where not as much information is published on the internet as in a country like the U.S., some form of printed references should still be avaiable and cited accordingly. - SpLoT _{(*T* C+u+g+v)} 16:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Anas. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Conditional Keep, the man is real but the article poor. If no more sources can be attached it should be nominated for deletion again as soon as possible Alf photoman 13:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
keep and expand+cite. the gentleman seems notable in his publication, but we need more.--Buridan 13:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I really wish I could read the Arabic Wikipedia article. The Gulf News article shows that he's a notable dissident in a country that is famously non-deomcratic. --Oakshade 02:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I can translate the page some time tomorrow, and maybe add a few sources to please everybody. :) ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep - spelling Tayeb finds a few more online sources in English. --HJMG 08:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
keep please it is sourceable and notable too Yuckfoo 04:49, 7 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. Kimchi.sg 08:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United States Space Transport Company

Fails WP:CORP Otto4711 17:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete 10 unique Google hits, and most of those are Wikipedia and mirrors thereof. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 00:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete, "the United States Space Transport Company (USSTC) will provide space transportation of persons and property from the United States by 2007.", Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Lankiveil 01:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC).
Delete. Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball. Sr13 02:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Sharkface217 03:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Nat91 03:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 05:03, 2 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. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles L. Sullivan

Strong Delete - worthless tidbit; 1 line page?? Yankeedoodledandy 00:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment, I can't find any references to this chap as an elected politician, but there is a historian at the University of Mississippi named "Chales Sullivan" who has written a few books. I also found this offhand mention of him as running for governor in 1971. Assuming he wasn't a fringe candidate (and I don't know), he's probably notable enough, especially if they're the same person. Lankiveil 01:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC).
- Keep, adding my vote as per Oakshade's excellent research below. Lankiveil 02:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC).
- Comment. I have found nothing to indicate that the politician is the same person as the historian, who seems to still be alive, whereas apparently the politician is quite deceased. --Dhartung | Talk 01:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Just added new info to article. He was in fact Lt. Governor of Mississppi.[4][5]. A US Air National Guard facility was named after him. --Oakshade 02:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. Sharkface217 03:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep sounds legit but needs more sources. Crum375 04:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, added TIME cite about earlier Presidential (!) and Gubernatorial campaigns.--Dhartung | Talk 07:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep — Seems simi noteable Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 07:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep per WP:N. He lost the presidential race as an insignificant, and did not make it for governor either. Besides that, he was involved in the army, but the article makes no mention of any medals, honours or courageous acts. - SpLoT _{(*T* C+u+g+v)} 16:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. As a Lt. Gov. he technically meets WP:BIO per Political figures holding or who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office. --Dhartung | Talk 01:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Being a lieutenant governor is more notable than most folks can expect to be -- it's an elected office (although I can't say whether it always was) and exceptionally powerful in Mississippi. Having an Air National Guard facility named after you is a nice bonus, too.
Keep per above. Close this already. Just H 20:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. ← ANAS ^Talk? 15:32, 6 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. Kimchi.sg 08:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences

The entry reads more like a press release (clear WP:NPOV) than an actual article. Additionally, as it stands the ICUS appears to be a non-notable organization which generates about 600 Google hits. Nedlum 20:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 00:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete, the NPOV is no reason to delete this, but the seeming non-notability of the organisation is. Lankiveil 01:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC).
Speedy delete as G11. JChap2007 02:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Sharkface217 03:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 05:10, 2 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 02:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sara roybal

No assertion of notability, but speedy tag was removed twice, so I'm bringing it to AfD. —Swpb ^{talk contribs} 01:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete, having famous family does not make you encyclopædic (normally). Only 82 ghits. Lankiveil 01:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC).
Speedy Delete A bare majority of those 82 google hits seem to be about Colorado State Fair Fiesta Queen Sara Roybal, who seems to be 24 years old and therefore could not be the 33-year-old subject. No assertion of notability, no real notability lurking out there to be found. Darkspots 02:15, 2 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. —Doug Bell ^talk 06:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jakob P. Steinbach

Seems very hoaxy to me. No ghits of note for "Jakob P. Steinbach", "Jakob Steinbach Bible" or "Jakob Steinbach Russia". Additionally, the claim about the town name is unsubstantiated, as it says in Steinbach, Manitoba, it simply means "stony brook" Lankiveil 01:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete as hoax. No relevant Ghits for "Jakob Steinbach" or "Jacob Steinbach". Neither the UK nor Hanover actually bordered Russia (even in the 1700s), so it would have been unlikely that George III of the UK and Hanover would have punished a Russian Army officer. Creator of article a single-purpose account. Steinbach was actually named after Steinbach, Ukraine, according to the City of Steinbach. --Charlene 03:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Nat91 03:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Sharkface217 03:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 05:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom & Charlene. Mr Stephen 16:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 22:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, someone is taking us for ride YamSan 23:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete What a gyp! Kyo cat^{¿Qué tal?♥meow!} 00:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:45, 3 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. Mind matrix 18:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Depolarization radiation force theory

In view my article "Deprolarization radiation force theory" does not meet the wikipedia.org's policy, I ask my article to be deleted promptly. The author jxzj. 2006-12-04.

This article's claims (esp. claims, since deleted, in Gravitation) are so outlandish that I thought it necessary to follow them up. The creator's name, User:Jxzj, matches the initials of the first author of the cited papers, so it's likely she's the same person. That's why I called it a vanity edit. The cited papers do exist on cite-base[6], but their only citations seem to be among themselves. The authors have also published several books, through Nova Science Publishers. The books are listed by numerous booksellers and a few (gullible) university libraries, but have not otherwise been cited or reviewed, as far as I can find.

The authors maintain a fantasy website at [7] Eleuther 02:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

~~Err, this nom is incomplete, but~~ I've marked the article under CSD A1 seeing as it has no content. --Wafulz 02:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Okay nom is complete now. Remember to stay civil, no matter how ridiculous/vain you think an entry may be. --Wafulz 02:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the admonishment. I was too impolite. Eleuther 03:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Borderline speedy. MER-C 05:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Should be a speedy, since the article has no content apart from attempts to direct readers to external links. Shimeru 06:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
'Delete not speedy, I want to see what the author has to say. I will check to see if anyone has left anything on her talk page. ---*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 15:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per MER-C, appears to be linkspam. - SpLoT _{(*T* C+u+g+v)} 16:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete G7 based on the author's comment at the top of this AfD, and A3 due to containing nothing but external references. Tagged as such. --ais523 09:50, 5 December 2006 (U T C)

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

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

The result was Keep. --Daniel Olsen 03:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duncan Jones

NN, other than being David Bowie's kid. Directing one advertising campaign, even for a well-known company is not enough. Ckessler 02:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep, as his current work can be considered to be "mainstream", also known as notability. Sharkface217 03:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment A search on Google showed 153,000 results for "Duncan Jones". A handful were about this Duncan Jones, the majority were not. A search for "duncan jones advertising" showed even fewer results. Ckessler 03:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination, not notable enough to deserve an entire Wikipedia article +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Sharkface217. The FCUK campaign he directed was gigantic. --Oakshade 18:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep. Just enough reliable third-party coverage in mainstream news publications (i.e. not trade publications) focusing on him and his advertising work to keep. But it's a very close call. Fairsing 06:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep. 32,000 ghits for Zowie Bowie though (he would later change his name to Duncan Jones. Is notable for his previous name, as was Roland Bolan, son of Marc Bolan. There was another rock and roll kid with rhyming first and last names but alas I forget, but it's worth keeping as it's something people might be interested in. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:58, 8 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 Marc Bolan. Agent 86 00:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rolan Bolan

NN musician, even states in the article itself that he is better known for being the son of Marc Bolan. Google search shows no sign that he has released anything notable. Ckessler 02:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:MUSIC, especially when "his commercial breakthrough has not occurred". MER-C 05:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to the Marc Bolan page. A semall section there is all that is necessary, if that. Grutness...wha? 09:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Redirect, per above. Bob talk 00:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Redirect, per above. --MaNeMeBasat 16:42, 3 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. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William torrillo

Delete per WP:V. Borderline spam for Non notable chef, non notable photographer found on orphaned pages patrol. Suspected conflict of interest by single purpose account. Of the 13 unique Ghits (for chef), two wiki. two directory listings, a few dead-end links, and only one relevant but which fails WP:RS. 38 unique Ghits (for photographer) include a few commercial sites with little or no info on the artist, many deadend spam links for poster sites, and his myspace site, which has strangely been blanked. (cached version here) Ohconfucius 02:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Sharkface217 03:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MER-C 05:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete no one special. Danny Lilithborne 22:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not myspace. Bearly541 07:37, 3 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 per withdrawn nomination and no delete !votes. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] News embargo

This article has significantly improved since I nominated it for deletion, and I would like to withdraw my nomination. Greyfedora 21:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC) This article is not NPOV, is unsourced and bears no resemblance to the term "news embargo" as it is actually used. For example, the assertion that there is a "news embargo" for the Iraq war is based on an article by an interest group from before the Iraq war that uses the word "embargo" as a pun on the economic sanctions then in place against Iraq. I am also not sure there would be much more to write about "news embargoes" beyond their definition. Greyfedora 02:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep, as it can be cleaned up and made into a good article. Now, for somebody to take the inititive....Sharkface217 03:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and cut the article down to the more traditional meaning of the phrase. Hopefully this is a more acceptable stub, the concept itself seems worthy of being included. The media loves talking about itself so there should be plenty of sources available for expansion. Keep. BCoates 09:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - looks like it's been cleaned up. /Blaxthos 15:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, as has been fixed. RandomP 19:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Yes, I made the nomination but I'm not sure I can withdraw it. The changes made in the past several hours have made this article much, much better thanks to BCoates and Uncle_G. Greyfedora 19:10, 2 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nordost

Another marketer of expensive audio cables that fails WP:CORP and whose article reads like spam. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pear Cable Audio Cables for a similar example. Tubezone 02:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

delete: as above. - Rainwarrior 02:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Sharkface217 03:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MER-C 05:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. 1ne 05:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete vanispamcruftisement. Danny Lilithborne 22:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep: There is no legitimate reason to delete this comany profile. The original request reveals the biased reason for requesting deletion, namely that the person does not like the pricing of the products that are offered. Product pricing is not a relevant issue to article deletion. This company meets the WP:CORP requirements just at Pear Cable Audio Cables does due to the fact that it has been written about by independent people from various industry publications.Apblake 23:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC) — Apblake (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment What I wrote in the summary is accurate. The cables (interconnects from $100 to over $4,000 per meter, Click here and and here for examples) are expensive. There are no assertions or references in the article to establish that this company passes the WP corporate notability guidelines, the article pretty much reads like a press release (except for one line) and contains linkspam. Whether I happen to like the product and its pricing or not is irrelevant. If you want to contest a deletion, there's a place to do that, WP:DRV.Tubezone 01:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Whatchoo talkin' bout, Willis. Danny Lilithborne 23:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, this company isn't even close to meeting WP:CORP. Absolutely no sign of any non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources, which is what WP:CORP explicitly demands. Xtifr _tälk 03:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as it fails WP:CORP guidelines by having no non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 07:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Multiple sources of non-trivial(important in the industy) independent coverage: HomeTheaterHiFi StereophileApblake 13:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Mentions in publications that Nordost advertises in are trivial in my opinion, besides, both cater to the high-end vanity-stereo clique, which makes using them as examples similar to a webcomic using mentions in a 'zine about webcomics to establish notability. Neither mention is particularly pertinent to establishing notability in the wire and cable industry, either. JMHO. Tubezone 15:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete as a non-notable firm unless real non-trivial sources can be found. Montco 23:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Stereophile Magazine is not a trivial source. It is probably the most important high-end audio magazine in the United States, if not the world. It even has a wikipedia page stereophile. If you feel that this magazine is trivial, then I suggest you nominate their page for deletion as well. In regards to the Tubezone comments on advertising, if you want to insinuate that the publications are publishing biased editorial based on their advertisers, then I would say that the burden of proof is on you. These are highly respected publications.Apblake 23:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Re Stereophile, WP:INN. I think it's fair to say that nearly every company that advertises in Stereophile extensively, sooner or later gets an editorial mention or article, if for no other reason than because their readers buy the magazine to read about stereo components. In this context I do not think that Stereophile mentions are useful for establishing notability in the electronics or wire and cable industry. That's just my opinion. Tubezone 10:59, 4 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. —Doug Bell ^talk 06:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feed Me Bubbe

Non-notable podcast with 300 subscribers fails the WP:WEB notability guideline. Alphachimp 02:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. MER-C 05:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sharkface217 03:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete This fails WP:WEB. Daniel5127 <Talk> 04:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable podcast. JIP | Talk 18:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. WP:WEB notability guideline.--Chalutz 02:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom.Montco 03:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. J M Rackowe 4 December 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.197.120 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Will userfy on request for those looking to put the articles listed here into a category (such a category is not specified by those arguing for categorisation). --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of publications in law

This article could develop in one of two ways but in either case I do not believe it suitable for Wikipedia:

It could become a list of all publications in law. Its scope appears to be all legal writing in all countries at all points of time. Such a project is so vast as to be beyond a lifetime's work. In any event, this would seem to breach WP:NOT#DIR as it would simply be vast list of sub-divided publications.
Alternatively it might list only important publications in law. This raises an intrinsic POV element in determining what qualifies as an important publication.

If a legal publication is notable, an article about it should be created. A list of those notable publications and their articles would then seem an appropriate way to present this information.

In of itself, this list will either end up being a directory or a very subjective list of which publications that it occurs to users to include as being important. Given the underdeveloped nature of legal coverage on Wiki this would be far from encyclopedic. WJBscribe 03:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I should have addressed the fact the page offers some guidance as to inclusion. I don't think this helps with the NPOV problem above as the criteria are very subjective- especially Influence and Latest and greatest. WJBscribe 03:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. This article should be part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls but it is not listed there. This is why the title was not changed like the others to be "List of important publications ..". See also the related debate on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in computer science. --Bduke 03:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think a separate point (if the article is kept) is whether it should be amongst the science lists in the first place.... WJBscribe 03:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, as it is a clean list that, although it may need work, seems to be going well so far. Sharkface217 03:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. These lists, while somewhat subjective, are good to have. Eventually the goal should be to include publications that already have articles on Wikipedia, or publications which should have articles here. --- RockMFR 05:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, or else I'll add the textbook I co-authored and my published master's thesis and don't any of you dare remove them :-) WP:POINTs aside, this list has no workable scope, as pointed out by the nominator. WP:NOT a catalogue of books, and there are very many legal publications in the world, even notable ones. Such content is better placed in the "References" or "Further reading" sections of the articles about the area of law in question. Sandstein 05:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, this seems like a misguided effort (best) or an attempt to inflate Google rank (worst). meshach 08:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - per WP:NOT. notable publications would merit their own articles; maybe a category Law Publications or the like? /Blaxthos 15:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - this is a job for a category. --humblefool® 19:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Categorify. If the standard for inclusion in a list is the same as the standard for inclusion as an article, categories are much better. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete or Categorify There are just far too many items that could be included on this list - consider the number of titles in your average law school library. I've always believed that lists which are necessarily going to be wildly under-inclusive should instead be deleted. --TheOther Bob 06:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. The term is important, not notable, as adopted in the science articles and successfully defended here quite a few times. There are many items that should be included in an article that do not merit their own article, and this is the place to put them. Many discussions here have ended with a consunsus or merge, and this is the sort of place they are intended to be merged to. We have argued this before, and I find it peculiar that we must reargue it every time. DGG 02:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete or show us where it's referenced that such-and-such book meets the criteria set forth. This list and others like it are completely unsourced and amount to nothing more than personal opinion. Glendoremus 23:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete/Categorize per TheOtherBob. --Wizardman 02:07, 9 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stonebridge Estate

Housing subdivision with just 30 properties, lacks notability SimonLyall 03:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- SimonLyall 03:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sharkface217 03:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MER-C 05:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Montco 05:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. LastChanceToBe 06:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Do Not Delete - It is a stub for a well known country estate by many in Hamilton City. I myself do not live there, it is not self-promotion. Estate is notable because of the way the major farming operation takes place around high-socioeconomic housing.jake971 12:59, 5 December 2006 (NZST)
Delete per nom. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Do Not Delete. Jacob Andrew ^Talk? 16:23, 7 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 keep per withdrawn nomination, no other delete !votes. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dragan Nikolić (commander)

This article was created by User:Ancient Land of Bosoni (AKA User:Bosoni AKA User:Ancient Bosoni) as part of a wider soapboxing and POV pushing campaign. There are many war criminals from the former Yugoslavia, and this man hasn't done anything to make himself more notable than hundreds of others from all sides of the conflict. - Ivan K 03:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - as nominator. - Ivan K 03:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep (and preserve name Dragan Nikolić (war criminal) - see additional comment and link below) There could be thousands who did what this person did, but the BBC, The Independent and the New York Times times found him notable enough to make him the primary subject of their aritcles.[8][9][10]. I've been noticing other Serbian war criminals up for AfD recently. I really hope this is not part of some POV agenda. --Oakshade 10:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Additional comment I see that this is both a naming dispute and an AfD - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragan Nikoli%u0107 (war criminal). --Oakshade 10:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Give the statement, "He was the Serb commander of the Susica detention camp near Vlasenica in south-east Bosnia. Following an ICTY trial, he was sentenced to 23 years in prison on 18 December 2003." is referenced, I think this article satisfies WP:N. War criminals are surely notable, even if regrettably numerous. WJBscribe 10:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep but i'm not addressing naming convetion dispute. /Blaxthos 15:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, looks like a notable war criminal. JIP | Talk 18:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and rename (war criminal) per linked AfD. Septentrionalis 21:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, but AfD should not be doing anything about the name. Which is fine as it is, anyway. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep while I am sure that there are many war criminals from this conflict, some of whom may not be notable, being a commander of a camp certanly seems to make this one more notable than others. Montco 05:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep The United Nations even has a webpage on their site regarding this man and his crimes. LastChanceToBe 06:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - meets WP:V and WP:RS. POV disoutes are outside of AFD. -- Whpq 16:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, when I nominated this article, there were weren't a lot of references in the article, so I thought it was just part of User:Ancient Land of Bosoni's soapboxing, but now I think it should not be deleted. Four other articles created by him were nominated and subsequently deleted ([11], [12], [13], [14]) so I just thought this article was just like those four. So anyway, how do I withraw this nomination; or can't that be done? - Ivan K08:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

- You just need to say that you no longer think it should be deleted, maybe striking the nomination out. I'm closing it, since you seem to want to withdraw it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep obviously. The two articles should be merged obviously but I very much object to the title Dragan Nikolić (war criminal) which is as point of view a title as one can imagine. Of course he is a war criminal but it's still a POV title. Pascal.Tesson 16:28, 5 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. —Doug Bell ^talk 06:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metal Rap / Rap Metal / Ghetto Metal

Proposed deletion contested by author. Was just a collection of external links. Those links have mostly been made into internal ones, but I'm concerned that this is redundant to existing categories and impossible to maintain (for example, I imagine many of the groups not wikilinked are non-notable). – Gurch 04:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete page describing this genre exists at Rapcore Copysan 04:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 05:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Even if the genre were not better defined elsewhere, the Original Research involved in this article (with the creator apparently trying to establish a number of genre terms) would be grounds for a massive rewrite. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, this article is completely redundant.--Paul Carpenter 18:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Lijnema 19:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Sharkface217 21:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no redirect. Nonsense name and OR. Danny Lilithborne 22:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete What the....? The article name says it all! Delete! And as per nom.Kyo cat^{¿Qué tal?♥meow!} 00:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:31, 3 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. —Doug Bell ^talk 06:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impact Pro Wrestling (USA)

Local pro wrestling league in Iowa. Does not appear to meet notability standards for organizations. Also, no reliable sources--sources are myspace pages and the like. Chick Bowen 04:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete NN wrestling fed. TJ Spyke 04:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. MER-C 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete non notable fedBooyakaDell 00:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Aaru Bui ^DII 03:33, 3 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 based on WP:V, WP:NOR and does not establish notability separate from the movie. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Organisation

Unnecessary original research and pure speculation on an extremely minor plot detail from the movie Casino Royale (2006) Eqdoktor 07:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - it's already out in several countries according to Casino Royale (2006 film), so I wouldn't call it speculation. Perhaps one of you could see the movie? MER-C 09:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Thats the whole point! The originator of the article sat down and watched the movie and dashed out an article on "The Organisation". There is NO independent verification of the facts (whatever little there is) in the article. No one is even sure if the "The Organisation" is a noun (collective) or a proper noun (real name). The only link cited in the article does not back up anything and in the typical hollywood style confirms nothing. The whole article violates Wikipedia:No original research policy - its based on just watching the movie with no verifiable facts to back it up. There is nothing holding this article up. --Eqdoktor 09:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Having seen the movie, it's of some importance, but not really a major factor. There's no indication that "The Organisation" is its proper name; it was SMERSH (James Bond) in the novel, but since the film is set in the modern day, the Soviet counterintelligence organization was replaced by a terrorist organization. The article on Bond 22 suggests, though without confirmation, that this organization might be a revamped SPECTRE. I suspect that there will be little to say (and few reliable sources to use to say it) until that next film comes out in a year or two, or at least until it starts to be promoted, hence my !vote. Shimeru 09:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The cited source does not support the article's claims. I have seen the movie but I haven't found any reviews or other published sources stating that James Bond's adversaries were part of an entity using the name "The Organisation". --Metropolitan90 22:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete We don't need pages on every single aspect of every single movie, especially where the movie provides no encyclopedic information about the aspect we can use. The article is mostly speculation and unnecessary. If the organization grows in importance in the next Bond or more encyclopedic information is provided about it, feel free. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, Lack of any serious information, prone to speculation. Whatever is notable should be mentioned at Casino Royale. The idea of the organisation having an article should be reexamined come November 2008 when Bond 22 is released. K1Bond007 06:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Insufficient to warrant it's own articel. If something major comes of it in future films that *maybe*. Peregrine 07:13, 4 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 Note that article has been considerably rewritten since nomination. W.marsh 20:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geekbrief

Non-notable podcast fails the WP:WEB notability guideline. Alphachimp 04:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. MER-C 05:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable podcast. JIP | Talk 18:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. I just came to wikipedia specifically to look up Geekbrief, to see a "deletion" notice. Mrjeff 12:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, ok.... How does that satisfy WP:WEB? Alphachimp 22:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, I want to read about the item in question, and therefore am not an expert in it. I'm mearly pointing out I personally want to read the article. Perhaps WP:WEB is too strong?Mrjeff 23:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Simply liking an article is not a legitimate argument for keeping an article, and WP:WEB is a generally accepted guideline for notability. If you'd like to read the article, feel free to save it to your hard drive or print it. Alphachimp 02:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

How about a review in the paper copy of MicroMart? I'll add a reference later today. Mrjeff 08:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I would assume that that would be purely "trivial coverage", as is found in nearly all references to specific podcasts. Alphachimp 08:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean you expect that review is trivial coverage, or all reviews are trivial coverage? A copy can be found at [15] Mrjeff 11:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

At a purely cursory glance, that website appears to be somewhat inconsequential. Alphachimp 15:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that website itself is inconsequential, sorry I should have explained better. The article given there is a copy of the review in Micromart, which I don't believe is "Trivial coverage" myself. Mrjeff 20:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly the review seems somewhat cavalier. Even if we do accept that as a legitimate published work, it's still only one published source, isn't it? Alphachimp 14:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

One of my readers, asked me to add my article to the GeekBrief.tv Wikipedia entry. I can see from the discussion here that printed copies apparently help lend some credibility. While it seems odd for Wikipedia to take that stance, and most likely it is me incorrectly reading a discussion list that is going to get me in trouble, I hope that is not the case. My syndicated column appears in a local Chicago area paper that reaches 200K readers. I added a link to the column's web home, and indicated that it is one of the most popular archived articles. Wikipedia has been mentioned in my column a few times, [here] and [here], both of which also appeared in print too.--24.15.79.244 17:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. I looked up Geekbrief specifically, and it's one of the featured channels in the Democracy player. Tapo 13:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

How does that satisfy WP:WEB? Alphachimp 22:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete NO reliable sources to base this on, most of the references are to the podcast's website. Fails WP:WEB by a fair amount. Inner Earth 21:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Some more links have been added.. do these pass WP:WEB? Mrjeff 10:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep I feel that The MSNBC show that had Geekbrief on it is good enough. I feel that the several references and this apperance are enough. MrMacMan 23:58, 6 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Triangle Foundation

There are several Google hits, and the article does allege notability, but there are no third party references. The article is also a WP:COI violation. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - blatant WP:COI. MER-C 05:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Weak references, mostly to similarly oriented web sites. Endless blue 19:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless notabilty asserted YamSan 00:08, 3 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benson Street (Manhattan)

A 144.1 foot long culdesac is not notable. We're going to list every street in the world? User:Zoe|(talk) 05:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I had hoped for a situation where generic street name pages would be established, with specifc named streets getting space in alphabetical order. Thus, there would be one Benson Street, with sections for all of the individual Bensons Streets, instead of one for each community. Obviously, I lost out on that one, and had to make due with with what was available. -

'comment;But your original idea was perhaps a good one, but might take some thought about how to do it without getting all the little ones in as well. And it may be hard to think of a title.DGG 03:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 05:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I sure hope Wikipedia doesn't try and list every street in the world - but this is a good start. Delete. --humblefool® 19:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete We should and have articles on notable streets such as Broadway, Manhattan; Fleet Street, London; or Canal Street, New Orleans. There is no point is creating articles about every street in the world, if they are not otherwise notable. The author has at least cited sources: a 1978 big book of streets, and has apparently checked that the street has not been renamed via Google maps and satellite views. But such efforts should be reserved for streets which are not of trivial importance and which have been written about. What is the approximate number of streets in the world? Who will update these articles when names are changed or streets are abandoned? Edison 20:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I think monopoly board streets are about the cutoff point as to how notable streets should be for inclusion, and this falls far, far below. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment I actually found the article quite intresting since I go throught there all the time... but yeah, pretty pointless. I was leaning towards keep... but... eh... i don't know. MrMacMan 09:23, 6 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/redirect I am redirecting for now, anyone who wants to merge information can try. W.marsh 21:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Locking high heels

While such footwear may exist, the contents of this article are pure original research. A couple of pornographic stories (NSFW) are not reliable sources. Maybe a brief mention in some fetishism-related article is in order if sources can be found. Sandstein 05:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - nothing but shops and DeviantART on google. MER-C 06:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge a brief mention into shoe fetishism if this is a common element of pornography. Otherwise delete for lack of references. Shimeru 06:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge/Delete As above. ><RichardΩ6 12 ^UW 09:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge/delete as above. JIP | Talk 18:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Shimeru. Danny Lilithborne 22:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge as above. Yet another Bizarre fetish... Grutness...wha? 23:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Er, sorry, but what sourced content exactly would all of you like to merge? And we still don't know if this is "a common element of pornography", as Shimeru stipulated. (I mean, this is the Internet. There's got to be some porn experts someplace... :-) Sandstein 23:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Well, as with all unsourced articles, google is your friend. Not that it's the part of the web that I';d normally go trampling though, but... they certainly exist, and I have heard the term before, so... [16], [17] [18]. Having said that, I can find very few references other than in sales outlets. Grutness...wha? 00:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn. --MaNeMeBasat 16:45, 3 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 Danielle Foote, delete Underneath the Radar (Danielle Foote's Single). _JD^talk 20:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danielle Foote

Non-notable reality TV contestant. Unreferenced. The only claims to notability were to release a single (also nominated) which barely made it on the charts at Australia (peaked at #41) and appearing on the cover of a relatively new men's magazine. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. MER-C 06:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

neutral/delete - I don't see the Danielle Foote article to be a problem article which attracts vandalism or multiple fancruft ravings, so despite very slender claims to fame I see no strong reasons why it really needs to be deleted. Its reasonably well laid out. The single was released and performed on TV. I recall no other Aust BB contestant to launch a singing career from their appearance on the show. The second article Underneath the Radar (Danielle Foote's Single) is unneccesary, and if the first article survives, is completely redundant and should be deleted. Asa01 06:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep BB seems to be fairly notable. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, BB contestants are not (necessarily) notable, but a single on the Aussie charts (whether "barely" or not) is very definitely enough to qualify under WP:MUSIC, point #2, "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country". Normally, I'm all in favor of deleting reality-tv-cruft, but this seems to be a rare case where actual notability has been achieved. Xtifr _tälk 22:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Addendum (doesn't necessarily apply to those who say "per Xtifr") Delete the single per Capitalistroadster, since there's already an article about the song which mentions this particular version, making the new article redundant. Xtifr _tälk 16:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Xtifr. Appears quite Notable (and attractive).--aviper2k7 22:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep singer delete single. Danielle Foote made the Australian charts with "Underneath the Radar". The song is the titletrack of the first Underworld album. That song was a top ten hit for Underworld in Australia. The Underneath the Radar article already mentions Foote's version. If we have a article on the song "Underneath the Radar" it should be based on the Underworld version. Capitalistroadster 01:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment maybe the single should be redirected, then. (No strong feelings either way on my part.) Xtifr _tälk 02:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not really that useful a search term, though. MER-C 13:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn game show contestant. Her single hasn't even broken the Top 40, so I'd hesitate to label it a "hit", and she didn't really win the game either. No real notability as far as I can see. Lankiveil 10:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC).
Keep Noted singer, on BB, charted single. --Oakshade 08:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep bio, delete single - I don't care too much about the reality TV aspect, but I agree with Xtifr that she meets the WP:MUSIC standard. Not much point of the separate article regarding her single, though. Quack 688 08:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep both. She was notable before the single came out, and the single itself charted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep the article about her because she is becoming notable for things outseide of BB. Otherwise she would not deserve an article. Merge the single article because very little is being said about it to warrant it's own page. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge -- anything useful into Big_Brother_Australia#Notable_former_contestants. -- Longhair\^talk 11:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep She is notable as a pop star, and meets WP:MUSIC criteria. --SunStar Net^talk 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep bio, delete single per Quack.--cj | talk 17:35, 7 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Arnold

Nom - Notability "asserted" but sources used are self-published; notability not demonstrated via awards, shows, etc., nor are general claims verified through sources other than those that were self-published. Rklawton 06:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO, ghits are irrelevant. MER-C 09:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. per nom, no verifiable sources. ><RichardΩ6 12 ^UW 09:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - CSD G12 - possible copyvio (with a few words added or changed here and there) from here: [19], otherwise delete as per nom. --tgheretford (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Speed Delete per above. --Amanduhh 23:37, 2 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 to delete outright. W.marsh 17:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brea Fire Services Department

Sigh. Fire department cruft. Do we want an article on every fire dcepartment in the world? User:Zoe|(talk) 06:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep I don't really see a reason to delete this. It is not original research, clearly not spam and to the many people interested in or admiring America's firefighters this might be of interest. I see no difference in keeping this and keeping every article about high schools which we have already established are being kept per policy. Also, fire departments in California are of particular interest because of the number of forrest fires. I see no harm in keeping this. And this from a notorious deletionist! MartinDK 15:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- There is no policy that schools may be kept, merely a cabal that votes in lock step. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I lean toward delete. As has been exhaustively pointed out in every school-related AfD, there is no policy in place for such things other than the usual notability and verifiability. Plus, users have a right to their "I see no harm in keeping this" opinions, but that is explicitly not a criteria for keeping an article. If there were assertions of notability in the article it would be one thing, but again, why should some things (schools, fire houses) be exempt from the explicit policy that an article must assert its subject's notability?--Dmz5 20:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete per nom, or Merge (per WP:LOCAL), GAAAAH! Local-trivia-cruft is seriously getting out of hand! Xtifr _tälk 22:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Obviously, I am biased because I created the article but I think there is enough information about this topic to make it worthwhile. Outside of the school argument mentioned above, there are many other areas of Wikipedia that have tons of "useless" articles. Examples: The Miami Dolphins starting quarterbacks; the ABC Barn Dance, the National Barn Dance, Howard E. Scott, The Rainmakers (KC band). I personally don't consider the Miami Dolphins all that important and I certainly don't care at all for country music radio shows or certain musicians, especially ones I have never heard of before. However, they are important to someone, so much so that they took the time to create the article and are valuable to someone else who will read the article. Epolk 18:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The fact that we have "tons of useless articles" is not justification for keeping yet another useless article. My fundamental criterion for keeping an article is that multiple separate people, independent of the subject, have written and published works of their own about them, demonstrating that they find the subject notable enough that they have gone to the effort of creating and publishing works of their own about it. This subject fails on that account. D e nni ^talk 19:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment WP:ILIKEIT is not an inclusion (or exclusion) criterion—but it is an essay I think you should read. The most appropriate guideline here seems to be WP:LOCAL (which you should also read). Is this topic of more than local interest? I seriously doubt it. On the other hand, to pick one of your examples (which you obviously culled from our recent-edit lists), The Rainmakers (KC band) is a band I'd never heard of before stumbling across it at random. But they have charted albums and singles on two continents. Obviously a topic of interest to more than just one local community! And it needed a complete rewrite, which I provided, not because "I like it" (for all I know, I'd hate them), but because it was a topic of obvious international interest. Your local fire department, I'm afraid, is not a topic of international interest. Speaking as a fellow Californian, I don't think it's of statewide interest. And that means that WP:LOCAL is the guideline to follow. Xtifr _tälk 18:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  - I live in Southern California, and there is nothing notable about this fire department, believe me. As for the list of articles that Epolk thinks are non-notable, I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the first few are articles I've recently worked on. I'm not even going to try to justify those articles here, as such a discussion is not germane to this discussion. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    - Comment The vote will come out however it comes out. If it goes down I guess I will have to recommend the other fire department pages for delete and start looking for other articles that have only been written or worked on by one person. Epolk 22:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
      - Nomination for deletion of articles solely because only one person has worked on them is not grounds for deletion, you would be violating WP:POINT if you did such a thing, and I warn you of a block if you do. If you want to delete articles which should be deleted, then by all means, do so, but bad faith nominations out of revenge will not be tolerated. I agree that most other fire department articles should be deleted, but if there is some notability which can be proven, then they might survive an AfD. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and Comment - Sorry about the snarky comments above. It appears that my teenage son got into my Wikipedia account this weekend and thought he was helping me out. I didn't see any of this till I got into work this morning. I am going to change my settings at home so that it doesn't remember my password and am going to change my password as well. I know that saying this now will seem like I am just trying to get out of the things posted above but if you check the IP addresses for the above postings you will find that they aren't from the IP that I do most of my editing from. Epolk 16:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Either Merge with Brea, California (per WP:LOCAL) or keep as-is. Maybe we don't need articles on every fire service, but that doesn't mean we should nuke useful information. JYolkowski // talk 23:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete: I, too, live in SoCal and really don't think this is noteworthy. Heimstern Läufer 04:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep: I would like to remind everyone that WP:LOCAL is proposed! It is not an actual policy. I see no harm is having tons of information of local interest only, because maybe someone local would like that information. Ariel. 06:46, 8 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. W.marsh 17:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] QED International

This article was speedied under WP:CSD#A7 (not notable biography) and ~~WP:CSD#G12~~ WP:CSD#G11 (blatant advertising) on 16 November. The article was re-created on 27 November.

I know that according the rules, re-creations can be speedied immediately. However, it's not clear to me that it should have been speedied in the first place; looking at the remarks on Talk:QED International, it was mentioned in NY Times, for instance. So I decided to bring it here for wider discussion (perhaps I should have brought it up at Wikipedia:Deletion review instead?).

No vote from me, since I'm not familiar with the film industry. Jitse Niesen (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC), amended 02:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per WP:SPAM The evidence is here, The recreator of the article, besides promoting the company pretty blatantly on the talk page, openly admits that he represents the company. WP:COI. MartinDK 07:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as blatant spam. It's not every day that you get a self-admitted corporate spa. So tagged. MER-C 09:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- I removed the CSD tag. It does not matter that it's written by somebody from the company; that is not a reason for deletion. What matters is whether it is an advertisement. In my opinion, it doesn't read as one. It may be that the company is not notable, and I'm fine if the article is deleted for that reason or for any other reason. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment You may want to read G4, G11 and WP:COI again. MartinDK 09:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    - I read G4 and mentioned it in the nomination statement. G11 says "simply having a company, product, group or service as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion: an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well." I'm not sure which part of WP:COI you want to refer to, but I note that it states "Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies [WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:C] are closely adhered to." Please be more specific. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
      - Being written by someone from the company makes it obvious corporate vanity, see WP:SPAM. We are being urged to take a zero tolerance approach to this stuff, see here. MER-C 10:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    - Hmm, it appears I didn't read G4 that carefully: in fact, it doesn't apply to speedies ("This clause does not apply if the only prior deletions were speedy or proposed deletions …"). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
      - Comment First of all you should be aware that Wikipedia policies are not laws. It is not the exact wording of the policy that counts but the overall meaning of what is written. As mentioned above we are being asked to take a tough stand against any kind of WP:SPAM. What that means in Wiki language is that we should interpret the policy in such a way that any content potentially representing WP:COI should be deleted. The fact that this has been speedied once before means that an admin has already determined that this to be considered spam. If you believe there were any errors in how the article was being treated you should take the matter to deletion review. We only determine if the article fulfills our policies, deletion review determines if there were errors in the procedure. MartinDK 10:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        I am well aware that it is about the overall meaning, but we seem to disagree what the overall meaning is. You're right that Brad Patrick said that we should take a tough stand. His opinion is worth taking into account as he works full time on Wikipedia, but in the end it's just his opinion. Except for legal matters, he does not decide our policies, nor how they are interpreted; that's up to the wider community. I think that "any content potentially representing WP:COI should be deleted" is not currently supported by our policies, neither in letter nor in spirit.
        I came across the article yesterday. What was I to do? I couldn't delete it because I think it does not satisfy WP:CSD. I concede I could have taken it to WP:DRV, but I chose to bring it here, mainly because AfD is a more light-weight process. If it is decided here that the article should be deleted (as seems very likely) then that's it. But I'll take it to DRV next time, especially since I'm getting curious how wide G11 is currently interpreted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete and protect if necessary until notability satisfied -- we all hate spam. /Blaxthos 15:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
User:Alkibeachkid Do you all watch movies? Obviously not, otherwise you would want to read about movies in production which is what this page does. I'm a huge fan of Richard Gere and Terrance Howard and if you all want to hold back popular information from Wikipedia, you're only limiting information.
- This is the first edit by this user. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:SPAM for a company that does not meet WP:CORP Chondrite 20:55, 7 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 to delete, but please improve referencing in the article. W.marsh 21:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global Professional Wrestling Alliance

non notable group. formed in 2006. Rwqw9 06:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - 38 non-wiki ghits, fails WP:CORP. MER-C 09:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Ewxo 10:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 03:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Aaru Bui ^DII 03:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --- Paulley 10:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep I see no reason for deletion --Voievod 22:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non notable indyBooyakaDell 01:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Japan is a highly visible contributor to professional wrestling, and this alliance is Japan's version of the old NWA in America. For this reason it is notable, and further I would suggest this nomination has been made in bad faith. Curse of Fenric 09:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Far more notable organisation than 90% of American independent promotions. A proper Google search [20] returns 11,500 non-Wiki hits, and this does not even take into account that it is a Japanese organisation and therefore a large number of search results will not appear due to the search being in English. 81.151.42.96 17:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Indrian 17:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment This does not fail WP:CORP, as alleged above. [21] and [22] clearly illustrate this point. Also professional wrestling is covered in newspaper and magazine articles in Japan on a daily basis. 81.151.42.96 17:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment The above comment shows without a doubt that those who have supported the deletion know very little about pro wrestling. Recommend an executive decision to retain the article (if I may!). Curse of Fenric 20:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment It would also be beneficial if people took time to familiarise themselves with the Afd procedures [23] specifically the point which states: The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. Notability has been proved, this article should be kept. 81.151.42.96 08:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep I see nothing wrong. Govvy 15:43, 8 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. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers & Professions

This article was submitted for proposed deletion, but the PROD tag was removed. The article, which is over a year and a half old, asserts a numerological relationship between the day of the month on which a person is born and the occupations for which the person is most suited. No sources are provided, making the article unverifiable. (Note that I do not expect the article's supporters to find verification in reliable sources that the numerological relationship is true, but they should at least be expected to provide verification that this is a well-known belief, as opposed to being either original research or the views of a single author not accepted in the larger occult community.) I recommend a delete. --Metropolitan90 06:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete lengthy, unsourced, made-up nonsense; how did it last this long? Opabinia regalis 07:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. WP:OR MartinDK 08:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as made-up nonsense per Opabinia . meshach 08:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - unsourced, pseudoscientific original research. MER-C 09:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete clearly fails WP:OR, WP:V and WP:N. It is nonesense with no assertion of how widely held belief in this nonesense actually is... WJBscribe 11:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as the present contents do not justify the existence of this page. There are many such nonsense in the wikipedia! --Bhadani 17:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia has acquired the characteristics of an encyclopedia based on general consensus and the consensus would largely be limited to the basic knowledge base of our editors. As such, it is not strange that many nonsense (including the one like above) shall continue to remain a part of wikipedia, and many writers would have written many books on such nonsense! :) --Bhadani 18:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete as either original research or unsourced and unverified. JIP | Talk 18:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as POV pushing veiled behind "Many claim", in addition to lack of sources.-Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete dumb. Danny Lilithborne 23:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Interesting. It says I should have been a writer or an artist. I am actually both of these by profession :)
Strong delete unsourced, patent nonsense and POV. But then again if we have an entire article devoted to the relationship between race and intelligence.... *cry* +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

We have many things which we do not require here including the Numbers & Professions crafted by me! But, based on what I have read in some books. However, Race and intelligence is still greater nonsense indeed. --Bhadani 11:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak Delete - Nearly every psychological, astrological, and other -ogical system tends to offer insight (forecasting) into what careers are best in light of whatever makes that system unique (in this case numbers). I am guessing the information was culled from the further reading sources, possibly hedging to avoide copyright infringement by lumping it all together. If citations could be found and the overall length reduced, it would be nice to merge it with one of the Numerology articles. --Willscrlt 13:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Nosense Banvasi 07:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge I'm glad to see several references have been added since the nom - I'm not convinced this deserves its own article, but it might have a home in the main Numerology article. I'd like to see a summarised version like the "Number definitions" section that's already there (but don't just copy-paste the whole thing!). Quack 688 08:39, 4 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 CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 08:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ZPointProducts

non notable company. formed in 2006. Rwqw9 06:55, 2 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. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viper Scorpions

non notable company. formed in 2006. Rwqw9 06:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:CORP; 9 ghits, so fails WP:V too; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MER-C 09:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Agree fails WP:CORP, WP:N and WP:V! Clearly designed to promote the company e.g. sentences like, "ViperScorpions (employees of ViperScorpion) allow a relaxed work environment to allow the steady flow of open ideas and creativity". WJBscribe 11:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Spammish, rewrite if company does something significant. Just H 21:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete despite the humorous looking viper scorpion image and section on workers working in a relaxed environment. Too spammy and not notable.--aviper2k7 23:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, article can be created again once there is a noted game from the company Alf photoman 13:05, 3 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. El_C 12:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Never Dream of Dying (film)

This is a future film, supposedly written and produced by grammar school students. There are no sources. Either it's a hoax, or an attempt to promote the film. Also the article's creator is the writer mentioned in the article. Delete'TheRingess 07:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I hope their project works out well but this is not for wilipedia per WP:CRYSTAL & WP:NOT#SOAP. meshach 08:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. MER-C 09:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Seeing as it hasn't been completed, shown at festivals or picked up a distribution deal then this article is speculation at best, which is unencyclopedic. The article is better off on the author's blog or Myspace. (aeropagitica) 09:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as either crystal balling, hoax, or NN. Take your pick. Unless these kids have really deep pockets to pay off EON Productions the odds of this seeing the light of day are nil. 23skidoo 19:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
delete as crystal balling.--Oneonex 22:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 23:02, 2 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. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melissa rothstein

Simply being the wife of someone famous is not enough criteria for her own page. Ocatecir 09:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. She's not even his wife yet, but the fact of marriage won't confer notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Not notable. WJBscribe 11:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO. Shimeru 12:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, barely notable, I'm sure a few people have heard of her, but she hasn't even DONE anything. --Liface 21:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not notable--Paukrus 00:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above. DrKiernan 08:22, 4 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 to delete, but will move. A merge/redirect could still happen but doesn't need AfD. W.marsh 03:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suzanne Sinclair (United States)

She lost...in 2004. Notable? Not so. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 19:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to the election, per WP:C&E
- Not plausible: this is not a likely search term. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 22:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep and rename Suzanne Sinclair (politician). Major party candidate for Congressional election. Owen 06:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Redirect, not worth keeping as a distinct article. --Elar agirl^Talk|Count 22:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
merge or redirect (not sure there is anything worth merging) to the main election article. JoshuaZ 03:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I can't find out how to remove this AfD from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 November 23: it does not appear to be transcluded there but shows up nonetheless. Any more experienced admins care to help? Thanks. Sandstein 09:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC) -- Problem resolved thanks to Amarkov. Sandstein 21:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above, nothing worth merging and not a worthwile search term, too. MER-C 10:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete no assertion of notability beyond the fact she sought nomination, won and contested the seat (the usual process). Is there anything distinctive about her or her policies? Is she or her campaign remembered in US political circles? WJBscribe 10:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Sarge Baldy. The year is irrelevant. Just H 23:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Question. Just wondering, do those who support keeping the article feel that everyone who stands for election to any country's legislature (though maybe only for a 'major party') is automatically sufficiently notable for Wikipedia? This would seem the logical outcome to avoid a US-centric bias to the encyclopedia... WJBscribe 23:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. And the title is awful too - if this ends up as keep then it really should be moved! Inner Earth 21:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per people that chose redirect. Delete's a bit harsh, but certainly not uncalled for. --Wizardman 02:09, 9 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. Existance of reliable sources or of otherwise meeting WP:MUSIC was never established. W.marsh 23:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Dastardly

This poorly written and completely unsourced article about a band whose notability is marginal (at best) fails to meet any of the 12 criteria listed in WP:MUSIC. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 21:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete The movie for which they contributed music is itself not notable, and their record releases are not with major labels. Fails WP:MUSIC--Anthony.bradbury 22:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep verifiable, notable. Tulkolahten 22:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Show me the sources. Doc Tropics 19:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete; see nomination. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Not only is the information verifiable, the band is notable. I have heard their music in several different forms of media and they have a cult following. In addition to this, the user, Doc Tropics states, "This poorly written and completely unsourced article about a band whose notability is marginal (at best)..." This is an OBVIOUSLY biased statement that seems like he has an axe to grind. Don't delete the article because there is an audience for it and it's problems are fixable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.181.193.7 (talk • contribs)

Comment Yes, I have an axe to grind - against poorly written, unsourced articles on non-notable subjects. Call it a character flaw. Simply saying "this band is notable" does not actually establish its notability, it simply asserts your opinion. Can you back up your claim with a verifiable source? If so, why not put it in the article? Doc Tropics 07:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Simply saying that the band's "notability is marginal (at best)" does not establish that the band isn't notable, it simply asserts your opinion, which in this case happens to be wrong. And yes, I have something that will establish notability and it wouldn't be hard for you to except you know that youi might prove yourself wrong and that is scary, isn't it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.181.193.7 (talk • contribs).

This article is completely unsourced! Please post this alleged proof of notability here; there is none in the article. Doc Tropics 19:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, closing admin please discount WP:ISAYITSNOTABLETHEREFOREITIS !votes. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - google seems to turn up quite a few results, including some results on lyrics sites that prob wouldn't publish without notability. I think WP:BAND is out to get the I created the band with my high school friends and we played at the talent show kind of thing, not the kind of group that appears to have a following and has several thousand ghits. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)}
Weak Delete All Music Guide only lists one self-published album, which fails WP:MUSIC two ways. (Although it does confirm that this is probably not a hoax.) Change to keep if (and only if) verifiable evidence from reliable sources is provided to show that they meet some of the other criteria of WP:MUSIC. Otherwise, well, guys, this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site, and if you just want free web space, MySpace is thataway! Xtifr _tälk 23:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Though, I agree that the article needs improvement and may not be written in a perfect way, this is a notable band! They have been featured in major television shows quite regularly and they were in a few major Hollywood movie. In addition to this, their following isn't regional, they have followings all throughout the country. In addition to this, if you google this band you find that every bit of this information is in some sort of verifiable source. There seems to be some contention between the Doc Tropics guy and this article, because if he really wanted to simply make the articles better he could easily do this himself since he is obviously aware of how to source the articles. I did read all of this information in some form or fasion in other sources before I tried to find them on Wikipedia. Do a google, they are nationwide notable and are consistently involved at least minimally in major projects that give them a following. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanish angel987 (talk • contribs) — Spanish angel987 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If you could provide some of those notable television shows, it would be quite helpful. Especially if you gave the source, so we didn't have to look it up. -Patstuart^talk|edits 10:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep The band is notable and the article fixable and not much worse than many of the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickenlittlegirl (talk • contribs)

Comment I know a few of them, and it shouldn't be hard to find. However I am not aware how to source so I will have to wait untill I have a significant amount of freetime so that I could read about all of that.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickenlittlegirl (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kynoid

This neologism, referring to sentient dog-like creatures, has only 249 Google hits, most of which are wiki mirrors or forums, and does not appear to be in widespread use. It's unverifiable, non-notable, and probably original research. Nydas 10:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The article refers to an aspect featured in the Noon Universe series of novels, most of which were not translated into English. Those that were have long since gone out of print, and thus hard to track down. The authors of this article had no recourse but to rely on the original Russian texts in order to create this article. The existance of the said texts can be verified through Arkady Strugasky's official homepage. As for claims of being non-notable, it may not be not notable in English-speaking countries, but in Russia, the work of Strugasky brothers remains fairly popular, which, in my eyes, is enough to warrent an inclusion. --Strannik 20:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete - WP:NEO fancruft, with a tedious and uninformative list to boot. Pete Fenelon 02:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- May I notice that per definition "Neologism is a word, term, or phrase which has been recently created"? "27 years ago" hardly qualifies as "recently" IMHO. :) --Koveras ^☭ 10:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- And second thought, after looking at the article again, I am sorely tempted to change my mind. The article is kind of iffy when it comes that parts that don't have to do with Headies. And since there already is a Headies article, well... --Strannik 07:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- but the question remains, how to call a god-shaped sentinent race? Werewolf is a more particular case. If you suggest a better word, let's move the article there. ellol 12:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete this fancruft. WMMartin 17:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Everything verifiable is already in Headies; the rest of the article is probably OR. Searching google, there does seem to be some evidence of use of the term outside of the Noon Universe works, although a lot of confusion seems to have been caused by an unrelated use of the same name for a Doctor Who alien race. But there's nothing that I'd class as verifiable, or even important. JulesH 11:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep per Ellol. It's clearly verifiable by google [24]. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Which site from that listing are you saying classifies as a reliable source to verify the article? JulesH 17:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per JulesH. ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:13, 6 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psytexx

Non-notable open source software Memmke 09:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep 111,000 ghits. Seems notable to me. Ultra-Loser ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 10:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Most of the google hits seem to be software directories, not an indicator of notability IMO. Memmke 10:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment; notability is at least asserted as the first Amiga MOD tracker for Palm OS. -Toptomcat 23:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 02:12, 2 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 10:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete unless notability is asserted. utcursch | talk 11:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless notability is established. -- Chondrite 20:25, 6 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. I have no doubt that I'm asking for an ass-kicking here, but this entire article reeks of self-promotional material if it actually exists, or a hoax if it doesn't (which... makes a lot of sense). There's absolutely no reason to let this farce of an AfD continue; a handful of people (possibly even one) are the ones campaigning for its continued existence, and the strongest piece of evidence (the scanned newspaper article) is one of the most heavily photoshopped images I've ever seen. Between suspect sockpuppets, a dubious level of notability, and an unreliable primary source, I don't feel that this article should be on Wikipedia. If this is a real religion (seems to be a bit of a debate about that, but that's neither here nor there), an article can be written at a later date at such a time as the movement is actually notable. That time is not now. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Janicism

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}}

Looks like pure original research and possibly something made up in a library. Also NN, "Janicism religion" garners 11 ghits. Speedied as nonsense, recreated, contested Tubezone 10:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Janicism is a factual article. All things start off small, and Janicism wont expand suddenly overnight. The fact is, Janicism is a real religion. There are people who follow it, and therefore I maintain they have a right to have it documented on Wikipedia, which is why I wrote the article (which has since been expanded by a fellow practicing Janicist, showing it is not false.) I strongly believe that this article should be upheld in the public view.Mlc409 10:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC) — Mlc409 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete This is clearly a hoax. Google can find nothing at all to verify this. Not even a single blog, nothing. IrishGuy ^talk 10:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above, speedy if possible. MER-C 10:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Janicism is a real religion, but these things cannot simply turn up overnight. We have slowly been expanding our religion over many months, and have decided to write an article to try to reach out to more people. Janicism is definitely not made up, as some of its views are documented in books - see "Mort" by Terry Pratchett, as seen in the article. Do not delete. Ichbinbored 10:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC) — Ichbinbored (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Actually, the article doesn't state that "Mort" documents this religion. When refering to books being written about people after their deaths: This is documented in the book "Mort", by Terry Pratchett, however the fundamental beliefs surrounding this are different to those of Janicists (who follow the Parable of Reed). All that means is that "Mort" mentioned the idea of people having books written about their life activities, it doesn't mean that "Mort" in any way referenced "Janicism". IrishGuy ^talk 10:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

i think this is real, i've heard about it before. 80.47.56.21 10:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC) — 80.47.56.21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The founder may be a budding L Ron Hubbard for all I know, but you have to have some verifiable outside notability to get into WP, please read WP:NOTE. There's plenty of other places on the internet to document your beliefs, and, no, you don't have a right to do it here. ~~Delete~~ (vote redone, see below) Tubezone 10:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You have articles on Christianity. You have articles on Islam. You have articles on Hinduism. I fail to see why an article on Janicism, a religion in it's own right is objectable. I do apologise if my comments come across as arrogant but I can't understand why some religions receive documentation on Wikipedia, but others do not? mlc409 10:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment It's real simple: those are notable religions by WP standards, Janicism isn't. Tubezone 10:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

dudes chill out janicism is real mannnn ive heard bout it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.105.204 (talk • contribs)

— 82.43.105.204 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: 82.43.105.204 is Mlc409 (talk · contribs), per [25]

Delete. I agree, this is a hoax. Quite funny but shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Not a single ref to confirm this 'religion' exists. WJBscribe 10:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as any of the following: A non-notable religion, which may or may not attract coverage at some indeterminate point in the future, thus becoming notable; a hoax, although possibly one based on the works of a notable author; a group of Terry Pratchett fans trying to do for his works what the religion of the Jedi Knights has done for George Lucas (as distinct from a straight-out hoax). In the first and third cases, we've got the cart (a Wikipedia entry) before the horse (the inconvenient acquisition of notability). In the second case, we've just got a hoax. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Janicism is slowly gaining popularity, and its beliefs can be seen in everyday life - just look around you. Now is it undocumented? I think not. Ichbinbored 10:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Then it shouldn't pose a problem for you to provide this documentation with verifiable sources. IrishGuy ^talk 10:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per num. utcursch | talk 11:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE There is proof. There are verifiable sources. I have found this link here [26]. I am also in the process of scanning a NEWSPAPER ARTICLE documenting janicism. Please be patient. mlc409

Blogspot != reliable source. MER-C 11:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Especially a blog that was created today with multiple entries all minutes apart to make it appear to be an older blog. IrishGuy ^talk 11:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

... and 1 newspaper article != notable... and why not tell us the name of the newspaper and its date of publication? That way someone can look it up. Tubezone 11:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

A blog that was created today? ROFL. This "coordinated defence" is starting to become too silly. MER-C 12:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Your "source" blog is a complete hoax. It is made up of entries from three other blogs: http://coppersblog.blogspot.com/ [27] [28] [29], http://bluesandtwos.blogspot.com/ [30] [31], and http://jes.blogs.shellprompt.net/ [32]. The only original entry is your "source" on this hoax religion. Frankly, at this point you are guilty of plageurism for stealing other people's content and passing it off as someone else's in your attempt to create false sources. IrishGuy ^talk 18:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That is just a blog entry about one of our festivals, its an example. So what if its not reliable, its a source. And someone set up a page ages ago here that was supposed to talk about the religion, but I think she gave it up a bit later. Ichbinbored 11:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That, too, is a hoax as it links to this article which didn't exist a month ago. IrishGuy ^talk 11:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

By 'ages ago' you seem to mean less than a month ago?!? And it speculatively (and prophetically!) links to this very article on Wikipedia before it was created. Wow, make up your sources before you start this article- I'm impressed... WJBscribe 11:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Read the page, it says "An article about Our fundamental beliefs is being compiled, and should be completed towards the end of 2006." Being compiled means it is being made. It was posted today when we completed it. Obviously, so she wouldn't have to update the page later, she put a link there so it would be ready when it was completed. Ichbinbored 11:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

My point is that if I write a webpage saying, "I am going to write an article about X and put it on Wikipedia", that blog is not external evidence of the existence of X when I come to justify the Wikipedia article. WJBscribe 11:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this, but it surely must help. Ichbinbored 11:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

In what way must it help? In order to show notability, you'll need reliable independent sources. Currently, the two sources cited are a blog with some funny entry timestamps and a website which says (as WJBscribe so aptly puts it), "I'm going to write an article about X and put it on Wikipedia". Leaving aside the blog, in what way is the website independent of the religion? That's the crux of the matter for me at the moment - when independent and reliable sources start talking about this religion, it becomes notable. It doesn't turn up here in order for independent and reliable sources to start talking about it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You cannot make your own sources nor can you act as a reliable source yourself. How hard is that to understand? We keep seeing these far out articles with people so desperate to keep their article they will do anything to make us believe that this isn't just something they made up in school one day. MartinDK 12:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per the above. MartinDK 12:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I intend to publish the scanned newspaper article shortly. Also,I'm in the process of uploading a Janicist book burning video on to youtube. This certainly is not a wind up, and it's slightly offensive that our beliefs are seemingly being belittled and ridiculed. mlc409 — user:mlc409 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Youtube != reliable source. Please read the guideline before trying to verify this article. MER-C 12:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You have a video? This should be fun! MartinDK 12:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

So will the article no doubt be. Its amazing what some people can achieve with Photoshop! WJBscribe 12:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want a scanned article. Just tell us in which newspaper the article is in, and what date, there's ways to look it up. It'll take you a couple of seconds to add this info to the bottom of the article. Tubezone 20:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

First, mlc409 claims that he is going to put up a newspaper scan...then a newspaper scan does show up.[33] Unfortunately, it was Ichbinbored who put it up. Sockpuppetry? Second, I have contacted the editor of the newspaper and will shortly receive a reply to concretely clarify whether or not an article as this was ever published in the Oldham Evening Chronicle. IrishGuy ^talk 20:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask what you would consider to be proof? Every source we find you manage to establish a way of making it illegitimate. Even if it's not. Annoying. If we didn't feel so strongly about our beliefs then we would probably give up as we feel very much ganged up against. The fact is this: JANICISM EXISTS. Regardless of how many people follow it. We follow it. We believe in it. Therefore it should be documented on Wikipedia. This is how I see it.mlc409 — user:mlc409 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The sort of proof we are looking for is explained at WP:RS. It might have been an idea if Ichbinbored (which is a poor attempt at translating 'I am bored' into German if further evidence of this user's intentions were needed) had read them before creating the article... PS. I worship my cat- can he have a page on Wikipedia? WJBscribe 12:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You have better chances of making into Wikipedia for worshipping your cat than these kids. Tell me, what do you do in this video? MartinDK 12:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Afraid not, worshipping your cat is quite different from an article on a religion. I should clarify that the ichbinbored name is one used by the user generically. It really has no relevance to this discussion over the Janicism article. Discussing/attacking the character of the editor is not really acceptable. It is the suitability of the Janicism article for wikipedia in discussion here. mlc409 — user:mlc409 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No what is being discussed here is your home made sources and pathetic attempts at either canvassing or sockpuppetry. Now, back to the video. What do you do? Dance around Stonehenge in togas? MartinDK 13:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete per WP:CSD (WP:HOAX). --Brad Beattie (talk) 13:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete They worship someone called "Janice" (surname probably "Reed"), they have sacred vegetables (including "Carrots, Aubergines, Apples [sic] and Pumpkins") and they believe that broccoli and sweetcorn are "satanic". All the blog entries, poorly photoshopped local newspaper articles and sockpuppet accounts in the world won't convince me this isn't a hoax. Demiurge 13:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Jesus, Buddha, and Adonai, delete this as rapidly as possible. I don't care if the religion actually exists or not, it's very obviously non-notable, and attempts by its "followers" to falsify sources (and non-relable sources, at that!) mean that the page should also probably be salted. -- Kicking222 13:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how many people worship it, it matters how many reliable sources there are. 0 means Delete. Also: WP:CSD says hoaxes shouldn't be speeded. BCoates 13:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete as WP:HOAX. Valrith 15:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This is off the subject a bit, but I find it quite offensive that you can insult my name like this. Try searching for "ichbinbored" on Google and you will see that I receive 9 out of the 10 results on the first page. Ichbinbored is simply a slogan, it is in no way supposed to be a literal translation. NOT DELETE. Ichbinbored 15:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment We are not here to debate your name. Second, could you explain to me why the blog you created is full of stuff from other blogs created before it? I am curious because Google seems to be defying your amazing line of logic. Third, what is the update on the video? MartinDK 16:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Well if you read up a bit, WJBscribe said "Ichbinbored (which is a poor attempt at translating 'I am bored' into German if further evidence of this user's intentions were needed)", so it was not me who brought the subject up. Perhaps you could mention this to him/her. And I actually am bored by your constant abuse of our religion. It is recognised in the UK, and is soon gaining international status. DO NOT DELETE Ichbinbored 16:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as this clearly goes against the beliefs of my religion, Floydism. And for those of you who may doubt this, I will be writing a blog entry, creating a youtube video, and then uploading a photoshopped news article as "proof." Wavy G 16:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - A.S.A.P. - As per WP:HOAX. Also delete Image:Janicism article.jpg as per WP:HOAX too. --tgheretford (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete quickly per WP:HOAX. Creating content for an article is bad form. meshach 17:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete and salt the name space. Non-notable hoax, supposed followers are not helping by making up sources that make it appear notable. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 19:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

'Do not delete'. Everybody is entitled to an opinion. 80.43.107.228 19:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC) — 80.43.107.228 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Same editor also vandalized the AfD summary

Indeed everyone is entitled to an opinion. What matters here is the consensus of opinions to which everyone is entitled, which appears to be overwhelmingly against the article. If by "everybody is entitled to an opinion", you mean that everyone's allowed to write what they want on Wikipedia, well that's a different story - making up religions is something you can do in the privacy of your own home, but posting them on Wikipedia is bad and naughty. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete as hoax. I can't find anything on Google except blogs and MySpace pages, which hardly confer notability. Hut 8.5 19:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I worship Snowball II, and Snowball says this article says this article should be speedily deleted as it's obvious this article will not have verifiable, reliable sources before this AfD is over. Tubezone 20:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, there's not a chance in hell it'll be kept and the people behind it are disrupting wikipedia by altering votes [34] [35] and vandalising userpages. Let's not waste any more time on this. Demiurge 20:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The admins can call a halt to this per WP:SNOW. Note the anon IP's all come from England, where have we seen that before? Maybe here? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fosh (game) Tubezone 20:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Snowball it please -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Stick a fork in it, Salt, Ban one of the users as a sockpuppet (if not both)- only ghits for Janicism turn up some pseudo-pornographic Chinese blog: [36]. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. If Janicism is real, Wikipedia can wait until some verifiable reliable sources are found before including it in the encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 22:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Do not Delete: this is actully really rather intersting to me, having read the artical, and read the discustion so far, I do not have any connections myself with Janicism, but you are asking for evidence of its existance, and you are expecting that a small manority religon (if it exists or not, I am not here to debate) will be able to come up with links from places like the bbc or something, but it isn't really going to happen is it? interstingly you have not found any infomation to prove that janicism does not exist, maybe you should try and do that, although I do understand that acording to wikipedia you don't have to, but it would be nice to see some evidence against it. also a while ago, i alerted an Admin about a poor quality artical and he E-mailed me back saying "as long as infomation is factul and is not biased, it is allowed on wikipedia" there can be no question that it is not biased, and as for whether or not it is factul, does remain to be seen, but wikipedia is meant to be a place to share infomation, and fit more infomation than you could on paper, so I say keep it, and spread the infomation about this religion, and its time for a lot of you to grow up, stop empowering yourselfs from your keyboard, and get off your high horses, and just accept it as infomation and move on. --GDMCR — GDMCR (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp [optional] (UTC).

How does one go about proving a negative? How do you prove something doesn't exist? Can you provide irrefutable evidence that I don't harbor an invisible elephant on my roof? IrishGuy ^talk 22:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Has your roof fallen in for some unknown reason? No? Then there is no invisible elephant on your roof. Irrefutable proof. 80.47.11.236 09:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC) — 80.47.11.236 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That is far from irrefutable proof. Much as this article is far from true. IrishGuy ^talk 13:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Why, isn't that the essence of faith? And isn't faith the basis of any religion? So, what you're saying is, we need to have faith in Janicism? Ahh, it all makes sense now. I "see the light." Wavy G 23:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We're glad to have you. However, perhaps you would like to familiarize yourself with part of the rules, as per WP:V. As a matter of fact, several of us did do a google search, and were unable to come up with anything. Another rule is WP:NOTE, and (I'm sorry to say), in this case, WP:NFT. Just because something is made up by a small group of people does not make it notable enough for inclusion. If it had a following of even a thousand followers worldwide, it would probably be notable for inclusion. But as it stands, there's no sources for the information, and it looks fairly non-notable and unverifiable. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It is rather hard to believe the above user's comments given that this post is the very first action s/he has ever taken on wikipedia...--Dmz5 23:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete mind-bogglingly stupid religioncruft. I also find it hilarious how the proponents are making a great case for deletion without any help from us. Danny Lilithborne 23:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

But Danny, what about the rule that Wikipedia publishes all information that exists, even information that isn't verifiable or notable? Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I say gaze into the hypnotic power of my evil eye! Danny Lilithborne 23:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per all the reasons listed above (WP:RS and self promotion), although this article for deletion is the funniest I've ever seen.--aviper2k7 23:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
How do I Delete thee? Let me count the ways: WP:NFT. WP:OR (this and this link back to Wikipedia!). WP:RS. WP:WEB. WP:HOAX. And finally...WP:BOLLOCKS. But hey, it was amusing, so that's something. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete and salt as "pure bollocks." No reliable cites, some likely hoax cites. Edison 01:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment I don't think salting will do any good, they'll probably just make up another hoax (like, say Sir Charles Broccoli??) to disrupt Wikipedia, then use socks and vandalism to troll yet another AfD with silly arguments. An admin with checkuser privileges needs to check the edit history of the IP addresses of the contributors and lay some blocks on the sources of this and other joke articles. I do want to see the YouTube video, though, I wonder if they'll baptize a kid by whacking him on the noggin with an eggplant. (I don't want to see a Janicist bris) Also, how can they call a mushroom non-kosher for being "low", but a root vegetable is sacred? Tubezone 05:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment I actually find it really abusive, and I think that others will do so too, that you are calling this religion "bollocks". Would you like to go on to the Islam and Christianity pages and tell them that their religion is "bollocks"? Even if Janicism is a minority religion, it still exists, and we should not have to put up with this level of abuse. 80.47.11.236 09:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC) — 80.47.11.236 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- With respect, that's a false argument. Islam and Christianity (and a myriad of other religions, denominations, sects and cults) have attracted newspaper and/or scholarly coverage. Therefore, not only do we know that they exist, they're eminently notable. Janicism, on the other hand, has a dicey-looking blog, a website which says nothing more than "we exist", an apparently photoshopped newspaper article and an alleged YouTube video. The best that collection proves is that there is a relatively coherent group of people who call what they do by that name (and even then I have my doubts). There's no notability there, and there's precious little verifiability. If that were all we could find on an established world religion, I'd have no hesitation in deleting the article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
And also I thought there were no votes. It says at the top that the editors decide not through counting heads. So why are you saying that they have been changed if they don't mean anything? A religion doesn't have to be internationally recognised to exist. Ichbinbored ^talk 10:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- As far as the international recognition point goes, that's true enough. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a website about everything which exists. To use the hoary old chestnut, I exist (and in a nicely verifiable manner), but I don't get an article just because of winning the genetic lottery. If I want an article, I need to do something significant first. Likewise, were I to found a Satanic cult (an example plucked at random, although there are a lot of AfDs on these), said cult would also exist but remain obstinately non-notable until it had burned a church or two down or done something equally newsworthy. I'm willing to assume good faith and say that the religion exists, but it hasn't achieved noteworthiness yet. In terms of the "changing votes" thing, what was being referred to then was that certain accounts had actually altered what other people had said - changing a phrase such as "Delete this page, it is as noteworthy as the religion I've founded" to read "Keep this page, it is related to the religion I've founded" and so on. Pretending that people have said things that they hadn't is very bad form. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that those such accounts/IPs should be banned, but there is a newspaper article about one of the festivals. How large does such an event have to be before it is considered noteworthy? Ichbinbored ^talk 10:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, would like there to be at least two newspaper articles to start with - regardless of the size of the festivals they're talking about. Further, there is a considerable belief that the article was created with Photoshop. IrishGuy was in the process of checking its bona fides last I heard, so it may ultimately prove unhelpful in this cause. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, I can't afford Photoshop, and I don't think that Mlc409 could either. All I know is that he found that article in the Oldham Evening Chronicle, scanned it and uploaded it. Ichbinbored ^talk 11:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you forget which account you were logged into yesterday? Mlc409 didn't upload the article, you did. How does one forget scanning and uploading an article? IrishGuy ^talk 13:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You haven't actually said it before, but regardless of that, we only have your word that neither of you could afford it. I'm not saying that it has been photoshopped, although other users are saying that. I've sent a message to IrishGuy to see if he's heard back from the Chronicle's editor, which would clinch the matter of the veracity of the newspaper article once and for all. It still remains to be seen, however, whether that's enough to move this into notable territory. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately there seems to be no way of proving that we can't afford it, but Mlc409 usually tells the truth and so I'd be surprised if it was fake. Ichbinbored ^talk 11:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

How can you possibly sit there and say, "Mlc409 usually tells the truth," when it is quite clear (you've already slipped up at least twice in this Afd when recalling which one of your accounts did what) that you are' Mlc409, automatically making him and yourself a liar? Wavy G 22:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Affordability is a non-argument anyway. The term "Photoshopped" tends to get used as an umbrella term for all digital image manipulation, regardless of what software was actually used. There are plenty of cheap and even free image manipulation applications out there, and numerous other ways to achieve the same results. Saying "Photoshop is too expensive" doesn't eliminate any suspicion of fakery. 81.178.72.113 14:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)— 81.178.72.113 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Janicism is definately a real religion. Many of my friends have recently joined the religion and have tried to persuade me to join aswell but i am a strong christian so i declined their offers. 82.26.33.76 11:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC) — 82.26.33.76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

^^The above comment^^ was left on the actual article itself, so I cut + pasted it here. Ichbinbored ^talk 11:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I can guarantee you that no photoshopped articles appear on the Janicism page. Mlc409 12:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I can guarantee you this won't fly, either. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/mlc409

How can you "guarantee" this? I can "guarantee" that mlc409 has as muchof a chance of becoming an admin as anybody else does. Do you call this an article that is not worthy of a nomination? Ichbinbored ^talk 16:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Mlc409 didn't create the speedycuffs article...an editor named Mawich did. In fact, his only edits to that article were to revert vandalism by the same IP that keeps showing up here...ten minutes after it happened so it's pretty clear he wasn't simply patrolling the recent changes. How oddly convenient that he just knew to pop over to that article and find some vandalism. IrishGuy ^talk 17:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete This is a probable hoax, and almost as bad as Briefsism for being a hoax -ism. If Janicism is real, Wikipedia can wait until some verifiable reliable sources are found before including it here. But it's a probable WP:HOAX. --SunStar Net^talk 15:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

How "reliable" does a source have to be before it can be counted? I bet that there are thousands of articles that don't quote sources, and they still exist. Ichbinbored ^talk 16:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles can and are deleted for want of references. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 17:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete: It's probably been mentioned already, but the newspaper scan is a Photochop, the typeface is totally wrong for the Oldham Evening Chronicle (A Google Image search will show genuine articles and the typeface used). Unreliable sources per WP:EL and WP:V. Also I'm from the UK and I've certainly never heard of this religion, oh and it's not recognised by the British government. Could be an attempt to create something similar to the Jedi census phenomenon. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 17:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

When will you people learn to READ??? PHOTOSHOP WAS NOT USED TO CREATE A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE. I can't think of a more simple way to put it. mlc409

Interesting. An IP which previously acted like a different person is signed as mlc409. There would no chance possibility of Sockpuppetry, would there? -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

mlc409 - I actually agree with you, looking at the quality of the image, the text and what not, I'd say your newspaper article was created using MS Paint. You still have not explained why your scan from the Oldham Evening Chronicle has a totally different typeface (Verdana if I'm not mistaken) to any other extract or scan on the internet. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 01:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous Patstuart. All this means is that I wasn't signed in at the time. My computer signs me out sometimes automatically. It happens, and it doesn't mean I am attempting to deceive people. What I WILL say though, is that I don't have a second username. So lets leave of the detective work and just discuss the actual article shall we? That's what this page is for mlc409 19:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You're not allowed to edit on someone else's account (friend's, brother's, imaginary friend's)++aviper2k7++ 20:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out - I already knew that, which is one of the reasons I haven't being engaging in such actions. LIKE I SAID BEFORE, SHALL WE CONCENTRATE ON DISCUSSING THE ARTICLE INSTEAD OF PERSONALLY ATTACKING ME?? Mlc409 20:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I was informing you of Wikipedia policy, which is something you ignore when your article has one source, which is a poor quality scan of a newspaper article. It's not about whether the religion exists, it's if it's notable, and it obviously isn't. I think an article on myself has more notability than Janicism. Google turns no results that Janicism is a legit religion. This debate doesn't have legs.++aviper2k7++ 20:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

And what is Google? Is it the be all and end all of the WORLD? I know it's offensive for Wikipedia to have original content but I guess it happens Mlc409 21:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't happen, and that's why this page is being deleted.++aviper2k7++ 21:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - I searched over 14 academic databases, and did not get a single hit. Keesiewonder 00:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Obviously a hoax. --Das0408 01:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete apparent hoax, no reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:40, 4 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. See for ex. Chaim Zimmerman's "The Prohibition of Abandoning Land in Eretz-Yisrael", Nativ, Vol. 7, March 2005. El_C 02:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Milhemet Mitzvah

~~Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Stebbins 08:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)~~

Delete per nom. Non-technical, rarely used term. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep I suggest this was added because the term might reasonably be expected to find use in the near future, the way things unfortunately seem to be going. But it needs more support than this. There is surely a significant rabbinical literature which could be sourced an summarized. DGG 05:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Keep, but provide reliable sources. Specifically, the references to the original Jewish text. Otherwise, people will use this to make statements that are outright false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzmonty (talk • contribs)
Rewrite. The article as it stands is not acceptable, does not cite sources and it's not written in prose but it's a collection of lists. -- dockingman^talk 06:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Zzmonty has completely rewritten the article. Although my initial reason for AfDing this article is no longer true, I agree with Dockingman that it is still unacceptable. Almost none of the information is cited or given context, and the opening paragraph is an obvious WP:NPOV violation. Stebbins 08:01, 2 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 10:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep if reliable sources provided YamSan 23:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. ⇒ bsnowball 13:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Wait for sources identifying notability. Also, if kept, the article needs to be accurate. While Judaism has nothing like the Islamic concept of Jihad and the original article engaged in POV original research by claiming this, the current edition is also inaccurate by claiming that all the wars referred to in Rambam's Mishneh Torah under this category were purely defensive. It is not clear to me the concept is as unnotable as claimed, although the burden is and should be on the editors writing the article. For example, the Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin article notes that the current Sanhedrin-revival-attempt has claimed expansive powers for itself including a claim that historically only a Sanhedrin had power to declare war in a Jewish state and that it and not the Israeli civil government is the sole legitimate successor to those powers. It has issued a series of "rulings" on contemporary circumstances, developing a variety of interpretations of the Jewish law of war, including an attempt to develop an interplay between classical Jewish law and modern concepts such as international treaties. In doing so, it has opined extensively on the concept of milchemet mitzvah, for which it has developed a particularly expansionist interpretation. Here are just a couple of examples from a large and emerging body of recent work. It states in its "Declaration Concerning the Disengagement from Gaza" that "The commandment to 'inherit and dwell' (Deut. 12:29) in the Land of Israel is obligatory upon every Israeli government. In this regard Israel is commanded by G-d to conquer the entire expanse of the Land of Israel within its Biblical boundaries, including the Gaza strip." See e.g.[37]. It provides another interpretation of Maimonides' Milchemet Mitzvah ("obligatory war") concept here: [38] ~--Shirahadasha 18:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Changed vote to Keep. When I nominated this article for AfD, it contained two sentences and had no evidence of notability. Now I think it is clear that the article ought to be kept, although it is still in need of drastic cleanup. Stebbins 23:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete as it stands now (a list of quotes) it shouldn't be in wikipedia, but wikisource etc. but also is there a problem with lack of context, these injunctions don't apply to the current era do they? (not rhetorical q) ⇒ bsnowball 16:23, 5 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. —Doug Bell ^talk 06:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fifi (masturbation aid)

Contested WP:PROD. The term "fifi bag" seems to exist, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary of sexual slang. - Mike Rosoft 10:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. This is a neologism, and fails WP:NOT as a result. --Brad Beattie (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep I have fond memories of my first Fifi that I made while in prison. I'm sure lots of wikipedians have similar feelings. --Amanduhh 23:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Brad Beattie +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NEO. I was really hoping there would be an image in the article :P --- RockMFR 05:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per above Alf photoman 13:22, 3 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. W.marsh 21:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kafenio

This page still doesn't really assert any notability. Its full of 'sources' but these are all blogs, newsletters, search engines or broken links. I believe that, unless some of the claims are substantiated, it fails WP:WEB.

Its previous listing can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kafenio. Its a recent one with no non-keep votes and one which I closed. However, see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Suite101.com. At least two of the voters in the Kafenio discussion had both contributed to the ezine and were together on the same Greek island when 'voting'. Though there is no reason to suspect that they delibetatly tried to manipulate the system, their votes nonetheless gave a false impression of a consensus: take them away and there were just 3 votes, all keep but two from users for whom it was their first contribution... anyway, I think its worth a relisting. --Robdurbar 11:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep, evidently written by blunderer but Kafenio was even mentioned at a UN conference, see United Nations Conference on Trade and Development The Book of Aspirations page 38 YamSan 00:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete I still don't see the controversy. The article does not demonstrate notability sufficient to satisfy the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (web). The whole thing reads like someone is trying to puff up the claims and use Wikipedia to establish their fame. In fact, most of the article was written by a former writer for the site. Moreover, I can find no independent verification of the site's contributions to the web community or its claims as a major innovator. The site was never highly ranked by any independent source such as Alexa and went defunct after a few years of publication. Even the former publisher has made a request that the article be deleted. Yes, the former employees remember it fondly, but that doesn't make it notable for an encyclopedia entry. SteveHopson 22:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been annoyed before by your soap-boxing antics in AfDs, but linking a user‘s talk page, that evidently has been blanked by mutual consent of both writer and receiver really takes the biscuit around here.

But let‘s not talk about rude manners and rather about your scientific way to establish notability. Let‘s take your favorite, ALEXA statistic‘s. If you had bothered checking the methodology, you would have discovered that these statistics are based on users who use the ALEXA Toolbar. And investigating the history of that bar makes it evident that it did not exist before 2003 in a notable fashion. Kafenio did not exist anymore at that time so there cannot be a useful ALEXA statistic. In fact, having a million downloads (which does not imply a million users) of the aforesaid toolbar still means that only a fraction of a percent of all Internet users surfing habits are recorded, whose statistical relevance is questionable at best. Besides that, on many sites there are instructions on how to write a simple Basic program to improve the ALEXA statistics on a site. That may be the explanation of why obscure publications, that never get quoted and never are noted by anyone, rank so high on ALEXA statistics.

The only way to establish notability in this case is solid library work and in doing that you might learn a thing or two about notability.

YamSan 12:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where the user talk page was blanked and still consider Kafenio's editor's comments about this article to be relevant. I am aware of the limitations of Alexa, but know of no other source for this type of information. I choose to ignore your personal comments against me, but would ask you to review Wikipedia:No personal attacks. SteveHopson 18:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Calm down you guys... its a poorly cited entry about a site that was good back in the day. It died tho. Sorry man. MrMacMan 09:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete The article is poorly sourced and, after going through the sources and references provided, the subject's verifiable claim to fame seems to be that it was listed as 12th of 25 and 25th of 50 best places to get published online. --Chondrite 20:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Chondrite. The only verifiable claim to fame does not merit it an article. Thryduulf 01:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Chondrite. The references given look pretty trivial. I don't see anything that would indicate verifiable notability. ScottW 01:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete, as no substantial case for notability - i.e. one showing at the very least non-trivial coverage by multiple third-party reliable sources - has been made to counter the nomination for deletion. AfD is not a vote. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Irascible Professor

This page does not assert its notability as per WP:WEB. There are no sources to back up its claims and suggest that it has had any impact outside of its own world.

The previous listing was recent and 'no consensus': see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irascible Professor. However, following discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Suite101.com, I feel that Youtrue/Rough's votes should be considered as unintentional meatpuppeteering. Adding that one of the other 'keep' voters has only two wikipedia contributions, and we have a case of a clear need for relisting. --Robdurbar 11:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep is notable in academic spheres and page should not make a case for its own notability. it just needs cites and cleanup. This is not a vote, this is a discussion. The case was that you had no consensus before, and you relisted? bad mojo dude. --Buridan 16:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

note, my keep vote is on its notability, not in regards to former constitution of consensus, the consensus was a critique of the relisting, which it should not have been.--Buridan 13:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep The article has 54,100 Ghits, so I doubt the claim that no sources exist. The article may not cite any sources, but that is only grouds for improvement, not deletion. I also agree that it is bad form to relist for deletion, especially after such a short time. dryguy 19:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I just want to make sure that you guys had read Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Suite101.com and the concerns brought up there? That notes some serious flaws in the original AfD for this which could have lead to a far different conclusion for the closing admin. --Robdurbar 10:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I read that, it seems moot to the question of notability. --Buridan 13:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I belive the deletion review process can be used for articles that are thought to have been inappropriately kept. I think that is the the right way to handle a situation like this. Otherwise, we wind up with people periodically re-nominating any result they don't like until the article finally gets deleted. dryguy 14:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Conditional Delete Most of these ghits appear to be the magazine itself and its astroturfing. Doubtless many more are uses of the phrase, like half of these seven scholar.google.com hits. (If the article is edited before closure to demonstrate mentions per WP:WEB, make this abstain) Septentrionalis 21:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

When I run your wikipedia-free search, I get 59,000 ghits today. When I run your google.scholar search, the second hit appears to be a published work independent of the The Irascible Professor. Browsing for a few seconds through the 59,000 ghits I also found another independent cite. I'd say WP:WEB is easily satisfiable. dryguy 14:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep It is obvious from the list of articles and their authors that the publication is notable.DGG 03:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep. Seems to be notable enough. --Wizardman 02:11, 9 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. Proto::► 00:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roberta Beach Jacobson

Notability is at best borderline. The sentence of Wikipedia:Notability (people) which concerns authors reads: Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. The page certailny proves that she is published, but the only two reviews it refers to are for Lonely Planet books to which she was one contributor. Thus, for now, I think she fails the guidelines.

The other reason for relisting is due to some of the problems with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roberta Beach Jacobson, the first nomination. As discussed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Suite101.com, Rough/Youtrue's votes validity are debateable given that they have both contributed to the same ezines as Jacobson and were together when voting. Though there's no reason to claim that this was a deliberate attempt to subvert the system, it certainly calls into question the validity of a the debate as a whole. --Robdurbar 11:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep she's contributed to a lot of stuff, and many of them have independent reviews. I agree that her notability is marginal, but personally I'm in favour of keeping marginal cases, particularly of people who are still working, as their notability is only likely to increase. JulesH 12:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep but cleanup and format --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 15:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete I've reviewed Ms. Jacobson's bio and Wiki's standards for inclusion and I still don't see this article's merit. WP:Bio suggests that a person should have "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." In addition, an author should have, "received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work." How does Jacobson stack up against these standards? She edited her husband's failed ezine, Kafenio, for a couple of years before it went under. This publication was never ranked in Alexa's top 100,000 sites and its notability is also disputed. She also contributed short articles to Lonely Planet and Chicken Soup for the Dieter's Soul. (For her discussion of this experience see YouTrue's Blog). All this put together does not merit notability. As far as JulesH's comments above about keeping marginal cases, if this lower standard is applied broadly then Wikipedia becomes a phonebook for this human race. Why not let Jacobson reapply if she achieves notability in the future? SteveHopson 16:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Major contributor to travel guides like the highly popular Lonely Planet. --Oakshade 22:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - this highlights the verifiability problem with the article. How do we know that she is a "Major contributor to travel guides like the highly popular Lonely Planet"? LonelyPlanet's website does not list Jacobson under their authors' list. The article references only a single contribution to one LonelyPlanet guide. SteveHopson 23:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the Lonely Planet book, I find that Lonely Planet website not as good of resource on their own books as it should be (I've had this issue before with them). With about 10 seconds of serching, found a couple of verifications [39][40] --Oakshade 23:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, I found those references, but its only to a single book. Meeting WP:Bio would require more than one article in one book. SteveHopson 00:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they're major sections, not just articles. --Oakshade 00:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It could be that you are using a different LP catalog than the rest of us because in most European ones it reads Author: David-Matthew Barnes; Roberta Beach Jacobson; Lisa Beatman et al as well as in the Japanese one imcbook.net VaclavHav 00:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep, for reasons explained above VaclavHav 00:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, ditto. DGG 03:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
keep please does not seem borderline notable to me and should meet bio guideline Yuckfoo 04:55, 7 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 redirected. MER-C 14:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jon robyns

I accidentally created the page without the correct captialisation IE Jon robyns instead of Jon Robyns. I have created the proper page now, but this one needs to be deleted Marcosscriven 12:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - you could change it to a redirect to the correct article instead... But are you sure the subject is sufficiently notable to be included in Wikipedia in the first place? (see WP:BIO) WJBscribe 13:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Boldly redirected. Close? MER-C 13:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Yeah, let's just close this one. Whether or not the Jon Robyns article is notable or not isn't the subject of this AFD. If needs be, we can start another AFD for it. --Brad Beattie (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. MER-C 14:09, 2 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 ♪. El_C 12:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nostradamus ni Kiite Miro♪

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, WP:OR, WP:SPAM, WP:NCVG. Ruiewql 13:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible single-purpose account: Ruiewql has made no edits to Wikipedia other than the three required to nominate this article for deletion. — Haeleth Talk 21:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete as unsourced and unverifiable crystal balling. MER-C 13:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Qvng 13:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep: Are you people even actually looking at the article? The game has both an official website and has been the cover story for a magazine, I haven't speculated about this game at all and made no original research. Crystal balling refers to making articles on games without official annoucements that they will be released, such as a Metroid Prime 5. Metroid Prime 3 however, is annouced and in development as is Nostradamus ni Kiite Miro♪. Furthermore, it is being produced by one of the most respectable publishers of visual novels, and is a notable game in Japan (as evident of it having an article on the Japanese Wikipedia). And I don't see how it falls under WP:SPAM at all.--SeizureDog 13:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, since no valid reason has been given why this should be deleted. As SeizureDog points out, despite the claims of the nominator and the first voter it does not in fact fail WP:V or WP:NOR (it is acceptable to use a primary source, such as a game website, for basic factual plot and character information); it does not fail WP:SPAM (since it is not advertising), and nor does it fail WP:CRYSTAL (since it contains no information that has not been publicly announced). It would also appear to meet the standards tentatively proposed by WP:NCVG (having apparently been featured prominently in the relevant sector of the gaming press). In short, a perfectly reasonable stub. — Haeleth Talk 21:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
delete as crystal balling.--Oneonex 22:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Read crystal balling: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." The development of this notable (in Japan, but still notable; must avoid being bias for this reason alone) game is clearly in progress.--SeizureDog 22:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Note that this is one of only two edits by Oneonex; the other was also a "delete" vote. — Haeleth Talk 21:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Sourced and in development +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep We're getting to the point were noms are throwing up every WP guildline ever written. Pretty soon no article would be suitable for inclusion. Has been announced and by major game developer. --Oakshade 22:49, 4 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. W.marsh 17:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic autonomous regions

Accuracy and neutrality disputes because definition is too broad, would include tens of thousands of entries, unverifiable because no objective criteria for inclusion, see articles talk page—Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul111 (talk • contribs)

I have to agree. Support. —Nightst a llion (?) 13:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment The "list" part could simply be removed. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Inner Earth 21:45, 5 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sordid City Blues

Article's assertion of the comic's notability is a nomination for an award, which previous consensus in the Webcomics project would say that it fails WP:WEB. Article was previously deleted in a nomination a year ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sordid City Blues). Contested prod. Brad Beattie (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Absolutely nothing has changed since the last AFD nomination. A WCCA nomination is about as notable as being a finalist of the Miss East Yorkshire pageant. It's on "hiatus" until the January so its Alexa rank has slipped into the millions. We need to watch webcomic nominations more closely, or we'll end up with incredible results like the Keep at Dresden Codak because it was mentioned in passing, in blogs, and once on a daily link zeitgeist. What crap. - hahnch e n 16:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Can this not be speedy deleted as previously deleted material?--Dmz5 00:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I tried to prod it earlier based on the precedent that we've established in previous AFDs, but the prod was removed. Instead of starting a mini-war, I figured it would be best to bring here. There's no harm in the process taking a few days longer if it establishes a clear consensus. --Brad Beattie (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Speaking as the author, I neither wrote this wiki not moved it from Comixpedia to Wikipedia. I would be slightly sad if it were deleted, but I'm very annoyed that someone deleted my deletion notice - it makes me look pathetic. I'd just as soon you axe the thing so I can stop thinking about it. Seriously, I think my web comic is fabulous (of course I do), but it had about 500 readers when I was updating it regularly. I haven't even read the deletion guidelines, but it notability is at issue, I don't think I have it.--User:MisterWolf
- Comment: I was the user who copied over the content from Comixpedia. Original motivation was noticing a red link to it somewhere (can't find any notable ones any more). Heck, if this was going on my opinion of the comic there wouldn't be a question here, but yeah it currently fails the notability guidelines. I'll be sorry to see it go, but can't currently see any good enough reasons for it to be kept here. I'll copy over all the recent changes back to Comixpedia so we've at least gained a few improvements over there for future reference if it achieves the notability guidelines at a later date. Palfrey 19:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Fails WP:V and WP:RS and thus fails WP:WEB. --Quirex 02:28, 7 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. —Doug Bell ^talk 06:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fantasy Wargaming and the Influence of J.R.R. Tolkien

The article has been moved to Wikisource, and may be a copyright violation anyway. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki'd or not, copyvio or not, it's still non-notable- it's just a single article (by an extremely notable author in a seemingly non-notable magazine). We don't have pages for individual articles Hunter S. Thompson wrote for Rolling Stone, much less pages for individual issues (or even years, or even decades) of that magazine. Delete. -- Kicking222 23:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Pointless. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete This is an encyclopedia, not a catalogue. Belongs on WikiSource, or not at all if it's not GFDL. Jivlain 11:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. If there's any useful information at all, merging into an article on the history of wargaming might be useful. Iceberg3k 20:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's the single most important thing Gary Gygax ever wrote about D&D. Furthermore, there is no copyright issue here. Generalklagg 06:35, 5 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Louise Lidströmer and STUDIO L2

Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Google finds exactly zero nontrivial hits outside of www.lidstromer.com. Prod removed by article creator. —Cryptic 11:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, agree with Cryptic. Can the article creator identify other references for the impact of various pieces of art referenced in the article? -- Samir धर्म 11:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as above and there also seems to be some WP:COI involved from this comment. The potential is there for verifiability/notability so I'll change my vote to keep if the required two non-trivial external sources can be found. Demiurge 11:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Giving the article creator the benefit of the doubt, I've undeleted STUDIO L2 (which I speedied twice earlier (once at STUDIO L²) and am listing it here as well. —Cryptic 11:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as above - also agree with Demiurge on conditions for changing my vote to Keep. Perel 11:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, in addition to above, links and articles should not be created or posted by someone affiliated with the site. If it is notable, it will eventually be included in Wikipedia. -THB 19:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have now tried to delete and change as much as possible ASAP, and I hope the changes are satisfactoruy - if I make more mistakes keep me informed, new member.NGL 17:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Just adding, for those who wonder, that there are a lot of nontrivial facts on the net, though mostly in Swedish. I could though find even in English a lot of info. Just now working on foot notes, that I haven't really learned yet how to do, need some help here.18:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)NGL

True, I can find a lot of info in Swedish but unfortunately it might become hard to classify it... Any way to ask for help of Swedish users here? -- dockingman^talk 06:38, 2 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 13:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletions. -- Sandstein 13:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Maybe the relisting will allow for some Swedish speakers to evaluate this issue. Sandstein 13:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment I am not quite sure what is required here -- I can verify that there are at least half a dozen Swedish-language, nontrivial sources for this artist's existence and several different exhibitions she's had over the last few years. http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/kultur/did_11974843.asp (one of the major Swedish daily papers) is an interview with her about an exhibition, http://www.karlskrona.se/templates/Page____30133.aspx is information about another exhibition, from the official site of the city of Karlskrona, http://www.vidamuseum.com/konstnarer-lidstromer.htm is a page from a pretty important art museum, about her upcoming exhibition there. I am not personally familiar with the artist's name -- I know very little about visual arts -- though I have heard the expression "femmage" (just didn't know who had coined it). Bonadea 14:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete The creator of these pages, Nike George, must be (a) Lidströmer, as that user has only contributed to pages about Lidströmers and L2 - contravenes Wikipedia:Autobiography. DrKiernan 13:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep no i am not writing an autobigraphy, I am just thoroughly interested in art and architechture + technical innivations and I have chosen to complete what is written about Swedish artists, architects and inventors so far, and I will proceed with more entries ASAP - I haven't saved these yet since I'd like present a more complete picture directly. I hope we can reach concensus as soon as possible. Regarding L. Lidströmer she is absolutely a well known artist name, and I think any Swedish speaking user can confirm that after having seen net links in Swedish and paper articles. The artist's museum in the Old town is a little institution. I can add a list of articles to this talk.

Sincerely Dr Nike GeorgeNGL 10:24, 5 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. Sandstein 07:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kings (drinking game)

NN drinking game without citations, references, links. No proof it exists. Also, it's more of a Wikibook, in its instructional listing format. -- Zanimum 18:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Totally Unverified/original research. Wikipedia is not a game guide. -- IslaySolomon | talk 19:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete and I take a drink. -Markeer 21:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment "Kings"+"drinking game" gets over 76,000 Google hits, with 438 uniques out of the first 1,000. Also, it's the only drinking game that I've ever seen played at my college. Thus, I'm not necessarily arguing for keeping the article, but I am saying that it's possible this game has some notability (or has, at least, achieved widespread play). -- Kicking222 00:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Citations available in The Best Drinking Game Book Ever and The Complete Book of Beer Drinking Games. Remove the instructions and you have a perfectly viable stub. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Then please, go ahead an cite them. -- Zanimum 17:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Oh my gosh, this is a real game. I played this approximately every weekend in college and at many other colleges as well and many many people under age 30 who have gone to college in the US will at least be aware of it. I know that's not a reason in and of itself to keep the article but it says to me that there have got to be sources out there to use.--Dmz5 06:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep but please make appropriate citations. StayinAnon 17:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep and cleanup because sources were presented. Remove anything related on "how to play" since Wikipedia is not a game guide. --Wafulz 16:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Needs sources and major cleanup, (mainly, the game guide removed), but otherwise, yes, this is a quite popular college drinking game. Wavy G 16:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. This is a well known game, which has many related offshoots, that go by slightly different names. Nlsanand 20:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Question. Why are so many users insisting that the rules be removed? I mean, it seems to me that an article about a game (which is notable and verifiable in its own right) is incomplete unless there is at least a cursory description of how you play it.--Dmz5 00:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- There's a difference between describing the rules of a game and instructing people how to play it. --Wafulz 04:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, clean up Okay, I believe this is a real game (no I don't play it, I'm underage!) because of others who say it is real. This should be cleaned up, remove "how-to" stuff, and etc. Kyo cat^{¿Qué tal?♥meow!} 00:32, 3 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. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martial Adept Class (Dungeons & Dragons)

I am nominating this article for deletion on Notability grounds. Also, all of its text is duplicated on its parent page, Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords, so it is completely superfluous. Iceberg3k 14:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Notability aside, it is redundant. Edward Wakelin 16:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - as per nom. Wikipedia is not a Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual. --tgheretford (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Perfectly happy to lose this. There is a slow rewrite process underway for D&D articles to cut down on cruft and copyvio and make better articles that are sources and meet WP:FICTION (and so forth, as appropriate). This does not fit in the proposed article structure, and is largely redundant besides. What of this needs said, is said elsewhere. Serpent's Choice 06:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete No need for duplication. Quack 688 08:45, 4 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. W.marsh 23:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Society in Dedham for Apprehending Horse Thieves

View single debate

Nom - Absurd claims point toward hoax (Popes and presidents as members?); Even if this isn't a hoax, it's not an especially notable organization. It is, in short, a local dining club. Rklawton 14:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - from their own website For a one-time ten-dollar fee, anyone may enroll him- or herself, or a friend for a lifetime membership, and create an affiliation with an historic organization, and the ancient Town of Dedham. This explains the "membership" and demonstrates why the membership roll full of famous people isn't notable.
Strong ~~delete~~ keep - ~~unless of course someone can come up with some "evidence" to support this organization's inclusion in wikipedia.~~ (20:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Edit: Following Briancua's comments I am willing to give this article the benefit of the doubt and vote keep). ---*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 15:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep There is a whole article on Anti Horse Thief Associations and this is the oldest one of its kind. It was notable enough for Robert Ripley to try and gain admission, and one has to imagine that he had seen some pretty crazy things. Alos, according to the Notability guidelines, which are themselves under dispute, the article has to be verifiable, which this is through the newspaper and historical society sources. Simply because an editor has not heard of the organization does not make it non-notable. Briancua 17:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've added several more sources, including one at the University of Nebraska - Lincoln and one at the University of California San Diego Briancua 18:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Both those references point to the same document - the organization's constitution. This does not demonstrate notability. Our local PTA has a constitution, too. As far as Ripley is concerned, should we then include articles on every organization to which he belonged or attempted to join? Is that Wikipedia's standard for notability? Oh, and the Ripley claim is found only on their website, so it isn't verifiable (yes, I know its mentioned in an recent article, but the language is clearly copied from the website). Rklawton 19:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    - Will your PTA's constitution end up in major research libraries on the other side of the country 125 years from now? The fact the this Society's did does indicate notability. Also, the website was written by the clerk-treasurer of the society, Robert Hanson, who is also the unofficial town historian and author and editor of a number of books about Dedham, including "Dedham 1635-1890: Examples of Things Past." The man who literally wrote the book about Dedham history during the time the Society was founded has credibility. --Briancua 20:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
      - Research libraries are crammed with hundred year old documents of things gone by - and most of them are not especially notable. The fact that most of the article's information comes from a single source, the self-appointed town historian, does nothing to add to the article's credibility. Indeed one might construe this as POV pushing since this subject certainly hasn't gained the attention of historians elsewhere. Wikipedia is not the place for the obscure or arcane. Rklawton 23:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I think this single, self-referencing edit [41] claiming popes and every recent president as a member of this organization pretty well illustrates Briancua's lack of commitment to creating an article meriting inclusion in an encyclopedia. We report verified facts here, not some spurious organization's claims to self-importance. By self-referencing, I mean that the author of the citation claims membership to the organization and is repsonsible for its website therefore most of the information in this article. Rklawton 01:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Rklawton, as I pointed out on your comment on the talk page, there *is* a source provided for these claims other than simply the Society's website. It was written by Sarah MacDonald and published in the Daily News Transcript on on Wednesday, December 3, 2003. You can find a link to the story here, on the talk page, or, most importantly, in note #3 in the article itself. I might also add that on the Knights of Columbus article, which is featured, the claim that John F. Kennedy is a member comes from that Order's commissioned history. The is *no* evidence at all provided for the claim that 17 US presidents were freemasons or that any of the kings, dukes, presidents and prime ministers listed are members of the Rotary Club. This Society isn't nearly as well know, to be sure, but it provides two different sources. As to my "lack of commitment to creating an article meriting inclusion in an encyclopedia" you may wish to take a look at my sandbox, where I am compiling a history of Dedham and already have nearly 50 distinct sources. I'm having fun with Wikipedia, but I am certainly taking it seriously.
  - I'm not familiar with the KoC, but I do know that considerable evidence exists from presidential biographies and autobiographies, etc, regarding presidential Masonic membership. Unlike the organization you describe, many different and verifiable sources exist for each claim. And unlike the organization you describe, members can't simply pay $10 and make some famous person a member without their knowledge or participation. Your claims to the contrary notwithstanding. There is simply no comparison, hence this nomination. The one source you cite is simply a local newspaper relying on the organization's own website and membership as its source. Though this may demonstrate that the organization exists in some form or another, it does nothing to demonstrate the organization's notability or suitability for inclusion here. Lastly, you made quite clear the lack of seriousness you give to your efforts here when you repeatedly attempted to insert the creation date of this non-notable organization into the events section of the associated date article amidst the great and oft world-changing events in history: example #1[42], example #2[43]. You did this claiming in your edit summary that its membership was notable (presidents and popes) - yet knowing that all members had to do was pay $10 to elect any famous person into its membership roles. Not only does this make the organization not notable, it makes it dead common. Heck, any garage band could do as much if it chose. Your assertion that this "membership" made them notable robbed you of your credibility in this matter. Rklawton 04:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    - Any society for apprehending horse thieves that exists in the year 2006 is notable, especially if it has been at least decades since any horses were kept in town. In addition, getting "more than 200 proud members... [making] a virtual who's who of political and business life" to shell out $60 to attend a meeting makes the society notable. I might also add that there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that do far less to establish any sort of notability, to wit: Knights of the Golden Eagle or Knights of Da Gama. There is more than one source listed, including one telling that the Society was being lectured on in

New Hampshire. It does not rely on a single newspaper article, though there is only one local paper that is online. I happen to be far from Dedham and won't have access to the Historical Society or print-only newspapers until Christmas. --Briancua 05:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

- - - - In reading this organization's website, it's clear that its current purpose is membership dining and entertainment. That's hardly notable. Representing it as a "society of apprehending horse thieves (as done above) is deceptive. The only similarity between this organization and the one that hunted horse thieves over a hundred years ago is its name. Rklawton 21:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a policy on sources that require having a paid subscription to a newspaper's archives? I have no idea what that article actually says about the group.--Dmz5 04:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Newspaper archives are verifiable, so that shouldn't be a problem for Wikipedia. The fact that this article relies so heavily on a single, local article does constitute a significant problem when it comes to establishing notability. Rklawton 04:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge to Anti Horse Thief Association. -- Chondrite 20:59, 6 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Graham (philosopher)

View single debate

fails WP:BIO, also does not seem to be a philosopher.--Buridan 14:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Any article on a "philosopher" that tells you about books he's read but not any he's written fails to establish Notability. Could almost be speedied. -- Fan-1967 19:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Nowhere near notable. He's not even a philosopher. ... discospinster _talk 22:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Listing "Essays he's read" as some sort of qualification did give me a laugh, though. Quack 688 09:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not even close. Do I need to relist? Easily NN... Bio? Plleeuueeaassee. MrMacMan 23:18, 6 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 29-down, 6 letters, "to suppress", starts with D, ends in TE. DS 14:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of words frequently used in North American crossword puzzles

wikipedia is not for lists of words, this is not encyclopedic. there are hundreds of websites with this info. Buridan 14:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom, and other reasons ---*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 15:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete as per nomination. --SonicChao ^talk 15:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Crosswordcruft (I always wanted to use that word!) MartinDK 16:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
~~Erie~~ Delete. Unsourced indiscriminate collection of information. --Wafulz 16:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. meshach 17:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Oscar Romeo. Danny Lilithborne 23:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
(Slugger Mel) Ott and (Bruins great Bobby) Orr Delete. -- Kicking222 23:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete Totally unencyclopedic +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:35, 3 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. W.marsh 17:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)~~

[edit] Douglas Rasmussen

~~View single debate~~

~~fails WP:PROF Buridan 14:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)~~

Comment Maybe contact the guy who created these 2 articles that are marked for deletion and tell him they are going away or else he has to add to them? MrMacMan 09:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete article does not assert notability. Chondrite 21:17, 6 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. W.marsh 17:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)~~

[edit] Douglas J. Den Uyl

~~View single debate~~

~~fails WP:PROF two relatively uncited books on a literary figure does not justify the stub. Buridan 14:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)~~

Neutral it may be that the guy does pass the test but Wikipedia hasn't done enough research on him. ---*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 15:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

yes the stubness indicates to me, given the length of time its existed, that no one cares to work on it. However, if you google him, you get very little and google scholar gives his most cited work under 20 citations. --Buridan 16:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete non-notable academic. -- Chondrite 21:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable, with no prejudice against recreation with reliable sources that prove notability. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:38, 7 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 disambig; relisting the correct article Thames Valley College (London, Ontario, Canada) for clarity. Opabinia regalis 23:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)~~

[edit] Thames Valley College

~~View single debate~~

Please note: Since this article was listed AfD several new articles relating to the article in question have been created by TruthbringerToronto (Talk. Additionally, TruthbringerToronto moved the article being considered for deletion to Thames Valley College (London, Ontario, Canada). For clarification, Thames Valley College (London, Ontario, Canada) is the article that is being considered for deletion, NOT THE DISAMBIGUATION PAGE. It is suggested that voting is left open for 2 days extra since at least one voter thought that the article being considered for deletion was actually a disambiguation page.

Nomination: This article appers to be an advertisement for a Diploma mill. See my comment in the article's talk page for more info. This article either needsto be deleted or transformed, so that it makes the true nature of this "organisation" is made abundantly clear, especially considering that prospective "students" may use this article to research the subject. Also the article's contents are not verfiable and the organisation(s) is/are not notable. As such the article in question should be deleted. -*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 15:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC) (edited: 10:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

Delete as and per nom ---*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 15:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Not a diploma mill, but rather a career college in London, Ontario, Canada which offers training in areas such as medical office administration. It does not offer degrees. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_learning#United_Kingdom and London Medical School ( http://www.londonmedicalschool.org/wst_page2.html ) - not to be confused with the many genuine, lawful and high-class medical schools in London. Why would a supposed legitimate education institute be investigated by Trading Standards. -*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 20:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. The early edit history of the article does not help its case. --- RockMFR 05:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, it may be better to keep the article but heavily re-word it so that it reflects the suspicions about the subject. Specifically mentioning its apparent links to London Medical College, which has a Mobile/Cell Phone for its main contact and an accomodation address fax number. It would also be beneficial to mention the fact that London Medical School was recently investigated by Trading Standards. -*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 20:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete and mark the others for speedy delete. Obvious commercial spamDGG 03:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete now that I know what article we're lookign at. The lack of info about anything, including its own site, points to a possible mill. --Wizardman 16:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete The article makes no claim to notability. There's thousands of career colleges, unless it's otherwise notable, it shouldn't have an article -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 18:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

~~Comments:~~

To reduce confusion, I moved the page about the institution in Canada to Thames Valley College (London, Ontario, Canada) and created a disambiguation page at Thames Valley College. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 01:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of these institutions that you have listed don't exist. The ones that do are diploma mills. If you disagree please provide evidence to the contrary. These articles cannot remain as they are. -*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 18:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

~~Then nominate them for AfD then and we can discuss. JYolkowski // talk 23:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)~~

Please read the article. People are confusing two different institutions. If one or more of the London-area schools are diploma mills, prove it with independent references. Do not apply that term to institutions that are legitimate, such as Thames Valley University or the Canadian college. If necessary, start an article on a school which you consider a diploma mill with appropriate references. If you feel that the Canadian college is not notable, then make that argument. Or edit the article to remove ambiguity. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 04:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

~~We, well I at least, have read the articles. That is why we are voting to delete -*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 09:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)~~

~~Also references have been provideed. ---*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 10:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)~~

~~No they shouldn't, these articles are quite different in content from this one. JYolkowski // talk 23:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)~~

~~The following votes relate to the wrong article~~

keep please this is a helpful disambiguation page nothing else really Yuckfoo 05:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are mistaken. Maybe the comment at the top of the page was a bit too ambiguous, I have therefore changed it. The original article was moved to Thames Valley College (London, Ontario, Canada), by TruthbringerToronto and that has created confusion. Can I ask that you revise your vote with this new information in mind. -*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 18:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

*Weak Keep, disambiguation pages don't hurt anyone. --Wizardman 02:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are mistaken. Maybe the comment at the top of the page was a bit too ambiguous, I have therefore changed it. The original article was moved to Thames Valley College (London, Ontario, Canada), by TruthbringerToronto and that has created confusion. Can I please ask that you revise your vote with this new information in mind. -*- u:Chazz/contact/t: 11:56, 9 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. W.marsh 23:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Original Hot Dog Shop

View single debate

Non notable restaurant Coil00 15:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete It reads like an ad and seems to be unverifyable. Tarret 16:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT#SOAP. meshach 17:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, neither the original nor the first (quote) 1867 - Charles Feltman (1841-1910), a German butcher, opened up the first Coney Island hot dog stand in Brooklyn, New York (unquote)Alf photoman 13:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Neither the article nor the restaurant make any claim to being original or being the first. It is simply the name of the establishment. SliceNYC 22:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Many ghits under various search terms, the O has received much media coverage [44] [45], in addition to being featured on TV. It's also something of a Pittsburgh institution -- and though this borders on WP:ILIKEIT it is a big part of that region's culture. I'll get to work on improving the article. SliceNYC 22:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep: I am going to work on this this week to fix it. it's a pretty big landmark in Pittsburgh (not to mention a great place for French fries and getting shot), and it deserves a decent article, so I will work toward that goal. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per SliceNYC and sources. Landmark business. --Oakshade 08:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Judging from the current state of the article it seems like Tarret's concerns are being addressed. The O is a pillar of Pittsburgh culture. P4k 15:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep The article needs work, but the historical and cultural relevance of the institution warrant the O having an article. Carboneyes 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
keep per aboveDGG 03:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
keep please per above it is a landmark business with verifiable sources too Yuckfoo 04:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
'keep If Gourmet Magazine ranked it so highly, it should be considered worth keeping Postcard Cathy 16:51, 8 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 to delete, merge possible but consensus unclear. W.marsh 17:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adobe DNG Converter

View single debate

Contested prod. Minor software utility created by Adobe. Fails to satisfy WP:SOFTWARE, as

there is no evidence of multiple non-trivial published works about it
it is not a core product of Adobe

-- Valrith 15:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep it is notable. It is a product by the notable company Adobe. --SonicChao ^talk 15:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ or merge to Digital Negative (file format). Not every product by a notable company is notable. --Karnesky 17:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment — It depends how much more information can be added ot the article. It doesn't look like too much more, but for now I'm on the fence. Wizardman 18:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep notable. –– 30sman 21:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Above user created today (2 December 2006 and has few edits--all in AfDs) --Karnesky 23:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep (as you'd guess, since I removed the deletion proposal). The software is notable, whether or not the article establishes it. Fg2 02:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Can you please elaborate--either here or in the article. No one has mentioned any objective criteria by which I can agree that it is notable. If someone can, I'll gladly change my vote. --Karnesky 02:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  - The DNG format (which is distinct from the converter) has been the subject of articles in the photo magazines. It is billed as a single format that photographers can use in place of raw formats from various manufacturers (each has its own format, and some have several varieties) so that in the future software companies like Adobe won't have to support so many formats. What makes DNG Converter important is that it gives photographers the significant capability to convert files that are in the manufacturers' raw formats to Adobe DNG. Also, it's free. Free products are important even if not core products of the company. I don't know how to judge whether it's a "core" product of the company, but like the free Acrobat Reader, it's free software that Adobe issues in order to sell other software, such as Photoshop. Fg2 04:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Digital Negative (file format). Seems like something that would be important to a reader of that article. --- RockMFR 05:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Fg2. Found a couple of independent write-up, including one from Macworld [46][47] (both added to this article). --Oakshade 00:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- The second link is a press release & not an independent write-up. The first link appears novel, but trivial. Changing my vote to merge. --Karnesky 01:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Upon closer look, it does appear press-releasy, although I'd hate to charge bad faith to the credited reporter. Moved this to the "External Links" portion. --Oakshade 01:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    - I don't think it is bad faith--it is filed under "News and Press Release Email" & Dennis Hays is merely one of the primary operators of the site's content management system. Identical releases are elsewhere, such as [48] --Karnesky 01:43, 4 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current issues in teaching

View single debate

This unmaintained essay is full of original research. Reads like a teacher complaining about his job. Delete per WP:OR and WP:SOAPBOX MartinDK 15:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete or a complete rewrite. The concept is valid but an article like this needs to be presented in a more encyclopedic tone and less like an POV essay. MrMurph101 16:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is the concept valid?--Dmz5 20:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The current issues in teaching, especially in the United States, is notable. Especially in dealing with No Child Left Behind, budgeting issues, teaching standards, providing equity for affluent and poor areas, lack of parent support, etc. There is a lot to go on this issue and their is plenty of research on the issue out there. MrMurph101 21:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Teachers are having lots of issues, but this is just terribly POV. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Essay. Topic itself is not encyclopedic. --- RockMFR 05:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -WarthogDemon 22:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, personal essay, no content worth saving, I tagged it for OR months ago and nothing came of it. szyslak (t, c, e) 23:30, 3 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. Argument for deletion is much stronger. You need to consider notability is not inherent. Yanksox 15:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collier High School

View single debate

No sign of notability -- i.e. it doesn't look like there are (any) non-trivial outside sources about this school that we can use to write a verifiable article. A Lexis-Nexis search shows no non-trivial coverage even at the local level. 143 unique ghits for "collier high school" wickatunk -wikipedia, so unlikely this school has any non-trivial outside coverage. Reply to de-prod comment "interesting and unusual for being run by a non-profit corporation rather than by the state or religious institution; mergable/redirectable to parent organization" -- it's not for us Wikipedians to judge what's notable by virtue of being "interesting" or "unusual" -- if publishers outside of the school agree that the school is unusual and therefore decide to publish things featuring the school, then we've got something to build a Wikipedia article on. Otherwise, not. Pan Dan 15:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC

Delete No assertions of notability. Heck, the article basically just says that the school exists. TJ Spyke 02:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. All high schools are notable. Considering that this one is unique (operated by a non-profit), I'd imagine the chance of finding non-trivial coverage is more likely than usual. --- RockMFR 05:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- No, all schools are NOT notable. There is no policy, guideline, or anything like that on Wikipedia that says that. So saying that "all high schools are notable" is NOT a valid argument, and is the same as saying that all people are notable or that all companies are notabile. I really hate people who use this BS argument. TJ Spyke 05:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, until we can agree on WP:SCHOOLS, and until this precedent stops being set every day on AfD, I'll continue to believe all high schools are notable. --- RockMFR 05:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. We just deleted a couple of non-notable high schools. Schools are no more inherently notable than libraries, hospitals, or churches. I've been here a while, and as far as I know, only municipalities, provinces or states, and countries can claim inherent notability. D e nni ^talk 19:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's not accurate. At this point in practice municipalities, provinces and states of notable countries get their own articles. However, not all countries are notable. JoshuaZ 23:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I just posted a question about this on the village pump policy section under the heading "notability of subjects" (I apologize for my ignorance at how to link directly to it.) Please take a look at my comment and leave a response if you'd like--Dmz5 06:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
delete It is unfortunate that some peple think all high schools are notable, but I doubt they represent the WP consensus. It's a pity that we have to say this one at a time for every high school. DGG 03:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Notability of subjects --- RockMFR 07:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. The school is apparently for "students with difficulty adapting to public schools." I am not clear which categories of students are served by the school. The implication is that school systems that can't handle a student (for whatever reason) pay to send the student to this school. In any event, it is not an average school. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 09:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Such a criterion would include all private schools, where many students attend because of some incompatibility with the public school system. That private schools by and large are only notable because of their minority representation in the schooling system is not a sound reason to include them here. D e nni ^talk 20:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Article is not supported by any independent sources (let alone non-trivial independent sources), and I, like Pan Dan, find none. It is a directory entry and does not claim notability. (For that matter, the article about its parent organization also has no independent sources and no claim of notability.) Fails both WP:SCHOOLS3 and WP:SCHOOLS. No opposition to a merge/redirect of what little information exists to the appropriate school district or locality article. Shimeru 10:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Another school article which utterly fails to establish notability, and which, like 80% of school stubs, is unlikely to get better in the future. D e nni ^talk 19:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per above. Until definitive guidelines exist(WP:SCHOOLS3 and WP:SCHOOLS are only proposals), there is no basis for what most of the deletionists are saying. Highfructosecornsyrup 22:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Until specific guidelines are approved, schools are subject to policy/guidelines like WP:NOTABLE. So yes, us who vote delete do have basis for doing so. TJ Spyke 00:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete There is absolutely no content, yet alone anything to verify. I think the debate of notability is entertaining since there isn't much to say about the school as demonstrated by the lack of content.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan.ca (talk • contribs)

- Well, the debate over notability has to do with the article's potential to grow, not with the article as currently written. Pan Dan 02:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  - If you're going to go on the potential to grow, you might as well delete this poor little thing right now. As per my above comments, the likelihood of this receiving significant assistance from other editors is in the neighborhood of one in five. D e nni ^talk 02:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect what little useful information that exists to Collier Services (which needs some attention of its own). There is no evidence at this point that there is sufficient information to expand the article that will satisfy WP:SCHOOL. On the other hand, it seems unjustified (if not unethical) to delete and article when there is a perfectly suitable target for a merge/redirect. A merge/redirect will retain all article history and allow for expansion of a full article in teh future as addition information becomes available. Alansohn 23:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect Per Alan. JoshuaZ 23:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, does not meet our notability guidelines. We are writing an encyclopedia of general knowledge, and I don't see how this fits into that. --Cyde Weys 05:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Wickatunk article, since it is a valid high school. — RJH (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per lack of notability. I would have no objection to a merge/redirect to either the Collier article or the town article. -- Kicking222 14:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
keep please historically notable and verifiable too no problem with merging though Yuckfoo 04:54, 7 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of short stories about video games

View single debate

Listcrufty; Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. There are only two entries. Crystallina 16:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete as liftcruft. There is something strange with the pages discussion (Talk:List of short stories about video games redirects to Talk:Tank (short story). meshach 17:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 23:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Even if the list was expanded (and I'm not sure it could be), I'd still think it was listcruft. -- Kicking222 01:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Pointless list. --- RockMFR 05:43, 3 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/redirect. I will redirect, information already seems to be at target. W.marsh 23:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The creation of Nazo and Silver the hedgehog

View single debate

What a mess. This article is a confused duplication of the information at Sonic X#Who is Nazo?, which is far clearer than this is. BrokenBeta [talk · contribs] 16:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, non-notable subject and can easily be merged with Sonic X#Who is Nazo?. - Tutmosis 16:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Sonic X#Who is Nazo? - Coil00 20:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Coil00. Danny Lilithborne 23:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge into respective articles, just adds to article count without actaully providing new information Cnriaczoy42 22:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge Sonic X seems like a pretty clear merge to me. MrMacMan 07:57, 7 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 Here's a more important precedent, no reliable sources means no article... notice how no one's able to expand this beyond a 1-sentence substub... wonder why? Provide sources and I will undelete. A redirect to somewhere relevent would be fine and harmless. W.marsh 23:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yeouinaru Station

View single debate

A station on a subway in Korea that doesn't appear to have had anything happen at it. Not notable. The list of the stations on the Seoul Subway Line 5 page is sufficient and they should be unlinked and those with articles there should be deleted as well. MECU≈talk 16:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep articles about rail stations Fg2 02:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep railway stations have long been considered notable places on Wikipedia, even dull, poorly served ones where nothing happens as they are major geographical features, and these articles are kept as a matter of course. This is unlike the schools debate or similar reasonably evenly split issues. SM247^{My Talk} 04:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep as above. Neier 12:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a subway guide. As for notability, I wouldn't expect there to be non-trivial sources about a subway station that we could use to write a non-directory Wikipedia entry, but, sigh, OK, methinkst, let's give this one the benefit of the doubt, and I checked Google (and, feeling incredibly silly, even Lexis-Nexis). Non-trivial results? None. (What a surprise!) As for precedent: Wikipedia isn't the United States Supreme Court, the Wikipedia practice of keeping "articles" about railway/subway/bus stations ain't Roe v. Wade, and I sure as heck am not Tony Kennedy. If no one here is either, now's as good a time as any to start reversing bad precedent. (Yes, it can be done, see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_28/Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America) Pan Dan 16:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more about bad precedent on this. Was a bad idea from the first, & WP should have grown up by now.DGG 03:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not a transit guide. Have multiple separate people, independent of the subject, written and published works of their own about this transit station, demonstrating that they find the subject notable enough that they have gone to the effort of creating and publishing works of their own about it? Nope. Then no notability here. D e nni ^talk 20:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per WP:AFDP, subway stations are notable. There are thousands of station articles and there is no reason to single this one out for deletion to go against precendent, or to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Oakshade 01:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- I take offense that you claim I am trying to make a point. You have failed to assume good faith. --MECU≈talk 03:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- "There are thousands of station articles and there is no reason to single this one out for deletion" -- That's no argument to keep. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, while less worthy ones stay. We consider each article individually as it comes up for discussion, because it's impossible to consider thousands at a time. "There is no reason ... to go against precedent" -- Citing the outcomes of past AfD's as "precedent" is not a reason for keeping or deleting anything. If you would like to cite arguments that have been made in past AfD's, please do so. Here at this AfD, outcomes of prior discussions are neither binding nor convincing. Pan Dan 02:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  - You've still cited no reason to go against precendent, just that you don't feel restricted by precedent. As you metion that hundreds of articles are deleted every day, never has a station been deleted. That's what Wikipedia calls precendent. If you want to discuss the merits of station inclusion, there is a current ernest discussion at User talk:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable about the standards of station inclusion, and even if there should by any standards. That is where this argument should be heading, not on a single random station in Korea. Until there is a policy change, there's no reason to against precedent (or for WP:DISRUPT) as no official WP outcome of that discussion has been reached. --Oakshade 23:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    - (1) Just because there's an ongoing general discussion about what to do about station inclusion/exclusion, that's no reason we can't continue to consider individual articles. (For example articles on schools are deleted sometimes these days, even as discussion continues at WP:SCHOOL and WP:SCHOOL3.) At this AFD, please address this article and its subject. (2) You say I "don't feel restricted by precedent." This is a strange thing to say, given that Wikipedia has no policy or even guideline on the need to follow precedent. At the very top of WP:AFDP, which you linked to, it says in bold, "This page is not policy." (3) Per what I just said, your argument to keep the article because of precedent is not grounded in policy. For this reason I urge you again to consider the merits of this article and its subject, and make an argument based on how our policies and guidelines apply to this article. (Hey, when you do that you might even come to a conclusion the article should be deleted!) (4) Every delete argument here, by contrast, is based on policy (viz. WP:NOT, and WP:N which is a guideline based on the policies of WP:V and WP:NOT), so I have a hard time seeing how you can allege a violation of WP:DISRUPT. Again, WP:AFDP is not policy. Pan Dan 02:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
      - Agreed about policy. But until actual policy is set for train/subway stations (it currently isn't), we go by precendent. If you choose otherwise, you are free to. --Oakshade 02:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        You miss the point that existing policy already applies to this article, for example WP:NOT a directory or WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Unless somebody can say why this article has the potential to become more than a stub via sources as WP:N requires, then WP:NOT suggests deletion. A separate guideline for rail stations is not needed -- note that several articles on schools have been deleted recently, even as the discussion at WP:SCHOOL/3 remains unresolved. Pan Dan 03:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        As stations have never been deleted, precedent shows Wikipedia:Consensus think they are notable. And until specific policy relating to stations is set, we'll go by precedent. I'm tired of discussing this and repeating the same point. You'll probably have the last diatribe. Goodnight. --Oakshade 03:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        No, I'll let yours be the last diatribe. :-) Pan Dan 03:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        Darn it, you changed your comment after I made my graceful and magnanimous exit... foiled again! :-) . Oh well. Anyway, just to respond to your changing of your last comment, which was to cite Wikipedia:Consensus: clearly, as this AFD shows, there is no consensus as to automatically including articles about rail stations. Pan Dan 03:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        Comment At least at one time keeping all rail and subway stations was consensus, otherwise there wouldn't be policy that they all be kept. As it is, I think the best way to deal with this, due to the number of possible deletions involved, is to settle the issues of subway and train station notability by policy discussion (as they did with road naming conventions) so a single clear standard can be applied to the stations' retention or deletion. Trying to solve the issue of station notability, which involves thousands of articles, by nominating stations one by one, or even in groups, would be excessively lengthy to say the least and excruciating to wade through and difficult to comment or vote on by interested parties. It'd also be a bloody mess. Tubezone 09:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        (1) "[There is] policy that [articles about rail stations] all be kept." -- Pardon, what policy are you talking about? WP:AFDP says explicitly, in bold, at the very top, that it is not policy. (2) As to your the rest of your comment about "trying to solve the issue of station notability" -- No one here has proposed doing that via AfD as you imply. Oakshade has pointed out that there is a general discussion on station notability at User talk:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable. But this AfD is about this station. As I said to Oakshade, even as discussion continues at WP:SCHOOL/3, school articles are nominated every day; some get deleted, some kept. The nominator and others here have raised perfectly valid concerns about this article, and I wish you and others would address those concerns instead of appealing to precedent, which is neither binding per WP:AFDP, nor convincing. Pan Dan 13:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
'Speedy keep Train and subway stations are automatic inclusions, per WP:AFDP, at least at this point. Tubezone 09:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- To put what I said above in different words: WP:AFDP is descriptive, not prescriptive. I.e. it describes what has happened in past AFD's, without saying what should happen in future AFD's. Note "This is not policy" in bold at the very top of that page. So to say that "stations are automatic inclusions per WP:AFDP" is simply false. Please address the concerns the nominator and others have about this article, because at this AFD, precedent is neither binding nor convincing. Pan Dan 13:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment To you precedent is neither binding nor convincing, but your arguments seem to be more about breaking precedent, not about this station... I presume you can't read Korean any better than I , how would you or I know whether it's notable or not? It looks like this station nom was pulled out of a hat, not by any familiarity with Seoul that would lead someone to believe this is a trival station not worth mentioning, fact is, I haven't seen any discussion in this AfD about the station or its neighborhood, or what might or might not make it notable. You say the precedent isn't policy, I say it's de facto policy, and likely there for a reason, and by general consensus, for the same reason all towns and state highways are automatic keepers whether they're sensibly notable or not: It avoids endless and innumerable AfD debates (and there's way too many AfD's, over 100 per day) over the notability of highways and towns. I'd like to see similarly clearcut policies on lists and schools, too, there's way too much time spent debating AfD's on them. The nominator's user page makes this comment: "I think policies should be clearly worded so that anyone reading them should be able to understand the policy and be able to apply it." Amen. Tubezone 06:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    - Reply (1) "your arguments seem to be more about breaking precedent, not about this station" -- Not so. Please read my delete comment above. I looked in Google and Lexis-Nexis and found no non-trivial sources (and was not surprised by this -- why should there be non-trivial sources about a subway station?). My argument to delete is based on WP:N, which is a guideline based on the policies of WP:V and WP:NOT. I keep having to talk about precedent only because folks keep bringing it up as a reason to keep (whereas it is not in fact a reason to keep anything, as I have been explaining ad nauseum). (2) Your mention of our lack of knowledge of Korean and Seoul is irrelevant, because notability is not a default presumption -- why should we assume that sources exist just because we lack the skills to look for Korean sources? Should we likewise assume that a telephone booth in Seoul is entitled to a presumption of notability until we can show otherwise? (3) As for "breaking precedent" -- the burden is not on me to show why precedent can be broken, it's on you to say why precedent is a good argument for keeping something. This is because precedent is not policy as WP:AFDP explicitly says. And your characterization of precedent as "de facto policy" is demonstrably invalid: witness Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_28/Gay_Nigger_Association_of_America, or the handful of non-notable school articles that have been deleted in the past couple of months. (4) No one here has proposed or remotely suggested having the "endless and innumerable AfD debates" that you seem to fear will happen. Again, school articles are nominated for deletion every day -- some get deleted, some kept -- even as the status of WP:SCHOOL/3 remain unresolved. (5) As to your comments on clear policy: we don't have to wait for a WP:STATION guideline to emerge; we already have a clear guideline, WP:N, which suggests deleting this article because of lack of sources. Of course, WP:N is not policy, but it is based on WP:V and WP:NOT, which are policies; and, whatever consensus emerges from the ongoing general discussion about station articles, it will certainly, like WP:N, not be a policy. Pan Dan 14:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, precedent shows that railway and subway stations are notable. Just becuase this station's article is a stub does not make it any more or any less notable than any of the other stations of this or any other system. The nomination gives no reasons why the nominator believes the stations on this network are less notable than stations on any other network - "This station does not has not yet had anything interesting written about it on Wikipedia, therefore all stations on this network must not be notable, therefore this article should not exist" is not sufficient reasoning. If you beleive that stations are non-notable then the place to discuss this is the discussion that is happening about this very topic. Thryduulf 18:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment "Precedent shows that ... stations are notable" -- No it doesn't, it just shows that stations have been kept. As to your comments about the nomination -- if the nominator's argument's don't convince you as to this station's non-notability, try reading mine above. There are no sources that we can use to write a Wikipedia article on this station -- that's what non-notability means on Wikipedia, and that's why this station is not notable. Pan Dan 01:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep (or minimally merge somewhere), verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 00:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Verifiability is not enough; please see WP:NOT. And, you don't address the notability concern. Pan Dan 01:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
delete If the general issue is undecided, let us do what is right in the meantime. I would have said yes if any one item could be said about the station, Verifiable or not. Perhaps WP is not a map.DGG 03:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: There are several things which can be said. The station opened on XX-XX-XXXX; On an average day XX,XXX passengers (dis)embark at the station; Pictures of the platform/entrance/underground lobby; The station is near the Seoul municipal gov't building... etc. Some of these lend themselves nicely to a tabular format (open date), but not all of them. If the data for each station is shoved into an article about the line as a whole, it ends up as a cluttered mess. By having the stub, it also encourages others to add information about the station (someone who lives in the area may be inclined to take pictures, etc). Having a single row in a table would not encourage the same type of information collation. As for the factoids, I can't read Hangul, so, the SMRT website is not that useful to me, and I have no idea when the station opened, or what newspapers covered the event; or how many passengers use the station. (The last bit, regarding the central gov't, I inferred from reading some of the English google results). Neier 04:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Just want to point out here that there are several verifiable things that could be said about lots of things — the grocery store I go to, for example (and I could even take a picture of it!) — but that doesn't have anything to do with the question of notability. No keep 'ers at this debate have addressed notability except by saying "notable per precedent", which is nonsense -- notability is shown by multiple non-trivial sources, not by the outcomes of previous AFD debates. Pan Dan 13:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I should qualify my earlier statement. In every previous discussion about a railway station I have seen the consensus is overwhelmingly in favour of keeping. I believe it still largely is but the tide may certainly be changing now. I still retain my above opinion at the moment though. SM247^{My Talk} 05:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand. The article as it is certainly doesn't provide any useful information. It needs some serious expansion. If it's never going to expand beyond its current state (basically one sentence), then it should be merged into the article on the subway line. If it can be expanded to be a more useful article, then it should certainly be kept as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and therefore articles that may not warrant inclusion in a paper encyclopedia can certainly be included here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Hey, I would love to expand the article, but there is no indication that there are any sources that we can use to do that. It is, after all, a subway station. The lack of sources we can use to expand the article, is why the article should be deleted. Pan Dan 14:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Then it should be merged into the line article and redirected. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    - - That sounds like a reasonable compromise. Pan Dan 22:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    - My guess is that lots of valuable information is available in Korean. Just because I (or someone) doesn't know Korean isn't an indicator that no information is available. The concept of eventualism encourages the creation of stubs with the knowledge that eventually someone with the knowledge (perhaps a person living or working in the area) will add details like the structure of the station, the date it opened, major housing neighborhoods or businesses it serves, the impact of the subway opening on the economy of the district, and other valuable information. Those are some examples of information that make an article on a subway station encyclopedic, and eventuality is the reason for keeping a stub. As the article on eventualism says, "There is no deadline." That's why I voted to keep it and let it grow. Fg2 21:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
      - It looks like the Korean article is pretty small, too. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
      - But you provide no evidence that it can grow with verifiable -- i.e. published -- information. I know lots about the grocery store I go to -- when it opened, its structure, the neighborhoods it serves, its finances -- but all of this is either not published in reliable sources, or published in routine government reports. Why would you think that there is "lots of valuable information ... available in Korean" that shows notability? This is, after all, a subway station, and I gather most subway stations in the English-speaking world, like this Korean station, don't attract much media coverage that we could use to write a good article. Pan Dan 22:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    - "In the English speaking world" unnecessarily restricts your search. Whenever a station opens (at least in my part of Japan), there is a series of newspaper articles, TV news stories, etc. Whenever stations celebrate anniversaries (100th, 75th, etc) there are more articles. In Japan, there are multiple books and magazines dedicated to rail travel in general, and out-of-the-way stations are a common feature. Books which are essentially a compendium of all stations in a region, on a particular line, or of a particular company are not uncommon. Some of those books have information that even I would consider arcane (like, the fact that the eel bento is particularly tasty at one station). Some of that trivial info is already in articles on the ja: wikipedia. I would hazard a guess that Korea treats their rail infrastructure in much the same way, so the same sources would be there. In the case of Japan, Fg2, I, NihonJoe and others are fortunate enough to be able to search out some of the sources; but, until someone comes along with knowledge of Hangul, this article will likely remain a stub. Neier 23:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
      - You're speculating that there's non-trivial coverage out there. That's fine. But to show notability, someone actually has to show that there's non-trivial coverage out there. (I would dispute the non-triviality of some of the coverage that you say might exist (e.g. 100-anniversary celebrations), but before we even talk about that, we have to have the actual sources to talk about.) Pan Dan 23:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Actually, articles about subway stations are quite OK in my book. There are subway websites on some systems which have pretty good coverage on individual stations and people interested in transportation may enjoy such articles. Historically on AFD, there is a clear past precedent that they are notable enough. (As opposed to bus stops which are not.) But I do think that subway station articles need to be articles, and this page is simply empty: "Yeouinaru Station (여의나루역) is a station on the Seoul Subway Line 5" is not useful and fools the readers with a bluelink, making them think we have an article on the station when we don't. No prejudice against recreation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:43, 8 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish Atheist Council

View single debate

This is a virtually unknown organisation, and the Wikipedia entry seems to be only publicity for it. For further details please see the talk page of the article. Slackbuie 17:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Information about them is not verifiable using reliable sources. Most of the 26 unique ghits seem to be blogs, SAC's own website, or on Wikipedia. Pan Dan 17:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Probably speedyable, 26 unique ghits [49]. From the book of Talkpage, Chapter 1, Verse 1: "This page is a self-promotional page authored by the body it promotes. The creating user is the organisation's convener. Visiting the website, there's nothing to indicate anything other than a one-man band". Amen. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Found this interesting at first. But it was only founded this year, and there is noting except its website and some bulletin-board posts. So you would be best deleting it for now. --Sandy Scott 09:43, 7 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 to delete, but please cite a source. W.marsh 23:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sporting Life (US sports journal)

View single debate

Not notable. Only notable thing is that it shared the same name as a paper in the UK that made it. MECU≈talk 17:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep An historic periodical publication that ran for over 25 years is worthy of an article. --Oakshade 00:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep per Oakshade. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete no references, no external links, no assertion of notability, no information. Chondrite 20:42, 7 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 to delete, but published, reliable references need to be cited in the article ASAP. W.marsh 20:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Huszar

Blatant advert. -- RHaworth 16:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you get that the right way round?--Anthony.bradbury 17:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

GDeCourcy added the "keep" there for some reason. I've removed it. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 19:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete - agree, this looks like an ad page. Cybergoth 16:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep -- this is a valuable resourse (which is what Wikipedia is forGDeCourcy 16:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This article should not be penalized because I am a newbie & learning how to code the site & am very slow at the learning process to get info on this artist up here.

This is not a personal advert. I and other clients of Mr. Huszar's recognize his talent is known in Romania but is just now becoming known through out Europe & the USA. His work is important & he is 1 of a very very few humans who does this traditional Icon work. His stylized fashion is brilliant, he uses only those very expensive traditional media, like tempera and 23 Kt. gold leaf gold, platinum and palladium leaf Gilding. He has the works blessed, authenticated by several institutions in Romania.

George Cristian Huszar is a Romanian Living Cultural National Treasure. This is a great honour of few persons in history in any nation.

There are many pages for artists, both dead & contemporary; Famous & not so famous. George Cristian Huszar is a noteworthy artist & it would be silly to delete this.

I find this article contains the ONLY picture of the Reverse Painting on Glass process. It is also 1 of the few contemporary Icon pictures on Wikipedia. His work is important to the Romanian icons genre and has been recognized as such the the Romanian Orthodox Church.

Art & articles of interest are subjective. This article is educational, informative & I don't understand what would make someone go out of their way to want to delete this.

Mr. Huszar is traveling & I am awaiting info on his awards or associated notariety. I don't want to incorrectly add anything that isn't true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GDeCourcy (talk • contribs) Author of the article under discussion.

The article is not being penalised because you are a newbie. It is being nominated because you seem to be acting as George Huszar's agent. There is therefore a strong conflict of interest which in my view reaches the point of advertising. -- RHaworth 20:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep I think this article, which is not written by the subject thereof, is a useful resource.--Anthony.bradbury 17:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete There's no claims of notability in the article, which reads like a CV / resume. The clincher is that it doesn't mention anything notable that he has actually done. :: Princess Tiswas 18:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I have now added his notability. He as an artist had actually had the very rare designation by Romania as being listed as a Romanian Cultural National Treasure he is also recognized by UNESCO. See also Living National Treasure I have copied things from newspaper articles & off of the actual seals he has been bestowed, to place on his works GDeCourcy 27 november 2006 (UTC)

If anyone knows how to make the title of the actual article page "George Cristian Huszar" & then have a redirect from "George Huszar" that would greatly be appreciated. Thank you.

Keep. His awards and the places where he has exhibited add up, I think, to a certain level of notability. They're not sourced and that is a problem, but the solution is to find sources, not delete the article (which also need to be edited for tone). The examples shown of his works are quite good, which of course doesn't matter, except that artists who are good are more likely to have notability and increase it over time. Herostratus 16:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Where or how do I add source info, is that a template, a code, another page that links to this one etc.. my sources were mentioned are the newspaper articles, the Church, the seals of recognition from the backs of his works, his honors etc.. but I don't know how else to list that than how I put then in the article.

Mr. Huszar is possibly having an article about his rare works done in the Washington Post. We do not yet have a publishing date. You never know what reporters will use. He is also in the USA doing some work for large corporations that want his works in thier offices.GDeCourcy 15:01, 1 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 17:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete as unverifiable. In view of Herostratus's and GDeCourcy's anticipation of future write-ups (e.g. in the Washington Post), userfy, and GDeCourcy can re-create the article when sources become available. Pan Dan 18:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I have sited sources such as newspaper articles that I do have copies of articles. some such as "România Liberă {Free Roamia} & Evenimentul Zilei {Day News}) Everything in the article is true & based on fact. He has also done work for US & European corporations, & CEO's for private & public use. His works are in Churchs & in private residences, various galleries.GDeCourcy 03:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I still don't see any citations in the article. If you have copies of articles that verify the material in the Wikipedia article, please cite them. It's not enough to say that newspapers have written about him, you have to specify the title, author, and date of the specific articles. Pan Dan 13:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Nothing else to add.TheRingess 03:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
keep. I consider the data in the article demonstrate the notability. Now, the editor involved needs to enter exact citation ofthe sources--the UNESCO one at least should be in English. DGG 03:51, 5 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/redirect THe history is still there for whoever wants to do a merge. W.marsh 23:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transgredience

Article defines a term coined by Russian philosopher Mikhail Bakhtin to describe an obscure philosophical concept, but the term itself doesn't appear in his article. Just 103 Google hits on "transgredience" [50]. Best alternative to deletion might be to merge with the Bakhtin article]. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, fails WP:V as there are no references at all. This article is also very close to a dictionary entry. Jayden54 20:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I was looking to add a small piece of information that was missing from the Mikhail Bakhtin article, however I see your point now of it being like a dictionary definition. When I have more time I will incorporate it into the Bakhtin article. Vytasn 20:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge to Mikhail Bakhtin -- Chondrite 20:46, 7 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 to delete. But I suggest better sources be cited in this article. W.marsh 21:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Félicité Jandia

View single debate

Nom - Not notable. She's an "also ran" in the long-lived category. She never held the title "oldest" - unless its OK to narrow the field down to French possessions outside of France. If we can do that, then I lay claim to the oldest person living in my house. I.e.: "so what?" Rklawton 17:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Agreed, fails WP:BIO completely. WJBscribe 19:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep. Anyone in the supercentenarians category (there aren't many) is notable. There are very few reliable claims of 110 years or more. Gene Nygaard 19:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Perhaps as a "list of", but not individually. Rklawton 20:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  - No, individually. Gene Nygaard 09:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep. As per Gene Nygaard. Extremely sexy, a.k.a. Bart Versieck 14:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I agree with Rklawton, in that a list is more appropriate when people are only notable because they are on a list. I have no idea as to how to respond to Bart's comment. DrKiernan 14:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. That's my nickname, hence. Extremely sexy, a.k.a. Bart Versieck 16:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Are you proposing making a list article?→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 18:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. We have idiot articles on American high schools--of which thousands exist. Yet how many people are 111 years old?→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 18:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Once again, and anti-French, anti-African bent. Not a single UK "oldest" article has been challenged, yet this lady lived longer than quite a few...Annie Knight, Florence Reeves, Aida Mason, etc. I question the bias behind these nominations...Wikipedia should be about the world, not just the Anglo-American world.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 18:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Reply - that's a bit misleading. This person wasn't "France's" oldest, as you imply. She is billed as the oldest living person residing in a French possession. That's a wee bit narrow in my book. Rklawton 18:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not implying overt bias, but we often tend to favor our own nation, culture, language, etc. Checking here, we see 14 British supercentenarian articles, but only 12 French:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_supercentenarians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:French_supercentenarians

Yet statistics show that France has had more supercentenarians than the UK (currently 87 vs 66).

Also, "Overseas French possesions" includes the entire French overseas empire...French Guiana, Polynesia, Reunion, New Caledonia, Guadeloupe, Martinique, etc. When you scratch the surface, that's quite a bit more substantial than a high school in Miami or a fake TV show town.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 18:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Question - so the question at hand appears to be whether or not it is appropriate to separate out French possessions from France when considering age-related records. Or, if they fly the French flag, should they not be considered French? Or is there some sort of French bias against its citizens not actually living in France? How about creating a category for U.S. territories and protectorates, too? They fly the U.S. flag with all the rights of an American citizen, but hey, they really aren't part of the United States... Rklawton 19:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

FYO, You can check this out here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:French_supercentenarians

Gaudeloupe alone (the island this woman was from) has 452,000+ residents (far more than St. Kitts, for example). Consider that the current oldest person in Germany and the UK are both younger than Ms. Jandia was.→ R Young {^yakł_talk} 21:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but when's the last time Guam's oldest resident lived to 111? As for Puerto Rico, we do have TWO supercentenarians from Puerto Rico listed, but both of them lived to be "world's oldest person" or "world's oldest man," so this is not comparable.131.96.70.158

Delete. NN. And to the person who noted that we have lots of articles on non-notable high schools, I would simply note that my vote here is not inconsistent: please feel free to check my record ! WMMartin 01:49, 8 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. W.marsh 17:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rodrigo Ferreira de Souza

View single debate

Weak assertion of notability. Basically claims to have been present on an episode of a program on the Discovery Channel. Borderline WP:CSD#A7. ghits: [51] NMChico24 18:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. He's not notable. -- Mikeblas 19:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. NN. If we keep relaxing the definition of notability at the current rate, even I will qualify ! WMMartin 01:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above. DrKiernan 17:33, 8 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Zaitchik

Prodded. `'mikkanarxi 22:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've completed this nomination by adding the correct template to the actual page. This was prodded (a few times) by HereToHelp (talk • contribs) and Cranor (talk • contribs) as "Alexander Zaitchik is not nearly notable enough for his own entry. Additionally there are a lack of secondary sources about him." I have no opinion at this time. - 152.91.9.144 23:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

delete per subjects apparent wishes Talk:Alexander Zaitchik, tho how do we substantiate that, shld he email someone? (pls note i'm acctually 'left-wing' - & i mean that, i'm not frm the u s so i know that the term doesn't simply mean "not a rabid fascist/imperialist" - i simply support this persons right to privacy, it is after-all a, current, vandal- and, potential, libel magnet) ⇒ bsnowball 14:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete With all due respect to the subject and his feelings, his wishes shouldn't impact our decision of whether to keep or delete an article. Even a former foundation board member couldn't get her article deleted with that rationale. That said, there's no clear assertion to notability, and he's already mentioned at New York Press (though with a different title). Delete--Kchase T 18:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Seems like there are very few sources of info which can be used for this. WP:OR must be a consideration. Inner Earth 21:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment I don't really see a reason for the actual guy deleting his wiki article... I mean in effect the article had enough problems already -- why not just ask for deletion yourself and as you aren't a former wiki board member... easily pass deletion? Nevertheless... he fails. sorry dude. DELETE! MrMacMan 09:20, 6 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 Chris Chilvers, merge Smoke Radio to University of Westminster. Sandstein 07:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smoke Radio, Chris Chilvers

View single debate

College internet radio station, and one of its presenters. No indication that the subjects meet WP:WEB or WP:BIO. Prod on Chris Chilvers removed without comment by apparent SPA. Fan-1967 18:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the Smoke Radio article is keeep because it has won an award. -- Mikeblas 19:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it a Notable award? Based on their website ([52]) it looks like only about half a dozen school radio stations were represented, and just about every school nominated got an award in one category. (UTC)
The awards were hosted by some of Britains top Radio DJ's including Chris Moyles. If that's not notable I don't know what is. And as for the show itself, it exists, it is broadcasing right now. Hell, click the Live Stream link. It's there, it exists, and is therefore notable. Stoobie_Land 17:56, 5 December 2006

Comment It's existence was never questioned. The question is whether anybody's listening or cares. Alexa ranking ([53]) is about as low as you can find. There are few links to the site from anywhere else on the web ([54]). As for the awards, I cannot find any reporting about these awards in any major news source, which would indicate notability for the awards. Fan-1967 18:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge Smoke Radio to University of Westminster. -- Chondrite 20:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Chris Chilvers, unless user:Chilvers123 decides to contribute to something else, in which case it should be userfied. -- Chondrite 20:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge ~~Keep~~ Smoke Radio and Delete ~~Merge~~ Chris Chilvers ~~into that article~~. There seems to be some non trivial coverage of the award (e.g), so I think the station should stay. A separate article on Chilvers is stretching the point a bit far, so I think that article should be merged into the station. -Kubigula (ave) 04:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment One two-year-old article on a website which itself doesn't seem that notable would not seem to qualify as "multiple non-trivial published works". -- Fan-1967 13:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't attempting to establish sufficient notability of the award for its own article, merely that it's not bogus. Nevertheless, Chondrite has convinced me that the radio station article should be trimmed and merged with the University article. -Kubigula (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge Smoke Radio to University of Westminster The Fox Man of Fire 19:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - merging to the Westminster article is not a bad idea in theory. However, they are both fairly long articles, which, I think, would make the merged article undesirably long and unbalanced. It also leaves the Chris Chilvers article issue unaddressed. -Kubigula (ave) 23:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There's plenty of room in the Westminster article, not all of the minor details regarding the radio station need to be included. Chris Chilvers is not notable and does not need to be included. Chondrite 23:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Clear Delete. Not notable, even in the context of University of Westminster - might qualify for a single sentence in the main UofW article, at the most. Chris Chilvers is likewise not notable - he's just a student radio presenter. The award is not notable, and the attendance of a radio DJ at the presentation does not make it so. WMMartin 01:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge Smoke Radio, Delete Chris Chilvers per nom. --Wizardman 02:14, 9 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 Adams-Wilson Hobbycopter. No real consensus on this one, I'm going to redirect with no objection to expansion if it meets WP:CORP or another AfD. Yanksox 15:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adams-Wilson

Self promoting company advertisement. Makes no mention of notability, other than the fact that the 2 creators were from a larger company. It's main customers are small helicopters. May also be a COI, as the creator is pretty in to the subject matter & may be one of the company's founders. Non notable company article. Delete. Spawn Man 23:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment the Adams-Wilson Hobbycopter appears to be a very well-known one per this page, and there may be a case of merging the two until there is enough content. Ohconfucius 04:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep per previous comment. Sharkface217 04:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom, or Merge per Ohconfusius. The 'copters may have some notability amongst hobbyists, but the company clearly falls far short of meeting WP:CORP, and doesn't need a separate article. Xtifr _tälk 02:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Endorse Merge per discussion following my comments. Ohconfucius 01:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete seems to fail WP:CORP, else merge with the article on Adams-Wilson Hobbycopter per suggestion above. Inner Earth 21:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge A very very soft merge but, its the same topic as Adams-Wilson Hobbycopter -- just do it. MrMacMan 09:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete or Merge. But company seems pretty non-notable to me. WMMartin 01:01, 8 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gordon Franz

According to the article "combines a scholar’s love for God’s Word and his archaeological and geographical knowledge of the lands of the Bible"?? This guy seems to be a non-notable Christian archeologist, who's sole claim to fame is some spat with the seemingly slightly more notable Bob Cornuke. I suspect this article may only exist to justify POV pushing on the the Cornuke article, which consists of quote after quote as to why Franz says he's wrong. Delete this one, and then let's crop the other one to the baiscs. -Doc^g 19:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This borders on hero worship. Delete B.Wind 01:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Clear problems with WP:PEACOCK, but afd is not a cleanup site. gsearch shows he may be notable. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't bring it here for clean-up. I brought it here because I think it isn't worth an article. If you think otherwise, perhaps you might offer some reasons. Why is he notable? I'm genuinely open to being convinced.--Doc^g 22:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

delete as per nom.--Buridan 13:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - All footnotes and external links cited in the article are essentially self-published, aren't they? I'll look a bit more for scholarly references ... but am not optimistic. Keesiewonder 01:10, 4 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. —Doug Bell ^talk 09:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ashley Juggs

View single debate

prod was removed without comment or discussion by User:69.84.102.164. This actress fails WP:PORNBIO. Mikeblas 19:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Just for the sake of accuracy, this individual is a magazine and web model, not an actress, and therefore different criteria should apply when considering deletion under PORNBIO. 23skidoo 23:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Nothing's wrong with the article, it has an info box and some external links. Sure, it's not very long, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. 2Pac 04:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. No real assertion of notability. Like most wiki articles on porn models/actresses, it seems to exist solely for the sake of having another pair of breasts in the image namespace. --- RockMFR 07:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
keep articles should not assert notability, notability should be obvious from the article, this one seems to be, google her. --Buridan 13:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ Articles should assert notability. And google is not a point of policy for inclusion. Dismas|^(talk) 19:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Lijnema's vote below. Dismas|^(talk) 05:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

no, articles should not assert notability. there should be nothing in the article that directly addresses the question of notability unless it is pertinent to the person or topic. it is bad style and a bad assumption. --Buridan 23:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep passes WP:PORNBIO, a quick google showed me the movie The Incredible Ashley Juggs & Her Busty Friends, making her pass criteria #7. That should probably be added to the article, but I don't know if there is some pron-imdb that should be linked to, or if the Rottentomatoes entry is good. If someone else wants to do it, I wouldn't mind. :) --Lijnema 20:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Only thanks to Lijnema with linking showing she does pass WP:PORNBIO with #7. Without that its a delete. MrMacMan 23:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
~~Delete~~. Doesn't appear to meet guidelines of WP:PORNBIO. WMMartin 00:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Cancel my ~~Delete~~ and Keep per criterion 7, as cited above. I even made a special effort to confirm that the video cited isn't a compilation, by tracking it down over the web. What an anatomically odd person ! WMMartin 00:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the proper way to cancel your vote is to use a strikethrough... which i did for you. I hope I didn't break proper procedure. MrMacMan 03:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep so long as the article's improved. --Wizardman 02:15, 9 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 G3. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giovanni DonCara

View single debate

This article appears to be a hoax. I cannot find any reference to the names or places mentioned; I've searched in nearly every academic database to which I have access. Google, google books, and google scholar similarly return zero results. I've never seen zero results returned on even the most obscure topics. The single reference provided in the article appears to be a children's book, but I cannot be sure given that no information is provided aside from the title. (Also note that there is no 2005 edition of this book.) Furthermore, an asteroid numbered 2351 was discovered in the 1960s according to List of asteroids (2001-3000). This is a contested prod. shotwell 19:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete (and tagged accordingly) as {{db-vandalism}}. Wikipedia:Vandalism lists, under types of vandalist: "Silly vandalism: Creating joke or hoax articles ...". That's this. Tagged Capurt as well. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think that possible hoax articles can be speedily deleted. WP:CSD#G1 specifically excludes hoaxes (although you've tagged it under G3) and Wikipedia:Hoaxes calls for AfD. shotwell 19:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  - As I mentioned on your talk page, {{db-g3}} is for vandalism and Wikipedia:Vandalism lists hoaxes, so ... Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Hoax, speedy delete, per WP:SNOWBALL. Likewise, Capurt, which shares the same author[s], and is similarly unverifiable/nonsensical/unGoogleable. -- The Anome 20:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete per myself as prodder and as vandalism per above. Also, while I'm no Italian language expert, the last name looks phoney: "Don" is a title and shouldn't be in a last name, AFAIK. Properly Italianized town names should end in a vowel, too. Tubezone 20:12, 2 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. Yanksox 15:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brent Wilson

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTE Tulkolahten 23:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Fails how? Is clearly subject of at least 2 non-trivial publications and part of a notable band per WP:NMG. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above. Tulkolahten 23:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Notable as a member of a notable band. User:All systems go removed the AfD notice. I restored it just now. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 22:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Panic! at the Disco or simply Delete per nom, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC on his own (and no, individual members of a notable band are not inherently notable). Possibly worth recreating when/if he wins his lawsuit against his former band, and manages to establish that he actually played on an album. :) Xtifr _tälk 23:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it your opinion that members of a notable band are not inherently notable themselves, or is it policy somewhere?--Dmz5 05:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

See WP:MUSIC. Nothing there says that a member of a notable band is inherently notable! My opinion is that most members of notable bands would be notable themselves for having participated in a band's notable accomplishments. That goes beyond what the guideline actually says, but I think it's a reasonable interpretation, and a good compromise between deletionist and inclusionist stances. However, in this case, we have a musician who, according to the band, did not participate in any of their albums or singles. Xtifr _tälk 20:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

- Addendum: note that the article has been twice-deleted already. Xtifr _tälk 23:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Tulkolahten 00:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete or Merge per nom. TJ Spyke 02:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - The MTV and Spin Magazine articles about him demonstrate individual notability. --Oakshade 02:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Except that the articles aren't about him; they're about the lawsuit, which is notable because it involves a notable band. Suing a famous person does not magically confer notability. (Especially not in the lawsuit-happy land of the USA.) Now, if he wins the suit, then he may become notable as someone who had to sue to get properly credited on a successful album. But if he loses, then I think that will constitute strong evidence that he never actually did anything notable! Xtifr _tälk 23:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Exactly, this is coverage about him and his lawsuit. Clearly non-trivial coverage (not directory or listing of performance dates, etc). If he wins or loses the lawsuit is completely irrelevant as he already has established notability --Oakshade 23:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Sharkface217 04:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep as member of a notable band and subject of several non-trivial publications. If people doubt the need to have a separate article, it can be merged too. No need to delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per MGM. — Seadog (Talk) 15:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Given this article's deletion history as well as the lack of actual notability, I think the contents should be merged into other articles and the article promptly deleted afterwards. Xiner 22:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete Not enough, but certainly is something. A guy who is sueing for recognition for his playing on a an album by a notable band is a few degrees of seperation. The information is useful to Wikipedia but not here. •Elomis• 22:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, don't merge per above. Meets WP:BIO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Looking at the outside source... they don't talk about him, they talk about his breakup with the band, not the guy himself. WP:NOTE failed I believe. The lawsuit deals with the same stuff, the info is correct according to the sources, but its just not woth note eitherway. MrMacMan 23:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Talking about "his breakup with the band" is in fact talking about him. --Oakshade 23:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  - And yet I don't think breaking up with a band is reason enough to have an article about him. Also the comment that 'Brent is ...forming a band ... with his brother' is cited... but when i look at the citation i don't see one word about this potential band. Outside the scope of this one band he has nothing, and since even his input in the band is questioned this is hard to argue. MrMacMan 00:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    - He's already notable, even if there's no mention of forming another band. --Oakshade 00:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
      - I disagree. I don't see the 20+ members of the Polyphonic_spree getting their own entries despite several founding members having a band previously. Is it an extreme example? I really don't think so. In fact the Panic! at the Disco article mentions him and his current situation in two paragraphs is and should be enough. MrMacMan 03:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. nonnotable Mukadderat 01:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable in his own right. WMMartin 00:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Members of P!ATD have been tryed to be deleted in the past, and the articles were kept. --Die Hard 2k5 01:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete or Merge. Non-notable by himself; information could be merged into the band's article. Fairsing 05:55, 8 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. W.marsh 17:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neo-spiritualism

View single debate

Textbook example of WP:NOR. As a side note creator of the article removes any unreferenced or unnotability templates -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 19:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 23:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I've found one article so far that appears to be scholarly, and will post it on Neo-spiritualism's talk page. It may be for a neo-spiritualism different than the one we've got right now though ...

Gabaude, J. M. (October-December 1998). "False Hermes. Philosophical impostures and neo-spiritualism in the work of Rene Guenon". Revue philosophique de la France et de l'étranger 123 (4): 503. ISSN 0035-3833. Keesiewonder 01:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Google Scholar gives 15 hits for the term as well but none of them gives reference to Ruhselman. How about the above reference. I think the explanation as it is now is totally uncredible. Probably the above reference and the others use it as a general term for some new age religions. I still vote for delete. -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 06:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this right now; will search for Ruhselman later today, hopefully before the article is deleted. I expect the 3 other folks who have weighed in here are correct in that this neo- is a generalized term. It is probably not a good precedent to have WP articles for neo-this-that-and-the-other-thing unless they are really well established terms, which this clearly is not at this time. Keesiewonder 12:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC) / After a bit of a search for Bedri Ruhselman, and not having found anything in several academic databases, I need to update my vote to delete. Keesiewonder 10:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

delete I think you're right--the ref used it as a general term.DGG 04:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. OR / Drivel. WMMartin 00:42, 8 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bedri Ruhselman

View single debate

A totally unnotable crackpot -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 19:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete religioncruft. Danny Lilithborne 23:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. He is mentioned in a very small number of English-language sources, but they are all highly suspect and obscure. DrKiernan 11:24, 4 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd Best

Seems like a regional band that does not meet WP:MUSIC. Also having trouble meeting WP:V. -Nv8200p talk 19:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete I think it's verifiable (see this article from an Iowa St. daily [55]) but it does fail WP:MUSIC. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:MUSIC because it was a regional band with no national tours and no nationally-distributed releases. B.Wind 02:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as mentioned above, it fails WP:MUSIC. --Lijnema 18:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Also, article was created by single-purpose account with same name as a band member. Drunken Pirate 03:00, 7 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. Evidence of reliable third-party coverage would have been good here. If some exists I will undelete. W.marsh 23:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Queen of the Land

View single debate

Does not look suitable to wikipedia, at least as its own article. I invite discussion. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

14,000 Google hits seem OK for an Irish festival (like this one). I am hesitant to add to systemic bias by urging a delete from the other side of the ocean. Article is not well-linked, but not orphaned, either. It is a dead-end that desperately needs cleanup. Keep and cleanup per WP:LOCAL as Ireland appears to be underrepresented in Wikipedia.B.Wind 02:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Re: "14,000 Google hits," I'm guessing you searched for "queen of the land". If so, I suppose many (most?) of those hits have nothing to do with this festival. Pan Dan 13:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The festival is an important one in Ireland and deserves its place. There is need for cleaning up of the article but it is informative and relatively unbiased. I would keep it. FN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.22.108 (talk • contribs)

I have cleaned up the article somewhat. I would say it should stay as it is a bona fida recognised festival in Ireland even though you probably havent heard of it in the USA. It is very similar to the Rose of Tralee festival which has a wikipedia page. If you delete this page you might as well delete that one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fnannery (talk • contribs)

Comment "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself." (from WP:Notability). The article does not establish notability. Regarding Rose of Tralee, that article also does not establish notability, but inclusion is not an indicator of notability. -- Chondrite 20:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep and cleanup. The article implies that it is a nationally important festival in Ireland. If this is true then the claim needs to be sourced and made explicit. Other statements need sources, and the whole article needs wikification so its no-longer a dead end. I'm not 100% certain its notable, but I'm willing to give it a chance to prove it. If nothing changes after a couple of months then by all means nominate it again. Thryduulf 01:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment re: "The article implies that it is a nationally important festival," I don't see that the article implies that. And, looking at the Google hits, such as this one, I get the impression it's only of local importance. Pan Dan 13:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per the comment of Chondrite -- there is no indication of notability here. There seem to be no non-trivial external sources on this festival that we can use to write a good verifiable Wikipedia article. A Google search for "queen of the land" Ireland yields 207 unique hits: some have nothing to do with this festival, others are blogs, others are trivial "things-for-tourists-to-do-and-see-in-Ireland" types. Pan Dan 13:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Notability not established. WMMartin 20:55, 7 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 (A7 - band). TigerShark 00:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karpenter's Kids

View single debate

Not notable Sad mouse 20:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Creating deletion discussion page for Karpenter's Kids because it just seems to be advertising. The band is not notable, the entire entry was done by one person, and there are almost no google hits. Sad mouse 20:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete db-band. Danny Lilithborne 23:13, 2 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. Sandstein 23:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Home-centered health care

I got 14 unique Google hits for this term. The article reads like an essay by some supporter of this concept. Considering the main supporter and possibly inventor of this concept runs his own website 14 hits is very low. Delete per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:OR MartinDK 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 21:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. It's spam. Some hits for "home-centered" in Medline/PubMed, but there is no recognised concept called "Home-centered health care" other than the obvious and non-notable. This is a plug for somebody's "bright new idea". Gnusmas 20:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as spam and original research. shotwell 20:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete essay. Danny Lilithborne 23:14, 2 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 Sacred Name Movement. Sandstein 07:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yaohushua

Original Research or Unverifiable Dachannien 20:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. --SonicChao ^talk 20:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete or Redirect ~~to Judaism~~...though it smells of hoax. Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 21:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Jewish_Messiah provided it isn't a hoax Canadian-Bacon ^{t c} 21:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to ~~Jewish Messiah~~ Sacred Name Movement or Yeshua, per Metropolitician. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to either Sacred Name Movement or Yeshua or otherwise delete. "Yaohushua" is not a possible transliteration of the Hebrew word for "messiah" (which would be something like "moshiach") but does resemble the transliteration of Yeshua which is often cited as the Hebrew name of Jesus. The discussion at Talk:Yaohushua implies that the name "Yaohushua" is being promulgated by a group which espouses that name as being the proper name for Jesus, which would be an example of the Sacred Name Movement. --Metropolitan90 22:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Patstuart and Metropolitan90 for the insight. After reading the Sacred Name Movement page, I agree that this would be an appropriate destination for a redirect. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 22:58, 2 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. W.marsh 23:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mariano di Gangi

Weak Delete- Seems unimportant. I could be wrong. Yankee Rajput 21:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete, fails WP:BIO. He's written a few books, which also appear on Amazon (see here) however none of them appear to be even remotely popular and have no reviews at all. The article doesn't contain any references either, so it also fails WP:V. Jayden54 22:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep Yes, He's an old man who's not preaching Sunday by Sunday anymore (so don't expect to see anything new), but was signifigant as a pastor, an educator, speaker/preacher, and Christian leader.
- Comment if the above argument is there, goodbye to a lot of Wiki sites of people from the past, There's a lot more I can add to the posting and above comment including Mentor and Friend, but what's the use ???

Bacl-presby 00:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep He is as notable as a Canadian church leader can get. If he is not notable enough for an article, then no Canadian church leader is notable enough, especially in the Canadian Protestant church even though its congregations number in the millions. Paradiso 01:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please explain why you think he is notable under WP:N and WP:BIO. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 16:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep for now. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 16:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep, we cannot apply the same measure to establish notability with a church leader as with a pop star. Church leaders are mostly noted within their congregations. Alf photoman 13:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, though on the basis of his books, and definitely NOT on the basis of the spurious reasoning advanced by Alf photoman. Notability is determined in precisely the same way for everyone: by their actions. These actions may be more widely discerned for a pop star than for a priest, but the question is always the same: has this person actively chosen to make, and successfully made, a contribution to his field of human endeavour or understanding that others in that field might reasonably be expected to want to know about? For a pop star this may mean singing a hit, or never having a hit but laying the groundwork for a new pop genre; for a priest it may mean setting an example of human charity notable _beyond_ his immediate congregation, or preaching sermons that have a higher success rate in converting "pagans", or, as in this case, by writing books that in some small way advance human understanding of the divine. WMMartin

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civil Fraternity

View single debate

Someone's Original-Research personal essay of near-nonsense. Highfructosecornsyrup 20:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete ~~per disruption of Supra-Cosmic harmony~~ per nom. shotwell 20:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete first person essay. Wikipedia articles are never written in first person. B.Wind 03:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as complete nonsense. I came across the creator elsewhere, who seems to be making quasi-nonsense edits on a number of pages. --MCB 06:58, 3 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blogburst

View single debate

Blog-related neologism. Page has no content except for a vague explanation of what this made-up word is supposed to mean in blogger's minds and an external link. Femmina 20:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete unless a reliable (non-blog) non-trivial source is added to the article. --Interiot 20:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Amanduhh 21:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:NEO Danny Lilithborne 23:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per all of the above (most importantly, lack of sources). --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete WP:NEO / unsourced article --timecop 03:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Could probably have done a speedy deletion on it. Mikemill 01:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
BegoneButholer 07:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Deleteburst all blogging neologisms. Guy (Help!) 10:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Utter nonsense. - Abscissa 18:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Jeff 18:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Measure 20:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The Fox Man of Fire 01:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -Ich (talk) 06:58, 7 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. W.marsh 17:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conference of Court Public Information Officers

View single debate

missing notability Mdda 20:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable.--Kchase T 18:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. NN. WMMartin 19:36, 7 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. DS 15:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dha Werda

A "war dance" in the Star Wars universe that appears once in a game, and once in a game-related book. Not wanting to use the f-word, I will just call it "non-notable". Delete unless we really, really need to merge it somewhere relevant. bikeable (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Obviously non-notable Sad mouse 21:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete crufiest of cruft ^_^ Danny Lilithborne 23:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Awesome, but not notable. -LtNOWIS 00:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Moved to [Wookiepedia]. Non-notable here. GunnerChief 09:05, 3 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 superior frontal gyrus and possibly merge there, which all are invited to do. Sandstein 07:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patient AK

View single debate

This is non-notable. After an exhausting 3 hour research session of this so called Patient AK I found nothing. In addition its only reference is apparently to a book or paper which introduced this subject in the first place. Amanduhh 21:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

keep. Patient AK patently satisfies the criterion for notability. The reference is to Nature, so the entry is hardly original research. There are absolutely no grounds for deletion: read the Nature paper, and decide for yourself. Robinh 22:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

keep needs expand. as it stands is obviously verifiable, <sarc>ok nature published pons & fleischman but it's a fairly well respected journal</sarc>. the problem is as it stands it doesn't go anywhwere, the result has some obvious implications, and then there are issues w/ the patient being epileptic, can this be expanded from the article? (i cant' access it, have no competence in the area) as it stands it's almost, 'so what?' ⇒ bsnowball 14:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

delete There is nothing notable about the patient, unlike particular patients in psychoanalysis etc. The phenomenon is notable, and there should be a place for it. DGG 03:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete or merge. There's been a lot of code-named research subjects in history, but I don't want to see an article on every single one. If the research a subject was involved in is notable (and this case is notable, imho), it should be merged into an article which deals with that topic. Quack 688 09:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

comment Quack 688 and GCC make good points: the phenomenon itself is notable, the patient herself only notable because of the phenomenon she exhibited. I don't see why patient AK shouldn't be as notable as Rat man, say. Wherever this material is put, patient AK should redirect to it. Robinh 16:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge to superior frontal gyrus. Verified but not notable. Chondrite 07:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Robinh is wrong when he says that Patient AK satisfies the criterion for notability. She does not, as her actions were entirely involuntary and beyond her control. That she laughed was notable in the context of the research, but Patient AK could have been replaced by a suitable Patient XYZ or Patient ABC without changing the result of the research. No-one will be looking her up, so this article is Delete as non-notable, with no redirect or merge. WMMartin 19:23, 7 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Sager

View single debate

Non-notable BIO; gsearch gives only 8 non-similar hits Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete I have a sneaking suspicion this article is a hoax, based on myspace discussions. At the very least, I haven't seen evidence of notability. (And while the repeated vandalism isn't a basis for deletion, it doesn't help me to feel charitable towards this article). Kathy A. 00:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete I can't say that its a hoax, but I certainly couldn't find anything in Google about him. Montco 06:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless Sager's notability can be verified. -- Shunpiker 18:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless sources appear. Looks like a myspace joke. Mr Stephen 19:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, block user Cammers7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) for repeatedly pulling AfD tags on this article. Tubezone 18:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I concur with blocking Cammers7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). |||||| E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 01:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete due to first result in Google being the Wikipedia article itself. NN, D. |||||| E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 01:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment - After I asked Mr. Cammers to post on why the article merited inclusion, he posted the following to my talk page:

Keith Sager's feminist viewpoints are absolutely key for A level students up and down the country. Admittedly part of his biography is slightly irrelevant- his whereabouts now may not be considered relevant for some wikipedia users, however WJEC, Edexcel, OCR and AQA all stipulate that critics have suitable background infomation provided. Those searching for infomation will be able to use Sager's article as a reference point for their studies before deciding how to use him. Deleting him from this site would be unwise for it is not offensive to those who do not know who he is, but useful to those needing more info on him.

My constant deletion of notices regarding his status is simply to allow students to do their work and not come to me saying wikipedia says Keith Sager does not exist!!!! Patstuart^talk|edits 04:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I say, that if we delete the article, it's a clear salt candidate, but with Mr. Cammers, we ban for 24/48 hours, once the afd is done, to show that this type of behavior, including via IP hopping, is not acceptable. Indef might be too extreme. -Patstuart^talk|edits 04:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like he's come to have dialogue. Let's not ban. -Patstuart^talk|edits 20:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Much better than his previous behavior. |||||| E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 21:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - I have found reference to a Keith Sager here following a search on BT Yahoo, but his only claim to fame appears to be that he edited a book, The Achievement of Ted Hughes. This was back in 1986 though and there doesn't appear to be any information to support the claims which are being made by the author of this biography. Paul from Brum (talk) 18:29, 6 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 AFD relisted. The amount of trolling in this AfD is so high that determining a concensus is just totally impossible. This AfD will be restarted, and semiprotected as soon as created. Unfortunate that it came to this. --Deskana talk 04:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Pierce

View single debate

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}}

Fails WP:BIO hard. Vanity and self-promotion. Apparently this guy did nothing in his life except writing in blogs. Femmina 21:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Worthless.

Keep yes keep

Delete If this guy is notable so is my mother. --Amanduhh 21:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete- Really isn't notable.--SUIT 22:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Sorry, blogfather. This guy is a dime a dozen. Just H 23:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Waste of space 69.105.108.232 01:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - As bloggers go, he appears popular, popular enough that G4tv interviewed him. [56]--Oakshade 00:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - G4tv inteviewed him about his blogs. Absolutely non-notable blogs I might add. Exactly to my point. The guy did nothing else whatsoever in his life. - Femmina 00:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  - If he or his blogs weren't notable, they wouldn't have bothered interviewing him. --Oakshade 01:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    - Maybe G4tv folks had 10 spare minutes in 2004. I see no hints at notability in the interview. They ask him how bloging so much is like and he says he enjoy doing it. And that's all. - Femmina 08:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
      - It seems you've never worked in broadcast journalism (I have for national networks that you've likely watched). They don't waste 10 seconds on something non-notable. --Oakshade 08:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        That's true, I'm not a journalist. Wait. How do you know I'm not a journalist? Is my computer broadcasting an IP address or something? Anyway, he's been interviewed once by G4tv and I was unable to find any other claim of notability. Is that single short interview enough to justify the presence of his biography on wikipedia? - Femmina 08:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as failing WP:BIO. bikeable (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and WP:BIO. Running a blog (or a hundred) does not make you notable. --timecop 03:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Obviously I'm biased in this discussion since I am Tony Pierce, and maybe nowadays running a blog is no big deal, but in August 2001 when I started the busblog there weren't 54 million blogs going. Anyways, I was on G4TV not for my blog, but for the "blook" that I wrote called "How To Blog" which won an award at SXSW. I've also been interviewed in the New York Times for being addicted to the web (http://community.livejournal.com/blog_sociology/78243.html), written about in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47633-2004Oct20.html), and named in the LA Times (http://www.craigslist.org/about/press/LAwideweb.html) as the most entertaining blog in LA. True my personal blog busblog.com (http://busblog.com) lately isn't what it used to be, but that's because I now blog for a living as Editor of LAist (http://www.laist.com/), but everyone has made a career and a living out of blogging these days, right? In 2002 I coined the word blook (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blook) which is turning parts of your blog into a book, a word that is dorky, true, but was up for Word of the Year this year by the Oxford Dictionary (http://blog.tomevslin.com/2006/10/blook_is_a_runn.html). Again, achievements I'm sure you've all reached. I'd have cleaned up this wikipedia entry on myself but as you can see from this note I'm not so skilled with your interface. I guess that's why I still use Blogger.com, speaking of which I was sitting next to Ev the night he announced that Google had just bought Blogger (http://www.tonypierce.com/blog/2003/02/only-guy-who-had-better-day-than-me.htm) just like Amanduhh's mom? She looked alot like Xeni Jardin. And I was one of just 20 bloggers given free trips to Amsterdam by the Dutch government this year and put up in 5 star hotels to blog about the city (http://www.bloggersinamsterdam.com/blog/), and and and... but blogging is irrelevant to you guys so whatevs. And yeah I realize I don't get the amount of hits of some of the bloggers in the Technorati Top 100 but personal sites that state right up front that "nothing in here is true" dont really stand a chance of popularity unless youre a whorish hot chick or a political partisan and yet still somehow I am in the Technorati Top 500 (currently i'm #428) (http://www.technorati.com/search/www.tonypierce.com). I agree lots of bloggers can claim that they "belong" here, but how many have achieved these things while being more popular than 99.999% of the rest? Maybe the kids just liked my photo essays (http://www.tonypierce.com/photoessays.htm)? Regardless of what you choose to do, there's no doubt that I was one of the early leaders of blogging, and definitely one of the more influential ones, and now a professional one. Therefore I believe that my entry should stay. But if it goes, that's ok. I did well without Wikipedia, I will live without it. Plus people know where to find me since Google has me listed right below the Tony Awards and Tony Hawk when you simply type "tony" into Google (http://www.google.com/search?q=tony). Thankfully they're not blog-haters :) Now that I read some of your snarks, it seems like the problem here is in the entry not being very good, not the subject. However, if I had written this entry then you would have tried to bust me for self-promotion. So there's the rub. TP 23:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Ignoring the fact that your plea for maintaining notability by keeping a wiki article (whereas you are otherwise un-notable) proves nothing, It is not permitted in this discussion, as you are a non-neutral party. However, I invite any other wiki editors (not blogging trolls) for their opinions in this discussion.

Delete Nothing in Pierce's missive above is notable. Tfg 00:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:BIO. --Cam 00:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep You HAVE got to be kidding me. Tony is the Blogfather. And somebody that says "Sorry Blogfather" is somebody that knows just how important Tony really is.
- Comment above account only has a single edit, to this article --timecop 02:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Saying that Tony hasn't done anything of note is like saying Kit Marlowe never did anything of note. pfrankenstein
- Comment hahahahah. comparing a non-notable BLOGGER with Christopher Marlowe? Funniest thing I heard today, and today just started. --timecop 02:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment My point, which you seem to have completely missed, is that Pierce was a pioneering and very influential blogger. There are plenty of bloggers who are much less notable than Pierce with Wikipedia pages, yet they don't seem to be marked for deletion. --pfrankenstein
  - Comment - Please add them to my talk page, I just love non-notable bloggers. --timecop 04:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    - Comment Yet. One thing at a time.
      - Comment - Perhaps you can end this debate quicker, timecop, if you give us an outline on the requirements of a "notable" blogger. But since you have this bizarre war on blogs going, perhaps you don't have such an outline. But if you do, please proved one. - TP
Delete This page is blatant self-promotion, and the subject is not notable. Delete with due haste and extreme prejudice. Trollaxor 02:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Trollaxor you don't get a vote, you've been on Blogger for a month.
  - Comment Vote for "Keep" changed to "Comment"; 70.48.103.26, you don't get two votes. 154.20.200.220 03:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete More like "the blahfather". And I just totally coined that term. Where's my Wiki bio? 67.48.92.79 04:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The jealousy is just seeping out of you people.
  - Comment You seem to confuse jealousy with disdain. Combining a made-up word with an already existing word into "blook" is hardly note worthy. You know what they were called before Tony Pierce? Memoirs. 67.48.92.79 05:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete- The article is shameless self-promotion. While it does attempr to assert notability, it does not succeed. Reyk _YO! 06:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Although it needs a total rewrite preferably by someone who doesn't know him as the current page definitely sounds more like a bio on a personal website and spends too much time focusing on the non-notable aspects of his life which probably contributes to much of this discussion. As stated on WP:BIO, Failing WP:BIO should not be grounds for deletion on it's own. While Tony does work for a competing company (Speaking of which someone else might want to look at Gothamist in regards to WP:AUTO and WP:SPEEDY - obviously I have a bias) I do feel he is a notable blogger. Sean Bonner 06:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - He taught thousands how to blog.PermanentE 09:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - it that a good thing? - Femmina 15:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Yes. --Oakshade 17:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I'm not a big fan of blogs, but this guy's history does seem to make him more notable than an average blogger (though a rewrite after all this would be nice). Quack 688 09:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - What does that means? The average blogger is an utterly non-notable attention whore. - Femmina 15:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I admit to occasionally reading Tony's blog, so that may indicate bias, but he is a notable blogger. I agree that the article needs a rewrite. Mrzoink 11:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Clearly, the blog as a media format is not going to be going away any time soon. As a blogger prominent enough to have won a Bloggie Award at SXSW, this article should be kept. No doubt that in years future, there will be numerous cross-links for articles on Bloggy Award winners in various years and categories. In fact, there already is an entry for Bloggie Awards. Barneyg 12:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - The blog as a media format is not going to go away any time soon because it never made it as a media format in first place. But keep dreaming and wasting your time. - Femmina 15:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment - This campaign against blogs reminds me a LOT of when rap music first became popular back in the 80s. Many people campaigned against the very notion of calling rap “music.” They hated seeing rap embraced and legitimized as a new form of “music” within popular culture. Of course, against millions of rap listeners, their efforts were futile…much like this frustrated effort against blogs is. With numerous blogs having hundreds of thousands of daily readers, the blog is—like it or not—a common and accepted media format. - Barneyg 21:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete About as notable as the piano player down my local pub. Linuxaurus 12:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Needs to be re-written and reduced to a much shorter entry. Pierce is notable in his field which I is the standard that should apply here. Glowimperial 15:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - "notable in his field" means absolutely nothing. - Femmina 15:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Response - care to explain that sentiment in detail? Wikipedia is full of extensive pages on all kinds of obscure historical and contemporary figures, who's notability exists solely within their professional field. I'm concerned that this "War on Blogs" campaign is not effectively targeting vanity pages. I'm familiar with Tony from his activities with Laist, and he appears to have had a role of significance in the larger blogging community. I'll admit I'm just shy of a weak keep on this one, but IMHO, he's not necessarily worthy of a speedy delete. I'd rather see an intelligent effort at a more Wikipedia-ish reduction and re-write and evaluate the worthiness of the article from there. It doesn't appear to me that there was any serious effort to bring this article in line before becoming an AFD - why not? Glowimperial 16:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    - Comment - Because the subject fails WP:BIO and the page should be deleted. - Femmina 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - "'notable in his field' means absolutely nothing." Considering notability is an ipso facto standard for inclusion, Femmina is basing her opinion on an overall opinion that bloggers are not notable in any occasion.LABlogger 16:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  - - - Comment - WP:BIO Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. He's won a bloggy which is a major award in his field - we wouldn't delete and article for an actor who has only one a single Academy Award but no other awards. He's paid by Gothamist for his blogging - that qualifies him as a published writer, and given that his field of work is based upon the self publishing of media, I'd be inclined to include his self published works - considering them along the same line as an independent musician publishing their works. It's a big world, you have to presume some degree of flexibility in policy here. Policy is not a club for bashing, it's a tool best used intelligently. Glowimperial 18:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        Comment - Sorry if I didn't recognize a "Bloggy" as a major award. Obviously it's me the outcast that doesn't know things about the mainstream culture. - Femmina 18:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Pierce is notable per wikipedia's definition that "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field."LABlogger 16:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - User's first and only contribution to wikipedia. [57]- Femmina 17:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Femmina also has not established which deletion policy criteria she believes the Tony Pierce meets - "vanity" is not included on this list. Additionally, Femmina should be aware of the the Wikipedia Deletion_policy subsectioned "Abuse of deletion process" which states:

The deletion processes all focus on whether an article meets the criteria for existence on Wikipedia; that is, they are to determine whether it is not original research, its central information is verifiable, and it is capable of achieving a neutral point of view with good editorship. XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally.--LABlogger 17:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

- Comment - User's second contribution to wikipedia. I'll say it again since you didn't bother to read at the top of this page. According to his biography (vanity) page, the one we are discussing about, the subject fails WP:BIO. And you should be aware that, being you clearly a sockpuppet, you should be blocked.- Femmina 17:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I read your reason, and point out that vanity alone isn't listed as a cause for deletion. Additionally, the number of edits someone has bear no weight on this debate - having numerous attempts to delete others articles does not make someone's opinion more important than people who read and use Wikipedia on a daily basis. (as for the charge of suck puppetry - if its so clear, share the evidence).--LABlogger 17:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment - Femmina, please show your work on the sockpuppet accusation if you want it to be taken seriously. Glowimperial 18:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    - Comment - I'm not an admin so I can't check but the fact that Tony has put a cry for help on his blog [58] and the fact that LABlogger contributed to wikipedia only twice -on this page- is enough to raise suspect. - Femmina 18:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
      - Comment - I highly doubt that LABlogger is a sockpuppet. Are you accusing him of being a meatpuppet? None of us have any awareness that LABlogger isn't an experienced Wikipedian posting under another account, or someone who has never had a Wikipedia account before today and has chosen to make the jump into having an account and properly signing his posts. Could there be less of a welcome mat put out to potential contributors? I also have trouble seeing Tony's post as a "cry for help". He just posted about the situation. Nowhere in his post does he make a direct request for support. Glowimperial 18:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Tony is one of the blogging pioneers and just because Femmina and a few others think that blogging is not a real medium does not make it so. If bloggers like Tony are deleted from Wikipedia it won't weaken bloggers it will weaken Wikipedia's credibility with bloggers.
Keep Tony Pierce is absolutely worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. He is a very prolific blogger (whether one agrees with blogging as notable or not, Tony's contributions to the medium are not insignificant) and has held high-profile jobs in online communities like Buzznet and LAist. As many have already noted here, he inspired many people to begin blogging, and earned the "Blogfather" title that twas bestowed upon him. This article was clearly put up for deletion as some sort of personal vendetta by a user who desperately needs lots of attention; that's not a good enough reason for an article to be removed, in my opinion, and even talking about this troll wastes everyone's time, including editors and administrators.
- Comment - O RLY? - Femmina 18:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as blatant self-promotion. The fact that he needs to beg for help on his blog demonstrates this. Vyse 21:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- CommentUnless you're willing to provide a quote that backs up your claim, I think a retraction is in order. No where in Tony's post or comments does he ask for, let alone beg, for help.--LABlogger 21:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment - Vyse - I have to question whether you've looked at this situation adequately. The page in question is not a vanity page - Tony Pierce has never edited, nor contributed to the editing of this page in any manner according to the history page. Secondly, as stated above, he also did not beg, request, or in any way solicit help regarding the AFD in question. Glowimperial 22:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    - Comment Mere mention of the controversy on his blog (and on MetaFilter) is an implicit call for assistance. Given the sudden influx of "Keep" votes, it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Tfg 23:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
      - Comment In general Mr. Pierce, those who are notable, do not spend time attempting to convince others of their notability. Three mentions in one blog entry of this discussion (with links) suggests as clearly as a hammer over the head to your regular readers as much. Vyse 00:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        
        Comment Agreed. Notable people do not spend time talking about, and especially not personally influencing the process of, their inclusion in an encyclopedia. While it is not proof, it is evidence that the entry is vanity. Xiphoris 02:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep WP:BIO states as a criterion for inclusion: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." It continues, "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles..." etc. Pierce meets that criterion. A quick search of the Dow Jones/Reuters Factiva service shows Pierce has been the subject of articles from the New York Times (27 May 2004) (followed by an echo to the Times-owned Int'l Herald Tribune on 29 May); Reuters (10 July 2004); Straits Times (Singapore) (5 March 2006); Reforma (Mexico City) (2 April 2006); EL PAIS (Madrid) (20 April 2006); Los Angeles Times (16 October 2003, 27 Feb 2003, 12 July 2004, others); Le Monde (25 June 2005); and others. The search string was (Tony Pierce AND blog), and the variety of citation shows that some regard "just blogging" to be sufficient for notability, if one is widely enough known for it (just as one could become widely known for such synonyms "writing a diary", "writing a journal", "writing essays", etc.). A campaign to edit the phenomenon of blogging out of Wikipedia, when it is clearly observable in everyday life, could be considered a violation of WP:NPOV through overly aggressive editing out of known facts. .--hbobrien
- Likely another sockpuppet, but this vote can stay as it was reasonably well thought out and not just "keep l0l you f00lz". --Deskana talk 03:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom 凸 23:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Everyone and their mother has been interviewed by G4, they're hardly a good test for notability. Tony Pierce has contribuited nothing historically significant, and is not known outside of his very limited readership. Viscid 00:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete The infestation of suspicious votes is troublesome since it smacks of solicitation. Bottom line, however, is that the subject clearly fails WP:BIO. Eusebeus 00:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I think most of the votes to delete are more suspicious than anything. Please see User:Timecop/The_war_on_blogs for more... Sven Erixon 01:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Pierce is a very prominent person in the world of blogging and for all the reasons noted above, I vote to keep. Sven Erixon 01:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Tony is a highly influential figure in the history of blogging. Blogging is a highly influential phenomenon in the history of the world. Those who think otherwise are not well-researched on the subject, or are intentionally trying to game the system for some biased reason. The fact that this deletion has gotten so much attention is evidence enough that he is notable. If this gets deleted, there is something wrong here. Phronk
- Comment How is Tony highly influential in the blogging community? What influence does he have outside the existence of own blog posts? I have been unable to determine this from any non-trivial sources. Xiphoris 02:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep I agree with hbobrien, he has been the subject of multiple "non-trivial" works. Further, the article is informative. --Falcorian ^(talk) 01:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I'd go so far as to call at least some of these edits in bad faith. Not accusing everyone, but I'm just saying, this may be somewhat organized on both sides. I'd move to invalidate this whole proceeding as throughly screwed up on both sides if there is such a thing -- ZachPruckowski December 4th, about 8:19 PM ET.
- Comment - On this note, say hi to Digg as well. -- Northgrove 01:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
KEEP This is a total waste of time, of course this article should be kept. He is notable in his field; the fact that the field

itself is viewed by some as a niche - or is disliked by a select few - does not constitute grounds for removal. --Sprhodes 01:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. This is a notable blogger, and there's nothing inherently about bloggers that say they should be deleted either. Some quick checks are showing his fame goes even beyond the blogging community itself, appearing in various interviews, etc. -- Northgrove 01:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
KEEP This guy is a blogging pioneer. Blogging is a huge part of internet culture and he has indeliably shaped it. He has multiple appearances on tv and popular literature. I'm sure there are people who have used wiki in order to get info about this man. This is an encylopedia. He is notable. People search for him. Wiki should have info about him.131.204.217.53 01:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Willie Morris, morewillie.com
Delete per nom. Consider also that one of the largest sections is the external links which include a cafepress link. Mikemill 01:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. A notable blogger should have a notable blog and Tony Pierce, as evidenced by his alexa ranking doesn't. Further, this blog appears to be Tony Pierce's main claim to fame TerraFrost 01:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Alexa rankings are not a viable test on notability and includes significant bias due to the reasons shown in Wikipedia:Search_engine_test#Alexa_test. -- Northgrove 01:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment. Alexa rankings are as viable as anything else, when included in context. All search engines, including those of scholarly articles, introduce biases. Alexa is one measure of popularity as perceived by a certain share of the market. Popularity does not imply notability, but a complete lack of popularity might imply non-notability. Xiphoris 02:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete As mentioned by numerous individuals (Femmina, bikeable, timecop, Cam, Eusebeus, etc.), this article clearly violates WP:BIO Special4k4 01:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
KEEP Top 500 in the technorati ratings isn't good enough? Articles about him in the NY Times and LA Times isn't good enough? Certainly he's a blogger of SOME note, and more people know of his work than, say of art collector John Day. 68.181.243.19 01:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)PH
DELETE. Cursory review of search results from Yahoo/Google/Ask.com indicate that not many reputable news sources seem to be writing about this guy. However, it could be the articles about this guy from reputable news sources are not online. Articles that do exist seem to be coming from the self-propagating blogging community, which does not (IMO) meet the notability requirements. While some might argue he is the subject of many works, I have not found those works easy to locate. Xiphoris 02:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- To add further: I did a more comprehensive review, specifically looking for psychology/ergonomics/computers/computer human interaction articles through my university's article search system. I located no scholarly articles of any sort. scholar.google.com located no references. While he may be referred to in "entertainment" sections of popular blog-related and Internet-only news services, I do not think he meets the notability requirements as per above.
- Finally, I especially don't think people worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia would much worry about their presence. Especially, notable people should not be getting personally and directly involved in debates about their inclusion in said encyclopedia. I get the impression from Digg.com and Metafilter.com that Mr. Pierce has been asking for help from many of his friends to influence this process. Popularity is not notability.
Delete - nn. Jmax- 02:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
DELETE. This is self-promotion, no doubt. 72.68.63.7 02:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Notable. digital_me 02:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The article needs to be rewritten, but its subject is notable, and, contrary to several comments above, does meet WP:BIO (even though this is not a requirement to keep the article). He has been the subject of published works, such as this article in the New York Times. He has won awards in his field, which is notable. It should be noted that there appear to be an extraordinary number of suspicious votes (WP:SOCK); it should also be noted that there is a concentrated effort to delete all blogging-related articles, without regard for notability or for following Wikipedia's guidelines. —bbatsell ¿? 02:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - pathetic self-promotion. If he wants a page, he should create a USERPAGE just like the rest of us. Loser. Techfan 02:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Most of the related links are back to his own blog. I am a blogger, but we all tend to have rather large egos, and if this was notable then we would have a flood of vanity entries. Nonforma 02:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
KEEP Excuse me. Somebody deleted my keep comment? Is it because I didn't sign it? I will sign it now, and you can see that it is from the same ip that you deleted. Strange me thinks.Binsk2
- Comment. It might have been me. If so I apologize. I might have lost some of my own additions in the process. Not really sure. Again, I apologize if it was me. Xiphoris 02:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per bbatsell above. A Google News Archive search shows verifiable sources for Tony Pierce. [59]. Capitalistroadster 02:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- comment - notice, every one of those 'google news links' goes to another personal blog. --timecop 02:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Worthless, non-notable. He has a blog and nothing else- the content of this article is 100% redundant with his personal site. It's immaterial that there were a couple of newspaper articles that asked the interchangeable blogger of the moment what he thought about blogs. Wikipedia isn't a directory of people who have ever had their name mentioned in the newspaper.
Keep Blogging is quickly becoming more and more accepted in terms of mainstream media, and if he is considered by the media to be one of the "forefathers" to modern blogging, and has been quoted, cited, interviewed, or otherwise been exposed by modern media as such, that's verification for me. Wikipedia isn't a directory of people who have ever had their name mentioned in the newspaper - true, but he's had his mentioned in places other than the newspaper, multiple times.To0n 02:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- comment - Yes, he is also mentioned in blogs and the wikipedia article itself. Those sources are obviously inadequate. And the newspaper articles that people keep saying are "about him" aren't about him at all- they are about blogging and happen to mention him as an example. Ask yourself the question: Would this article have been substantially the same if they had chosen virtually any other blogger? If yes, then the article wasn't about him.
Strong Keep Quite notable. He is a well known journalist on the web, Don't delete because of a campaign against Bloggers. I'm glad it's now on Digg. I don't think people should just vote here, but I do think that all digg users who are editors of wikipedia should have this brought to their respective attentions as to contribute their opinions. Alexbrewer 02:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment FYI, as of this post, not accounting for any accusations of sockpuppeting etc. It's 28/26 in favor of deletion. Alexbrewer 02:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Someone (69.105.108.232) changed three Keep votes to Delete votes. See [60] and [61]. This is getting ridiculous!PermanentE 03:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think pages like this ought to be editable only by those who wrote their portions of the page. This is inviting trouble if you ask me. Hey, lets hold the next presidential election on Wikipedia this way.
Keep Ignoring the fact that this person is a notable author, I strongly disapprove of groups trying to remove articles from Wikipedia because of their personal dislike of the article, or the individual featured. If this is allowed, it will be the end of Wikipedia.
Keep This is an actual notable person doing real things in the real world. Keep. King-of-no-pants 03:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Regardless of whether or not Tony Pierce *was* notable, the fact that there are now two large groups promoting agendas within Wikipedia over this article (one side anti-blogging and the other pro-blogging) has in fact made the article itself noteworthy. Removing it at this point will smack of censorship. Alvonruff 03:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The fact that people disagree about whether a person is noteworthy doesn't make it per se noteworthy- that logic is preposterous. If the pro/anti-blogging issue is noteworthy, then give that issue its own page. And this isn't a pro/anti blogging issue anyway- it is a pro/anti trivia issue. And censorship requires a state actor, to call this "censorship" is simply histrionics.
- Comment Jordanjill railway station is Wikipedia's one millionth article and yet that fact isn't mentioned in the article, itself. What makes the "controvery" over this article any different? TerraFrost 03:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete This guy's exploits are just that; an exploit of a new syntax of referring to reverse-chronologically posted content. He simply takes shit and makes sculptures. But it's still boring, non-notable shit. --lesalle 03:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Opinions on the work product of the subject of this encyclopedic article are entirely irrelevant. What is at issue is whether the subject is notable, and whether you think blogging is worthwhile or not is not a measure of notability. —bbatsell ¿? 03:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
UPDATE The nominator, User:Femmina has been blocked indefinately (Admin edit summary reads "Blocked indefinitely, troll"). From that, apply whatever logic you like to this AfD (it's a free-for-all, that's for sure). --Oakshade 03:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Self-promotion Emfraser 03:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Femmina went to next door neighbour's and changed username to Emfraser.
Strong Keep I love to delete pages that are worthless (i've been a member for almost a year and I have made several contributions), but Tony Pierce is clearly notable and this page should not be deleted. He qualifies under all of the following: The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.; Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers ; and Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work. Magdela 03:44, 5 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. W.marsh 21:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Journal of Central Asian and Caucasian Studies

Useless list dump, probably copyvio of http://www.isro.org.uk/junction.asp?lid=4_8_3_2&ln=TR. Circeus 21:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete 1. No notability asserted, 2. Copyvio, 3. Walled gardening. ~ trialsanderrors 23:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on the Board of Editors this is a major international journal, but I cannot tell what the article did or didn't say--I do wish people would not make hasty decisions based on their lack of knowledge of unfamiliar fields. If it was a list of the journal's data from its own page this is fair use, and not a copyvio, and more than a thumbnail of its cover would be.

I ask the more experienced WP people who have removed it what is the best course for me to take--simply add it back again, I suppose, and then defend it. I at least know enough to explain in the article why it is important. And what are the other articles that form the walled-off area? Or do you perhaps just mean that the journal, like most scholarly journals, requires a subscription? DGG 04:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically, the article as is practically useless, and doesn't make much sense, so it is probably better to leave it blank than to force people to wrestle with... that. Circeus 19:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I see you confuse a copyvio with fair use, and do not see the advantage of leaving a stub. The data there was by no means useless. Pls justify "copyvio" in this case. DGG 02:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment if it's copyvio, then it doesn't belong here, it belongs at WP:CP and must be deleted. No fair use rationale is offered,and the use of the text is not consistent with fair use. If the article turns out to be non-copyvio, then it should be deleted because it does not assert the notability of the subject. -- Chondrite 21:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

- Comment To avoid controversy, I have now removed even the fair use information from the journal's site , and there is no possible copyvio. I have asserted importance, and provided appropriate links to that effect. It is notable as the only journal in the world on its subject, published by the major institution in its field. DGG 03:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If the article contained copyvio content, then that content needs to be removed from the previous versions of the article. According to WP:N, "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself." Chondrite 07:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Additional comment: I was unable to verify that the journal itself is listed in the SOAS catalog. The claim that it is the only journal on it's subject seems to be original research: can a verifiable quote from a reliable source be cited to support that point? As mentioned above, even if true, this also does not establish notability. Chondrite 20:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep. If SOAS says its the only academic journal dealing with its subject, that's good enough for me. WMMartin 18:46, 7 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 – Gurch 23:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Field

View single debate

As far as I can ascertain, Tom Field has no claim to notability. This appears to be a vanity page created by a user called Fieldy144. Euchiasmus 21:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete db-bio/WP:AUTO. Danny Lilithborne 23:16, 2 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Winner Ozelis

View single debate

Prod removed without comment. Appears to be personal memorial to a woman who died of breast cancer. Only remote (very remote) claim to notability is having been test subject for unnamed (and apparently unsuccessful) cancer treatment. No sources, no verifiability, no notability. Fan-1967 22:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and thousands of people are medical test subjects every day (this takes care of WP:BIO). My sympathies, but no. B.Wind 03:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as above. An individual tragedy that is, unfortunately, all too common. DrKiernan 12:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. All arguments to keep seem to revolve around ignoring the lack of reliable sources writing about this person... unfortunately that's not a good idea at all. W.marsh 17:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anna Marek

View single debate

Speedy deletion as recreated material was overturned at DRV since no one could find evidence of a prior AfD. So here it is now for full discussion. I reverted to the last version that looks like a biography (and have no opinion). ~ trialsanderrors 22:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Problems with WP:PORN (which itself means problems with WP:BIO). Delete. B.Wind 03:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep It looks alright to me, can you point out its deficiencies in the talk page? I'll see what I can do to fix it. She does have a substanstial fan-base and IMO this article is a lot better sourced than many of the porn star bios in Wikipedia. She was probably singled out for deletion because she is a lot more famous (or rather infamous) than most of them. Be that as it may, lets see what I can (in good faith). --Eqdoktor 08:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment I undeleted the talk page, too, but it turned out it was only a replica of the article so I deleted it again. There was no discussion useful to the article. ~ trialsanderrors 10:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete lack of reliable sources, single source seems somewhat partisan. --pgk 10:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep and source/cite. person seems notable, sources seem available to verify claims in article, thus, keep and cite.--Buridan 13:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- The single provided source is highly unreliable. The burden is on you to cite whatever it is that you want to be cited. The closing administrator is not a magic citation machine. Uncle G 15:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep - I'm no expert on porn, but I do remember that most of the people I knew in the 90s who were into internet/BBS porn had pictures of her in their collection, so she must have been notable enough back then (otherwise I wouldn't even have remembered who she was). Not sure if she still is today. Mark Grant 14:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering whether someone would finally try writing about this person. The problem with Anna Marek is that there is exactly one published source of biographical information about her in the whole world, an "Anna Marek FAQ" that has been pseudonymously posted and re-posted in Usenet newsgroups for about 10 years. It's the FAQ that has been copied onto the one web page that the article cites, and re-hashed on the other web page that the article cites. It possibly originates from the people who sell the movies. (Note that the web site onto which it has been copied also sells the movies.) There's no way to know who the author of the FAQ is, and for all that the world knows, all of the biographical information in the FAQ could be complete fiction. It wouldn't be the first time that a purported biography of a porn actress was utter fiction. (Indeed, fictional names and fictional biographies are common practice in the world of pornography.)
The only verifiable things that can be said about this person that come from sources with a name and a known reputation is that she appears in four porn movies and that a Usenet newsgroup was named after one of her pseudonyms. Nothing else — her nationality, the fanciful story about her background, her sexual orientation, her weight, her height, and even her age and name (It is interesting to note that one editor's edit summary is "In Polish there is no name like 'Anuschka'".) — is verifiable from good sources that have checked their facts, that can be trusted, and that are independent of the subject and of people trying to sell the subject's movies. That's not enough to satisfy the WP:BIO criteria.

Anna Marek is a good example of the distinction between fame and notability, and a rare example of someone who is famous but not notable. (Notability is not fame nor importance.) Many people have heard of her, but no-one apart from people who are (given that they invariably offer pictures and movies alongside the FAQ) trying to sell her movies has actually written and published a work of their own about her. Delete. Uncle G 15:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I disagree with the very notion of a 'famous but not notable' concept. Also, she has done more than four movies. She also did numerous photo sets, far more than four. MadMaxDog 08:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Uncle G - No reference to her beyond her work and those selling it means that in my opinion she fails WP:N. WJBscribe 00:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Eqdoktor - I find the argument of famous not notable very strange. She was everywhere on the early Internet in the early nineties. Hektor 23:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Her pictures were. But there's nothing at all written about her except for that one single FAQ. Eqdoktor has not addressed that, because (no discredit to xem) xe cannot address that. There is simply no independently sourced material to be had apart from the list of four movies and the newsgroup name. (If you assert otherwise, please point to the material.) That she is famous but not notable is odd to those that erroneously conflate notability and fame, but nonetheless it is true. Notability is not fame nor importance. And Anna Marek is one of the rare examples of someone who is famous, but not notable. Uncle G 00:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, we may not like what she does but that is not a reason to question her notability VaclavHav 00:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- The reason to question notability is the one put forward above: she doesn't satisfy the WP:BIO criteria. The only person to mention disliking what she does has been you, and that is a straw man. If you think that she satisfies the WP:BIO criteria, please cite sources to demonstrate this. When you look for sources to cite you'll find solely this one Usenet-circulated FAQ of exceedingly dubious provenance. Uncle G 00:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I feel I should clarify. I have no objection to Anna Marek's profession and my vote is in my view objective. The article's references show that her movies are widely sold and heavily promoted. But it gives no external evidence that there is anything notable about Ms Marek as a porn star. Examples of this might be- best selling, longest career, first to perform a certain act, having a won a particular award, etc. Wikipedia cannot become an directory of all pornstars. Therefore, it must be necessary in establish that a pornstar is notable to show how he/she stands out from other pornstars... WJBscribe 00:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - A lack of information on a notable topic is not a reason for deletion. And she is just as, or more notable as numerous other porn stars about which little is known except their sexual exploits in the erotic media, but still have articles on here. MadMaxDog 08:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- This person is not notable. She is famous (inasmuch as people recognize her picture and her name). There's a difference. She doesn't satisfy our WP:BIO criteria. If she were notable, she would have been noted. But she hasn't been. There are no non-trivial published works from independent sources about her. No-one, that can be identified and trusted, has seen fit to actually document this person. If you think otherwise, please cite sources, as already requested above.
  On the contrary, a lack of information is a reason for deletion, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy which states that perpetual stubs with no possibility for expansion should be deleted. Because this person does not satisfy the WP:BIO criteria, in particular because she doesn't satisfy the primary criterion, there's no possibility for this article to be expanded beyond a stub. Note that editors have already had to add unverifiable content, such as her height and weight, and original research, such as the list of aliases, to the article, and have had to rely upon an unreliable source, just to get it as far as it is now.
  
  Put another way: You state that little is known about this person. In fact, pretty much nothing is known. Were you to ask the people who Mark Grant knew what they actually know about Anna Marek, they would report that they don't actually know anything about her at all, apart from the fact that that's the name on a set of pictures. Since an encyclopaedia is a compendium of knowledge, and there is no knowledge to be had, there can obviously be no encyclopaedia article. If you want to show otherwise, please point to where there is knowledge that has been researched, fact checked, and published by a source that, unlike the vendors of pornography (who make up biographies) can be trusted not to be making things up from whole cloth. Uncle G 13:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with your points. The very notion that she (whoever she was) was famous in her role as a porn star makes her notable enough for me. You may point to WP:BIO all you like - if there is a majority consensus amongst those people who do care enough to argue about it that she is notable - then she is. That is what Wikipedia, in the end, is about. MadMaxDog 12:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This also harkens back to the old inclusionist or exclusionist debate. Your thrust (beyond arguments about possibly fake info - which can easily be deleted or qualified as untrustworthy in the article) is that having an article listing a porn star about whom not much beyond her pornstardom is known is cheapening, worsening - whatever you would call it - Wikipedia. That is wrong. Wikipedia is not paper. Nobody will stumble over this article unless searching for it specifically or being random-linked to it. There is no harm to having it here. But then, that is what you'd argue. Oh well, sorry to all for veering off from the main topic. MadMaxDog 12:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

keep please the subject reads notable to me and is verifiable too Yuckfoo 04:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
comment for someone who is not notable she is generating a lot of talk. Hektor 15:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, mostly per Ungle G. This article has been around since January 2005, and there are still no reliable sources. Mr Stephen 16:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep This article could benefit from more information, but the historical significance of Anna Marek is undeniable. Moreover, the importance of the adult entertainment industry in terms of cultural enlightenment and economic advancement and the evolution of sexual morality can hardly be overstated: humans are sexual creatures perhaps unique in their ability to appreciate vicariously the sexuality of others, and similarly unique in their (arguably unethical) efforts to regulate human sexuality between consenting parties.

Prudishness has neither any rightful nor any desirable place among the qualities of an encyclopaedia: those opposing the presentation of reference material related to (especially mainstream) pornography ultimately undermine the scholarly discussion and fair representation of topics arising from (or substantially connected with) human sexuality and the greater portion of the human experience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.222.127.35 (talk)

Sorry Mr. anonymous user but no one arguing against this article is being prudish. The question is simply whether the movies/pictures themselves and comments by those who promote them are sufficient for notability. I think those arguing against would have been satisfied by impartial external confirmation that "the historical significance of Anna Marek is undeniable" (as you put it) i.e. from sources other than those selling her work. No one to my knowledge has opposed the presentation of reference material relating to pornography, merely the quality of those references in this instance. -WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 18:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per Uncle G. I have no problem with including notable porn stars, but I do have a problem with inadequate supporting references. WMMartin 18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete, in addition to the points raised by Uncle G, it is impossible to write an article that conforms to WP:LIVING without reliable sources. Chondrite 20:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I'd like to make a couple of short points:

A.M. probably does not meet WP:PORN. I find its criteria somewhat too narrow, and, in particular, slanted against non-American porn stars (awards as a notability criteria); that's why I'd invoke WP:IAR here.
Notability is not fame nor importance? Mind you, this is porn we're talking about.
Verifiability of biographical data is not the issue. One could almost say A.M. is D.B. Cooper of porn. We know next to nothing about D.B. Cooper as a person (what is his real name, when was he born, etc.), but we know he existed, and we know what he did. Same for A.M. (No, I'm not saying this makes them equally notable; I'm just trying to provide a different angle here.) GregorB 21:44, 7 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Camp Jesus

View single debate

This article appears to be about a Catholic Bible camp that is held in Ireland. Google turns up very little about it, and it is completely unrelated to similarly titled recent documentary, Jesus Camp. The documentary is about a Evangelism bible camp in North Dakota, this article is about the likely thousands of small, non-notable bible camps. SirNuke 22:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete, does not assert notability. A quick google turns up only a bunch of wikipedia mirrors, as well as this passing mention and this free webhost page. Demiurge 23:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete - does not assert notablility. Inner Earth 21:40, 5 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. Still a valid AFD as far as I can tell. W.marsh 17:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List_of_The_4th_Coming_guilds

View single debate

I revolke this entry for AfD. I made a careless mistake, and I apologize. --Bezking 22:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

What is this supposed to be? This is almost a speedy A1/A3 empty/no context/external links only. ~ trialsanderrors 23:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Certainly looks like it should be deleted in its current form (and you're right, it almost qualifies as a speedy). May grow, but even if it does it'll be borderline, to say the least. BTW, I re-added the AfD message which somehow seems to have been removed. Grutness...wha? 23:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, let's give it a run then. Delete unless expanded/explained/sourced. ~ trialsanderrors 00:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Though references are cited, I do not find them adequate - they are from fansites and fanmags. I also feel that the subject is not notable, and believe the article is OR. Should be a speedy. WMMartin 18:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Is this closed? The Fox Man of Fire 20:08, 7 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; a note to ZlatkoT (talk · contribs): Articles for Deletion is not a vote, and if you want your input to be considered, please explain why you have "!voted" the way you have. In this case, there is a 100% concensus to keep, given that I'm forced to discard your input. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Idol series

View single debate

Pop Idol spin off tv series fan non notalbe slang name. fancruft, original research, Ghit 63,500, 0hit on fox.com. Furnewsx 22:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep The article could definitely use some sources, but I don't see anything particularly offensive here- in fact, if you add some references and make it a little less list-y, it's a pretty good article. The fact that the nom is incoherent as comes from a nominator with zero edits outside of creating this AfD is somewhat fishy. -- Kicking222 23:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep - if the sources were added, this would be an excellent overview of the worldwide Idol series. The list of unauthorized Idols knock-offs should be its own list article once most of the redlinks are turned into blue. Nominator would have been better off adding a {{references}} tag than dragging it to AfD. B.Wind 03:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep – Disclosure: I'm one of the editors who have worked on the article in the past.
I definitely agree that the article needs referencing (I've just added a references tag myself after reading this AFD proposal), and it could be less listy, but overall I think it can become a good article with work, and should not be deleted, at least at this time. I'm going to put some effort into it over the next few days to improve it.
The google search statistics are misleading. Fox.com is only going to mention American Idol, and certainly not anything about other Idol series shows. The overall google hits number could be low because the phrase is reletively new, although 63,000 hist isn't bad, really.
I would also like to say that maybe the AFD process should be one of the last steps in trying to get a Wikipedia full of good articles, instead of the first, but I suppose that gets to the inclusionist/mergist/deletionist controversy, so forget I said anything. -- ArglebargleIV 14:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per comments above. Also these should be a general article about the Idol Series and not just about the individual versions. - 上村七美 | talk 13:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong deleteZlatkoT 09:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong, speedy keep as per WP:POINT, WP:SNOW, etc. --Howard the Duck 10:03, 6 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. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 06:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Srul Bronshtein

Delete. Possible, wrong information. No any info in Internet: Google, Yahoo!, Ask.com.--Paukrus 22:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I am being stalked by user Paukrus: he marked this very article (and several others) in Russian for deletion citing only the fact that "this poet is of Jewish descent". There are sources cited in the article entry, including two web sources: in McGill University Library [62] and in Harvard University library (his book Moldove, mayn heym is under Brunstein, S. [63]; his biographical data are in the Lexicon of Modern Yiddish Literature, the whole chapter 6 in Yiddish writer I. Shraybman's book "Seven Years and Seven Months" (cited in main entry on the poet) is about Bronshtein; there's an entry in S. Spitalnik's book "Bessarabian style" (cited in the main entry, too).--SimulacrumDP 23:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It's slander. :( No any national difference to me! IMHO, This Article must be delete because There's no any information in Internet.--Paukrus 23:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
keep has citations, has publications.--Buridan 14:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
keep per bur, also not buying into unsubstantiated allegations (they can be linked here even tho they're in russian), but have to query good faith of nomination: assume "wrong info" means potential innacuracies, definitely not grounds for deletion, same for no info on internet (quite apart from the fact that a russian-speaker shld be well aware of probs w/ searching for transliterations of non-roman script surnames) ⇒ bsnowball 14:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 14:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Removed. Has got nothing to do with Judaism. - crz crztalk 17:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  - That board is not restricted to religious topics, it is effectively "Judaism and Jews". Given that he was a Yiddish-language writer, I think it should have remained there. - Jmabel | Talk 01:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Using google to try to look for a pre-war Yiddish poet is not intelligent (an understatement). - crz crztalk 16:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. User:Paukrus seems to be abusing non-notability notion. Valters 21:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Internet info is not required to establish notability, and historical events and figures represent common examples of notability without google listings. The publications cited appear to meet WP:N --Shirahadasha 22:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Despite our modern reliance on the internet, it is not the "be-all and end-all" of notability. Sufficient references to paper sources show notability. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 22:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, at least at this time: no reason to doubt the cited sources. - Jmabel | Talk 01:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. There's little information about the Yiddish literature on the internet -- I don't think the number of google hits is a good indicator in this case. bogdan 20:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep, since when is the internet the indicator of notability? VaclavHav 00:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep seems subject is notable and sources are there. ← ANAS ^Talk? 15:30, 6 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. Punkmorten 21:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny Premier

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTE, this article has been created by single purpose account Nacholibre10. Tulkolahten 23:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Delete per above. Tulkolahten 23:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per above. Just H 15:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Tulkolahten 11:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete If Wikipedia devoted articles to event planners and club promoters, there could easily be millions of new articles about people who are not noteworthy. Whether or not this man's name appeared in one New York City periodical (which I am not verifying in stating this), there are, again, millions upon millions of other people who are not noteworthy whose names also appear. These might include anyone from witnesses to crimes interviewed by reporters to random poll-takers whose opinions have been chosen by the periodicals' editors. The reasons listed for its deletion are also pertinent. DvonD 12:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as fails WP:BIO. WJBscribe 12:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:BIO. Ter e nc e Ong 16:44, 5 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. Geez, people, let's take a solid look at this list. Think about it for several seconds, there are a great deal of people that their actual full names are not known. More imperative for any name like this to be on an individual page. Yanksox 15:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of people whose full names are not commonly known

View single debate

Delete normally I'd PROD first but I see no way this article can ever be anything other that unsourced/original research/arguing the point. What third-party sources exist that prove the qualification inherent in the title? Remember Wikipedia is based on verfication not truth - while it might be self-evident to us all that Buzz Aldrin's first name is not commonly known (truth), how do we prove verfication for such a claim? Charlesknight 23:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Tulkolahten 23:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per norm. Known by whom exactly? This list could include everyone. If you wanted to know a celeb's real name you would just go to their page, most provide a redirect for common aliases. meshach 23:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Not commonly known by whom? Some of these are ridiculously pointless: Bobby Cox is actually named Robert? Who'd have thought? Frank Zappa's first name was Francis? Duh! Fan-1967 00:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment There was once a List of people known by one name but it has been merged into Stage name. Fg2 03:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 12:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete, useless. Punkmorten 14:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment What is odd about all this, is the fact that I actually found the article rather informative.. I never knew the names to half these people. Praedon 23:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Me too - I found lots of interesting things on there, HOWEVER it still doesn't mean that it should be here, as we are unable to provide verification. --Charlesknight 23:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep and rename Couldn't this be transformed to become List of famous nicknames, or something like that? Then we would just have to verify that the nicknames are used publicly, and that the person is in some way notable. Regarding nom - it seems to me that the current claims could be verified if a news organization ever did a survey (my local news outlets often do surveys to 'prove' how bad our education system is!)... or is that a cop out? I agree with pruning some of the obvious 'Bobby'-type names. 99of9 07:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep The name's slightly off - I'd prefer something that suggests these people are more commonly known by these shorter names, even if their full names are known to some extent (example: Gaius Julius Caesar). Even so, this list is as useful as the other list of names here - I learned a couple things reading it myself. Re: Notability - anyone who isn't notable should not be on the list. Verification: the ratio between 11,100 g-hits for Thomas Sean Connery and 2,430,000 g-hits for Sean Connery makes it clear which name he is more commonly known by. (Applying those standards, some of the entries on the current list are questionable, but the list itself is valid.) Quack 688 09:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

But your methodology is original research. (yes I know we use g-hits ABOUT articles but not WITHIN articles) --Charlesknight 10:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that we add g-hits to the article text, just that we use it as a tool when assessing it. Right now, we can use g-hits to assess notability, without having to explicitly add "Joe Bloggs is notable because he has 50,000 g-hits" to an article. If the tool is accepted for use there, then it can also be used for other purposes.

I understand that we have to be careful to avoid WP:OR, but there must be some point where consensus can be used to say that if someone is referred to as "Sean Connery" in published sources 220 more times than he is referred to as "Thomas Sean Connery", then his common name is, in fact, "Sean Connery". I'd suggest that such reasoning is already used implicitly on Wikipedia when dealing with abbreviated and stage names. "L. Ron Hubbard" gets 1,130,000 g-hits, versus 21,800 for "Lafayette Ronald Hubbard". And there are plenty of references in the L. Ron Hubbard article which use this shorter name. But there is no reference there saying why that is used as his common name. Such a reference is unnecessary, and trying to guess why one name is preferred over another would be OR. All we are doing is stating what the most common name is. Quack 688 14:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Rename As the examples above illustrate, almost anyone could be on this list. L. Ron Hubbard, Sean Connery, etc. - what about John F. Kennedy, since most people include only his middle initial rather than full middle name? George W. Bush? Mel Gibson? (To my view, the only names that could not conceivably be on this list would be Lee Harvey Oswald and John Wilkes Booth.) When a list is that ill-defined, I think it should be deleted under WP:OR (because choosing the names for a list that could conceivably include anyone inherently involves original research and decision-making). If it's possible to re-define this list, great - but I don't see a way to do that, so I think it should be deleted. --TheOther Bob 16:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find none of the extra names you've mentioned above are on the list. I agree that listing names like those would be ridiculous, so you're right - the list does need to be redefined. What about changing the name to List of people whose first names are not commonly used? In fact, the intro paragraph already states that, but it could be clearer, so I've had a go at reworking it. How does the new version look to you? Quack 688 00:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

(edited proposed name change, replaced "commonly known" with "commonly used") Quack 688 13:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I definitely think that's better, and have amended my "vote" - there are examples (e.g. Alfonse Capone) on the list that don't meet that, but that can be cleaned up. I still worry that it could be an unmanageably long list - but think it's worth keeping and renaming to see if it can be managed (if not, then we can reconsider it). You didn't raise this, but I don't share the concerns of the nominator about verifying common usage of these names (with a few exceptions). I think that's do-able - my only worry is definability of the list. (I also think it might be worth considering whether to include both real and fictional people - but that doesn't weigh directly on this debate.) --TheOther Bob 00:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep A very useful list, but hard to keep straight what is what--needs to be redone, probably as a table.DGG 04:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. How does one determine commonly known? Verify this? Also, this information is already presumably contained on the articles about each of this people. If a user wishes to know the full name of a celeb that is where they will find it. To whom would it even occur that such a list exists? WJBscribe 10:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Some ideas on verification, using both published works and community consensus, were already mentioned above. If you're worried about the title saying "commonly known", we could always change it to "commonly used", which is easier to verify. How do users find this list, you asked? If someone wants a list of names for whatever reason, I'm guessing they'd start at the "list of names" category and work from there. Quack 688 00:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC) 00:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete, as doesn't provide user with anything new. A user wanting to read about Yogi Berra will simply type his name into the search box, and be taken there directly. Even if the user knows that Yogi Berra's first name isn't actually "Yogi" he's not going to try to find this page: he'll simply type Berra, then click the 'Search' button, and Yogi is second on the list. It's a mildly interesting list, but virtually impossible to maintain over time - very few article creators would be likely to know of its existence, so plenty of people would be missing from this list as biographies are added, and I can't imagine someone dedicated enough to watch and read every new biographical entry just to maintain this. It's not for us. WMMartin 18:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

By that reasoning, no list is safe, since people would only look up individual subjects directly. WP:LIST makes it clear that lists are allowed on Wikipedia. I refer you to this section in the "Navigation" section:

If the user has some general idea of what they are looking for but does not know the specific terminology, they would tend to use the lists of related topics (also called list of links to related articles).

Several people have commented that the information presented here is useful - this list provides an easy portal for people trying to find this information. Without this list, the only way to find the people listed would be to type in their name directly, but that's a catch-22. If I don't know that Yogi Berra isn't known by his first name, how am I supposed to type "Yogi Berra" into a search bar? Quack 688 22:39, 7 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copper Project (Software)

View single debate

Non-notable. It's as simple as that. Reads more like an advertisement than an article. Amanduhh 23:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Obvious spam, lacks sources, and seems to fail WP:CORP. shotwell 03:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as it seems to fails WP:CORP and lacks sources.--Kchase T 19:00, 5 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Jeffs

View single debate

Non notable, can find no proof that this person exists as described in the article. There is a "David Jeffs" from "The Scots School, Albury" on this page, but this shows they are a Grade 12 student from last year - NOT that they left there, then went on to do a 5+ year uni degree, then went on to do other things as described in the article. -- Chuq 23:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Looks like it could be a hoax. "while working as a Chief Operating Officer of a few major firms" At the age of 27, working as COO of ONE major firm is an accomplishment. But managing to do it for a few firms while investing in the Australian stock market and doing stand-up comedy either makes this person one of the most remarkable businesspersons on earth or complete BS. I lean towards the latter. Montco 06:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 12:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete as all above. DrKiernan 14:32, 4 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. W.marsh 17:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dohuk, Kurdistan Region

View single debate

Pointless pov fork. Page is a duplicate of Dahuk, Iraq --Cat out 23:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Obvious Delete or Speedy Redirect- per nom. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Dahuk, Iraq and, since the region is in fluid controversial status, then re-name that Dahuk with no affectation (or perhaps the non-controversial Dahuk (city)). ~~Dahuk, Dahuk Governorate as it is in the Dahuk Governorate region. This would be in Wikiform, i.e. Los Angeles, California, not Los Angeles, U.S.A.. I'd also be okay with no affectation,~~ i.e. Cardiff. --Oakshade 18:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm no. Dahuk Governorate is not a state and there are no other Dahuks --Cat out 18:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

it's a Governorate of Iraq, a rough equivalent to Provinces and territories of Canada, Régions of France, Provinces of Iran and States and territories of India. --Oakshade 18:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No. it is more like Hakkari, Turkey. And if we are going to follow a US model that would be Dohuk, Kurdistan. I am actualy fine with that. I doubt many Iraqis would respond like me to the change. Rather than Dahuk, Iraq why not just Dahuk? --Cat out 18:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

We might be in agreement here. As you said, there are no other Dahuks, and I said before, I'm fine with no affectation (see Cardiff example), Dahuks by itself might be the most appropriate. --Oakshade 18:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, we're not talking about renaming the article. We're talking about a redirect. And I don't see the problem with letting it stay as a redirect. Especially if it helps resolve a conflict. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirect may lead to a conflict. Someone is unlikely to type "Dohuk, Kurdistan Region" in the search box and there isnt even a history to preserve. --Cat out 18:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The nom specifically cited the pov fork which we are trying to address. Even with a redirect to Dahuk, Iraq, the controversy also exists there on the talk page. --Oakshade 18:47, 3 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 article seems to need cleanup rather than deletion. W.marsh 21:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hifn

View single debate

I created this page, and it has been going nowhere. Company is a tiny subsidiary with no notable products. All unverified statements in article were likely added by employees. Brownsteve 23:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Need to supply press articles on why/how it is notable. It is not a huge company, with 200 employees and annual revenues of US$45 million. Furthermore, the company is principally an OEM/B to B supplier of network, storage and security system. As it deals mainly with brand-name manufacturers, it is never likely to be a household name. In fact, few are likely to have heard of it, unless someone can prove otherwise... Ohconfucius 09:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Irritated Weak Keep. I don't like this article, and would like to see it cleaned up. But notability is clearly asserted: "market leader in security processors" and "first company to offer a processor with integrated encryption and compression". I regard these as notable achievements, if they are true and documented appropriately. Ohconfucius misses the point when he says that "few are likely to have heard of it": we have plenty of articles about things that few people have heard of. What matters is whether people using Wikipedia to help them research their interest ( security processor design, say ) would want to know more. I feel the article needs a heavy re-write, but I believe that if this can be done it should stay: it's of marginal interest, but we're not paper. WMMartin 18:16, 7 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. W.marsh 17:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Westminster

View single debate

Non-notable comic. Exactly zero google hits for "Lord Jimmy Westminster". Additionally, the author of this comic is named Jeremy Travers. The author of this article is Jeremy.travers. Most likely a WP:COI here. IrishGuy ^talk 23:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Indeed a search on the Westminsters as a cartoon yields little as well. Montco 06:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
At the very least this should be moved to The Westminsters and made to not look like a biography. Where is this comic published anyway? Is it a webcomic? Because it doesn't seem to be on the web. Morwen - Talk 16:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. NN, and possible CoI. WMMartin 18:09, 7 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BuzzFlash

View single debate

BuzzFlash is simply not known outside of the 'blogosphere'. This would make it relatively obscure and therefor not worthy of a Wikipedia article. Amanduhh 23:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:NOTE. Tulkolahten 00:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
No reliable sources, no assertions of notability. Appears to fail WP:WEB given that a LexisNexis search returned 17 hits of press releases, some trivial mentions (e.g. "A website offers anti-Tom DeLay T-shirts featuring a can of bug spray. Another, buzzflash.com, recently sent out an alert titled "Hypocrisy Is Tom DeLay's Middle Name, Along With Exterminator." -National Review), and one editorial from buzzflash.com which was apparently distributed through The Democratic Daily. Delete unless reliable sources turn up. shotwell 03:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
""Delete""--Sir james paul 03:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I've heard of it. It has a minor following. That still doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to be a web directory. Puppy Mill 03:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I found this from the Washington Post, "Mark Karlin, editor of BuzzFlash.com, with 2.4 million readers per month, said his readership doubts anything will come of the disputed intelligence claims." [64] -- Dragonfiend 17:30, 4 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 to delete. W.marsh 17:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerned Businessmen's Association of America

View single debate

There are literally thousands of Scientology-related organizations on Earth. Are they all notable? I say no. This one is only two sentences long and just basically says that it exists. I guarantee that 99 percent of all Scientologists on Earth have never ever heard of it. Highfructosecornsyrup 23:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep I wasn't aware that Wiki was listing literally thousands of Scientology-related organizations. Unlike many of the file-drawer-only Scientology organizations, this one is in use out in the world (and I'm curious how you would guarantee that 99% figure). Certainly the article could be expanded. AndroidCat 00:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say Wikipedia "was listing literally thousands of Scientology-related organizations". But I don't see what makes this notable, neither from your answer or from the article itself. Highfructosecornsyrup 00:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep per AndroidCat. Per HFCS's logic, we should remove any article about any one of the thousands of groups Scientology has created to forward its aims, purely because Scientology has created thousands. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither of you have given any policy or guideline that supports keeping the article. Android Cat's claim that it's "in use out in the world" proves nothing, so to say "Keep per Android Cat" only echoes the nothingness. Highfructosecornsyrup 01:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete No assertions of notability. TJ Spyke 02:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Rather than making assertions here, I've spent the time adding to the article, including a link to the mentions of the CBAA in the U.S. Congressional Record, and a quote from TIME. I'll see if I can find something from the leaked IRS-Scientology Closing Agreement, and if that's not notable, what if I carve the letters CBAA on the Moon with a laser? (Wait, that's been done. AndroidCat 03:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not just merge into Scientology. Seems like that where it belongs. I can't believe that many of the thousands of organizations are notable on their own. Montco 06:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Per AndroidCat --Oakshade 08:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep Major scientology front group, still in use --Tilman 10:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep I dont recall the They cant all the notable so lets just delete this one Policy?? Until then, I think the nom is a tad flawed Glen 13:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep: As much as I think that this is a cool organization and as much as I would like every organization doing good work with Scientology to have its own article here I am not sure that it is sufficiently notable for inclusion but I lean toward keep. --Justanother 15:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep per AndroidCat. Futurix 19:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Nothingto do with notability. It ays nothing at all except that the organiztion exists. Worth an external ref from ScientologyDGG 03:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete I don't believe notability is high enough. Sorry. MrMacMan 07:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak Delete. The problem I have is that I can't see what's notable about this group. Simply being run by a cult/religion isn't enough for me - there are lots of such groups. What makes this group notable ? Not the Congressional Record entry - plenty of non-notable people and groups have been mentioned there. We need more. Useful to know, certainly, but not for us. WMMartin 18:07, 7 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/redirect. W.marsh 17:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blind chess

View single debate

Fails WP:NOTE Tulkolahten 00:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I've seen this in at least one movie (though I can't remember the name). Anyway, found some sources on it. --Wafulz 00:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Redirect to Blindfold chess --Wafulz 01:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge with Blindfold chess. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Blindfold chess. --- RockMFR 05:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete merging to Blindford chess is duplicating. Tulkolahten 10:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC) (nominator)
Merge the last paragraph with Chinese chess (since that article doesn't currently mention a blindfolded version), delete the rest as it's duplicated in Blindfold chess. Quack 688 09:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Merge First paragraph to blindfolded, second to chinese chess. MrMacMan 08:51, 6 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. —Doug Bell ^talk 06:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Firearms 2 (Computer Game)

View single debate

Proposed for deletion as WP:NOT a crystal ball, WP:V, and non-notable web product. Was deleted, then recreated with identical content. I was going to speedy delete per WP:SPEEDY#G4 but noticed "This clause does not apply if the only prior deletions were speedy or proposed deletions". To stop this cycle happening again, I decided to list for deletion per the original proposer. Rockpocket 00:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Uh... an in-development mod? Delete. -- Kicking222 01:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete I was the one who tagged for speedy. I didn't know that G4 didn't apply due to that clause. Mod is not released, and not noteworthy or notable. No awards etc. Hell, it's not even the official sequel to Firearms 1, they just stole the title and are freeloading off the name. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Entirely OR and POV. Reads like an advertisement. A million reasons to delete, none to save. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:CORP#Criteria for products and services and WP:NOT a crystal ball. Pan Dan 16:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
delete especially in-development mods, since there are so many and they usually aren't finished. — brighterorange (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - 'Firearms 2 is a planned multiplayer mod' I didn't read any further than that and didn't need to. WP:NOT a crystal ball. The Kinslayer 16:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: - that is not a valid criterion for speedy deletion. Rockpocket 19:48, 4 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.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Srul Bronshtein

[edit] Saif Energy Ltd

[edit] Muhammed Taib

[edit] United States Space Transport Company

[edit] Charles L. Sullivan

[edit] International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences

[edit] Sara roybal

[edit] Jakob P. Steinbach

[edit] Depolarization radiation force theory

[edit] Duncan Jones

[edit] Rolan Bolan

[edit] William torrillo

[edit] News embargo

[edit] Nordost

[edit] Feed Me Bubbe

[edit] List of publications in law

[edit] Stonebridge Estate

[edit] Dragan Nikolić (commander)

[edit] Metal Rap / Rap Metal / Ghetto Metal

[edit] Impact Pro Wrestling (USA)

[edit] The Organisation

[edit] Geekbrief

[edit] Triangle Foundation

[edit] Benson Street (Manhattan)

[edit] Locking high heels

[edit] Danielle Foote

[edit] Christopher Arnold

[edit] Brea Fire Services Department

[edit] QED International

[edit] Global Professional Wrestling Alliance

[edit] Numbers & Professions

[edit] ZPointProducts

[edit] Viper Scorpions

[edit] Never Dream of Dying (film)

[edit] Melissa rothstein

[edit] Suzanne Sinclair (United States)

[edit] Nick Dastardly

[edit] Kynoid

[edit] Psytexx

[edit] Janicism

[edit] Milhemet Mitzvah

[edit] Fifi (masturbation aid)

[edit] Kafenio

[edit] The Irascible Professor

[edit] Roberta Beach Jacobson

[edit] Jon robyns

[edit] Nostradamus ni Kiite Miro♪

[edit] Ethnic autonomous regions

[edit] Sordid City Blues

[edit] Fantasy Wargaming and the Influence of J.R.R. Tolkien

[edit] Louise Lidströmer and STUDIO L2

[edit] Kings (drinking game)

[edit] Martial Adept Class (Dungeons & Dragons)

[edit] The Society in Dedham for Apprehending Horse Thieves

[edit] David Graham (philosopher)

[edit] List of words frequently used in North American crossword puzzles

[edit] Douglas Rasmussen

[edit] Douglas J. Den Uyl

[edit] Thames Valley College

[edit] The Original Hot Dog Shop

[edit] Adobe DNG Converter

[edit] Current issues in teaching

[edit] Collier High School

[edit] List of short stories about video games

[edit] The creation of Nazo and Silver the hedgehog

[edit] Yeouinaru Station

[edit] Scottish Atheist Council

[edit] Sporting Life (US sports journal)

[edit] George Huszar

[edit] Transgredience

[edit] Félicité Jandia

[edit] Rodrigo Ferreira de Souza

[edit] Alexander Zaitchik

[edit] Smoke Radio, Chris Chilvers

[edit] Adams-Wilson

[edit] Gordon Franz

[edit] Ashley Juggs