Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 10

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The "voting" percentage isn't that overwhelming, but it's not a vote and the "keep" arguments establish that this material, in this form, will be useful. Metamagician3000 06:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inner London postcode districts

London WC1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

London WC2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

London EC1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

London EC2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

London EC3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

London EC4 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

(View AfD)

This is a mass nomination. A while back it seems as though all of the outer London post areas were deleted. These are just as un-notable and the information in them is a fork of WC postcode area and EC postcode area. Quentin Smith 14:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• NOTE: "It seems" (!!) this is incorrect; the result last month (March 28th) was keep - see Category:London postal districts and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London N1. Johnbod 03:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete- agree it is a fork of the area articles. Note that WC1 has more information with references (although perhaps not really relevant to the postal code area). Thunderwing 15:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, because useful to some readers. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There is usually a "List of zip codes in ____" (ie: a State) on Wiki, but it doesn't futher break down the zip codes and talk about them specifically. For that reason is why I am voting the way I am. Furthermore, these are already listed on WC postcode area and EC postcode area JAMDAWG 16:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC) ^{talk with me·changes}
• Keep - Well written articles, I think they're useful and appropriate for Wikipedia --Darksun 18:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This keeps on coming up from time to time and I agree. WC postcode area and EC postcode area are far superior articles and have proper referencing, are of meaningful size and have room for expansion to become good articles. Aside from the London WC1 article, the rest are just stubs. And WC1 shouldn't be written as a pseudo-district article as it detracts from the 'real' district articles. We wouldn't write such an article about Holborn and St Pancras (UK Parliament constituency) as if it were a district in its own right and I don't think we should with WC1, it is misleading. In any case even that area is not really a homogeneous area as the article implies, whereas Bloomsbury perhaps is. MRSC • Talk 18:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for being pointless forks that repeat previous information. Eddie.willers 19:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to WC postcode area and EC postcode area. Useful information can be put on the main articles for the postcode areas. Redirects might be useful but otherwise they are just forks that cannot ever become proper articles. Davewild 19:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Do you have prior AfD discussion links? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per all the reasons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London N1. Regan123 22:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - Improper nomination; this issue was decided, after very extensive debate, on March 28th. All the same arguments apply here, with knobs on. Suggest the nomination is withdrawn. Johnbod 03:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The London postcodes especially are important in the UK as directions and locations are often given as a postcode area. "Where in London do you live? Oh EC1" for example. Even non Londoners (yes there are some of us in the UK) hear these trotted out as locational terms, not just used on letters and parcels. Ben W Bell talk 09:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Ben W Bell. - Nick C 19:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — London postal districts are the size of a typical town and especially the central ones are very notable. — Jonathan Bowen 04:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per Johnbod's argument --St.daniel 13:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dungeons in The Legend of Zelda series

Dungeons in The Legend of Zelda series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not encyclopedic, game guide material not of interest to the general reader. Pagrashtak 00:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• As the creator of this article, I'd like to address these concerns:

Notability:

• If articles such as Places_in_The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Twilight_Princess are considered notable enough to stay on this site, surely this articles can be expanded to make it as keep-worthy as the other articles. Dungeons are the "meat and potatoes" of this series.

Verifiability

• Zelda.com is really the only source we need. The official site has complete walkthroughs for every title in the series, just not with information organized in this fashion.

Etc.

• This is not a "game help" or "game guide." My original intent was to have a page with similar purposes as "Places" except for dungeons only. I've been wanting to see a complete dungeon list for a long time, but I could never find one online.

So, with these reasons, I vote Keep. Wikipedian06 04:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• KeepActually I think this article could be expanded and made much better. DBZROCKS 00:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete, (I reformatted that previous comment according to "Wikistandards"), I'm saying weak because Wikipedia is NOT a game manual. If the article explains a broader range of subkects such as the importance or impact of the dungeons in the game, the artucle should be kept. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete In its current condition, the article is very much like a game guide. The individual game articles having sections on the setting of the game is far more important than this. Jay32183 00:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• I think the idea of an article on the Dungeons is good, but the current article is not that good. Make it like Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series and I will be happy to vote Keep. TJ Spyke 00:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as breaching the indiscriminate information section of WP:NOT. This list can never be reliably sourced and has no real-world context. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It CAN be reliable sourced, if people wanted to do it. It's a good idea for an article, it just needs to be cleaned up and sourced. TJ Spyke 04:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • To what can it be sourced ? I can't see why a reliable source would be interested in writing about this. All the dungeons require is a mention in the related articles, which already seems there. This is no more an encyclopediac topic than any other strictly in-game piece that has not attracted independant review - Peripitus (Talk) 04:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The settings in each game are already discussed in context in each individual game's article; simply listing them out of context such as this is indiscriminate and of no encyclopedic value. Krimpet (talk/review) 01:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unreferenced. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-10 02:02Z
• Delete, no game guides. Gazpacho 05:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.. As much as I appreciate the games, this is total cruft, and the article title doesn't allow for much real content. Nihiltres 12:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as an indescriminate collection of information which amounts to total fancruft. This goes into very little detail and just serves as a collection of information about the game. Since Wikipedia is not a game guide, this is not the place for this information. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 13:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a violation of WP:NOT. The topic really isn't rescuable either. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, because this is associated with an immensely popular game series that has been around for a long period of time and therefore a variety of readers will be interested. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete User:Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend?, just because it is "interesting" does not mean it should have it's own page on Wiki. Wiki is not a game guide, and if people are interested in reading about the places in a certain game, then they can buy the game guide. There are many other websites better suited than Wiki for this. JAMDAWG 16:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC) ^{talk with me·changes}
• Delete per everyone else who said to delete. Acalamari 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. Very incomplete, seems almost arbitrarly completed. Rackabello 16:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Cannot be referenced. ➪HiDrNick! 21:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • That is laughable. Just because you don't want to find sources doesn't mean it can't be referenced. The strategy guides are a good place to start. TJ Spyke 00:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Game guide content better suited for a Zelda and/or gaming wiki. RobJ1981 00:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The idea is sound, but...wellllllllll, it's a game guide. Some of these dungeons are significant enough to warrant mentions, being important to the series as a whole (Heck, Death Mountain probably deserves it's own article), but as this article is written, it's clearly on the NOT list --UsaSatsui 07:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:OR. Highly non-notable.--WaltCip 13:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 16:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Funny that a page I happen to come across right when I need it (this) is listed for deletion. I never saw what was so wrong with this kind of thing -- Wikipedia is, as stated, not limited by paper restrictions and this should not limit its contents strictly to notable things. If it's verifiable, and truthful, why delete it? Then again, maybe it's just any article I come across will be deleted lately... I'm backing the original page up to my userspace even though I'm sure some asswipe admin will simply delete it again, like they did with the other copy of a deleted page I was saving (and failed to respond when I asked about it) --72.193.66.186 04:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Just because Wikipedia is editable by everyone doesn't mean it becomes what every person individually wants. There's a clear focus for the project. Don't like it? Make your own wiki. --UsaSatsui 14:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Yeah, um really people. Normally I find the accusation of 'game guide' to be totally off base, but in this case, it's EXACTLY what this is. Listing the dungeons within each article are fine, but saying where they are, what item is found there, and what the boss is? Can it BE any more of a guide? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 16:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • At least it doesn't have any stats. —Cryptic 18:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly (hot!) 10:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stoopid Monkey

Stoopid Monkey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The production company of actor Seth Green, which produces the TV series Robot Chicken. No sources in its three very short paragraphs attesting to its importance other than a link to its official articles of incorporation, one of its press release announcing that it's signed a deal -- and 42 links to a fanwiki intended to justify the inclusion of a complete list of 42 production logos used on the show. Fails WP:CORP (as a standalone subject, since it's not even mentioned in the Seth Green article itself), fails WP:RS, fails WP:OR (the list), and seems primarily to be used as a fancruftian vehicle for inserting the list of logos. Calton | Talk 00:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, I think Calton has said it all! --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The company's production of an internationally televised TV series and two-picture deal with a major film studio firmly establish its notability. I agree with Calton that the list of production logos doesn't belong, and I also share the suspicion that sock/meat puppetry may have occurred (as a means of circumventing the 3RR), but neither is a valid reason to delete the article. Most of the above objections pertain to content that should simply be removed (as Calton and others attempted to do), leaving behind a perfectly valid stub about a notable company. —David Levy 01:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Detete the show is arguably notable, but not its producer which still has a second show to produce. --FateClub 02:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• At the very least, why not merge the lead into the Seth Green article and redirect Stoopid Monkey there? This factually is his production company, and there's no good reason not to document that fact somewhere (and send users who search for "Stoopid Monkey" to a relevant article). —David Levy 02:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• In fact, Calton previously proposed such a merger and switched to AfD after an edit-war broke out. —David Levy 02:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• merge to Seth Green per above. Chris 03:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - While I realize the Google test isn't authoritative, the phrase "Stoopid Monkey" gets 3 unique news archive hits and 272 unique web hits. These include T-shirts being sold at Amazon and elsewhere, an IMDB page, and an article about the company's upcoming film Naughty or Nice. I believe this is enough independent sources to establish notability for the company independently from Seth Green (note that this company is actually the team of Seth Green and Matthew Senreich). Also please note that the page existed and was being maintained for nearly one year before the recent spate of edit warring occurred. DHowell 05:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I have suggested the "Stoopid Monkey" section be merged into the Robot Chicken page or the Seth Green page. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell | Toil)} 05:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge into List of Robot Chicken episodes. It looks like the article's only real purpose is to collect a list of the ending titles where the monkey is about to kill or injure himself. Since it's a running gag on the show, it's probably better to put those gags into List of Robot Chicken episodes with each episode. (As an aside, I think this is one of the funniest shows on TV right now, but WP:ILIKEIT shouldn't enter as an argument here.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 13:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as noteworthy, but delete list of production logos. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge the lead into Seth Green, and the production logos list into List of Robot Chicken episodes to put them into context. Krimpet (talk/review) 16:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, because Robot Chicken is an active show and always ends with that Stupid Monkey thing! --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Before discounting this opinion for the reason Uncle G is stating, please look at the edit history of other participants in this discussion to see that AfD edits are often among edits to a similar number of AfD discussions in a similarly short period of time. And I'm not sure what is so "clearly disruptive" about the rationales given (they may be insufficient for some people's tastes, but I believe they are made in good faith). Also, following this user around and commenting on all his AfD opinions is arguably stalking. DHowell 18:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Ahem! Uncle G 19:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Seth Green JAMDAWG 16:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC) ^{talk with me·changes}
• Merge per all other mergers. Acalamari 16:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Seth Green. Keep, recent changes have asserted notability. -Seinfreak37 17:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• MERGE or KEEP as per other posts! Bacl-presby 18:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup (remove or somehow shorten list). --ElKevbo 21:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and continue to clean and expand. This is a legitimate production company of some notability. See no grounds for deletion. Gateman1997 04:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve article. Company's notability has been established. Alansohn 04:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - notability has been established WaysAndMeans 00:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, don't merge, mostly per David Levy and DHowell, who's research and information are what tip the scales. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. doesn't need to be merged with Seth, as it's not just his company. Bouncehoper 03:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cheese E.

Cheese E. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Cheese E. by name, Cheesey by nature - Hoax; I would have nominated this for speedy deletion, but a couple of people (apart from the hoaxer) have edited the article, so maybe it isn't as blatant as I think. Pufnstuf 00:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, I'm not sure what you mean by hoax, Pufnstuf, because anyone with a 7-year-old brother knows that this is indeed quite an annoying little character from quite an annoying TV show. I've watched it enough to know the notablity of this character. Enough said. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, I have no clue what I was thinking. I took one look at the picture (which has been deleted, the character there was real) and immediately said keep. I'm so embarrassed... --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• You don't know what a hoax is? OK, I'll explain it for you; this article claims "Cheese E." is a main character in a series called "Kyle's Kracks". "Kyle's Kracks" receives zero Ghits. That's ZERO. His second feature film "C.V.B: Cheese Versus Blue", receives ZERO Ghits. Cheese E's current feature film "The Thumb Witch: The Hunt for Steven Oedekerk" receives ZERO Ghits. Hoax. Enough said. Pufnstuf 01:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete?, Strong Delete (if Cremepuff withdraws assertion of notability I have no question in my vote. Goodnightmush 02:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)) Cremepuff seems pretty confident this a real thing, but I can't find record of it. A Google search for ' "Cheese E." comic' returns only 220 results and one for the name of the comic it is allegedly in returns exactly one result...this article. Unless I'm missing something, delete. Goodnightmush 01:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, almost definitely a hoax, probably something the author made up in school one day. The fact that this article is the only Google result for "Kyle's Kracks" (as well as the "movies" mentioned at the bottom of the page) is pretty conclusive. The image appears to be of another cartoon character altogether. Krimpet (talk/review) 01:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Exactly Krimpet, I was posting the same proof just as you posted this. It makes me wonder why anyone would recommend keeping such an obvious hoax though. Pufnstuf 02:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax unless references are added; statements like "Cheese has stared in an unmentioned, independant film starring himself. The name of the film has been chosen to remain confidential." make this tantalizingly likely the character is non-existent. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-10 02:08Z
• Delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep to keep things interesting! :) --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Krimpet and Resurgent Insurgent Rackabello 16:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. Acalamari 16:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Belovedfreak 18:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Would be willing to reconsider if verifiable references were provided. --ElKevbo 21:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cricket02 19:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 21:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Protect blanant hoax. Storm05 15:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep and expand. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 12:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animal Crackers (1937 comic strip)

Animal Crackers (1937 comic strip) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

No sources, and no apparent notability; the creators, "Warren Goodrich" + "Dick Ryan", receive no Ghits combined. Borderline speedy because it fails to assert its notability (comic strips aren't automatically notable), but I'm listing it here in case anyone knows this. Also listing the similarly named, but apparently unrelated Animal Crackers (1930 comic strip) for the same reason - even less information in that one. Pufnstuf 00:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete, if references can be found, I'll change my vote. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless (good) references are given. Unverifiable for now (e.g. not on Toonopedia), even when searching for different spellings of names. Fram 11:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Keep per NewyorkBrad (thank you!). If no other sources can be found, perhaps an article on Goodrich, with a redirect from Animal Crackers to that new article, may be better, but that is more of an editorial decision, and does not mean that this comic strip is not notable, only that we currently lack enough information for a good independent article. Fram 05:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - No assertion of notability for the authors or the strip. Also, in what publication was it featured? How long did it run? We don't know any of this because there aren't any sources of information given, no verifiability. --Cyrus Andiron 12:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete -as with Cremepuff222, I can't justify deletion if sources can be found, but as is, this is a delete. Nihiltres 12:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete since no sources are to be found. No keep if nothing is attributable.. MURGH ^disc. 14:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per new sources. But unless more is found I agree with a merge to a Goodrich article, and above title redirecting there. MURGH ^disc. 09:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep as it's probably useful to keep a record of even obscure shows, i.e. to better catalog human knowledge of entertainment history. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • But, we appear to be missing the knowledge. WP depends on the information existing elsewhere too. MURGH ^disc. 16:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Cremepuff222. No sources. Acalamari 16:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't find it listed in any of my sources, including The World Encyclopedia of Comics. 23skidoo 17:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced, with no indication of where the strip ran (newspapers? magazines? ads?). For all we know, it ran in some bi-weekly high school newspaper. Caknuck 19:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Changing vote per evidence mentioned below. As far as a Google search goes, make sure not to confuse this strip with the one of the same name that ran in the 1980s. Caknuck 03:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Would be willing to reconsider if verifiable references were provided. --ElKevbo 21:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per new evidence cited below. Needs quite a bit of work but notability has been established. --ElKevbo 02:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, shattering the consensus above. This is outside my primary expertise but references include [1], an obituary of creator Warren Goodrich, which states that in 1934, "he started a syndicated cartoon feature called 'Animal Crackers,' using animals to depict human foibles. It became an instant success. Syndicated by the Chicago Sun-Times, the one-panel cartoon, which appeared six times a week, featured in more than 100 newspapers for many years. It was so popular that the [San Francisco] Chronicle featured it on its front page next to the weather report." See also [2]. A referral to Project Comics should be able to elicit additional information and sourcing. Newyorkbrad 21:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • A surprising source in Los Altos Town Crier, but it's something. Too bad so little covers this particular article, but substantial enough to support a Goodrich article which this could be merged into. MURGH ^disc. 00:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • If there's this in a 2-minute Google search, there is more out there, although a subject-matter specialist would be useful (I have a relative with a major library on the history of comics and will do some research there when I visit, though that won't be within the 5-day term of this AfD). Newyorkbrad 00:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand. The material cited by New York Brad shows that there is enough material for a stub with possible expansion later on. A Google News Archive shows that there are considerable sources out there to support an article on the strip. [3]. Capitalistroadster 02:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a prime example of a subject that needs hard-copy research, not online research, and a reminder that just because something's not popular with Generation Google doesn't mean it's not notable. Is there a comics wikiproject? --Charlene 02:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• There is. -- Zanimum 12:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I also wonder if AFD rules should be amended for cases like this which require actually going to the library or other types of research. A five-day window for articles B.G. (before google) seems small. Neier 04:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I've added some brief information from a 1990s San Francisco Chronicle article I found in my library; that and Newyorkbrad's Los Altos Town Crier source should get us at least a decent stub. --Dragonfiend 05:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the comments above. Once again, the Google test fails us. RFerreira 02:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Politics of Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law

Politics of Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, and all of these "political issues" are already discussed in greater detail in List of Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law episodes. Pufnstuf 00:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, per redundancy of List of Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law episodes. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Redundant, and a borderline violation of WP:SYN. —dgies^t_c 05:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, because cool idea for an article. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Not nessacary. Pertainent information can be merged to List of Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law episodes Rackabello 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not needed. Acalamari 16:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --ElKevbo 21:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was early close and delete per unanimous consensus by serious editors that this is a hoax. Sandstein 18:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repives

Repives (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Delete. Likely hoax as Google shows 21 results for the term "Repives" (and no, I didn't mean "Recipes"). Speedy tag removed several times. ... discospinster _talk 00:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and Clean up. The Google search shows a lot of confusion about the thing, so if is real, then Wikipedia should be an ideal source of information on the matter. --ArrEmmDee 00:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)]]

um my grandmother was seriously killed by one.

just because they're rare doesn't mean they don't exist.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LionInACar (talk • contribs) 00:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC) — LionInACar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• • If you can show us some herpetology data that it is indeed a bona fide snake and not a pokemon, then we have a keeper. A site on raresnakes.tk is not such data. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up. I've studied this for a while, and yes they ARE real, however they are very rare. I think it would be wise to keep this article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.117.248.88 (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2007

• Keep and Clean up. I BUY SAUSAGE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.210.123 (talk)

• Delete. previous three comments likely sock puppets, another comment from a recent editor of the seviper page. No mention of revipes on any of the search engines or any of the reference books I have. I'm always willing to learn though, find me a reference from a reputable source. SallyBoseman 00:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, (edit conflict), per SallyBoseman. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC (see below)
• Comment. I don't take well to being called a sock puppet. --ArrEmmDee 00:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• (another edit conflict) Sorry, ArrEmmDee. I did a google search just now [4], and there seems to be some evidence of it being a snake, but most of it is just stuff on Pokemon. I'm just gonna back out from this one, no need to hurt anymore feelings... --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Are you kidding? What is the point of making a fake page about a snake? I for one am not a 'sock puppet'. --75.117.248.88 00:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, one reason to create a fake page about a snake would be that the creator of the page wanted to attempt to fool the deletion proponents into thinking that this was a real snake and not just somebody's imagination getting overactive. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - unsourced, fails WP:ATT. If it's a real animal, then there's surely some WP:RS that would support this. --Haemo 01:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Evidently it's a hoax. SallyBoseman should find a more effective way of deletion page discussions though, instead of throwing out wild accusations. --ArrEmmDee 01:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Obvious hoax. But either way, if it can't be sourced, we can't have a proper article on it. Danski14^(talk) 01:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sauce - http://www.raresnakes.tk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.117.248.88 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 10 April 2007.

• Strong delete as hoax. Note that "repives" is simply an anagram of seviper - a pokemon that matches the description almost to the letter at the time of my !vote. Google search turns up that this is probably just another pokemon - I suspect vandalism accordingly and will investigate. Only evidence to existence (above) is a page with little to no content that shows any existence of this as a bona fide snake, reptile, or pretty much anything that exists outside of the imaginations of some editors. Anecdotal evidence (something about one killing his grandmother) is not concrete. Conclusion: the article is complete balls that was made up in school one day. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Addendum - this edit includes a picture that is currently in seviper. Definitely a hoax. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unreferenced and likely hoax. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-10 02:11Z

• Delete Hoax. To 75.117.248.88 with the "source" above. Thanks for pointing out that saucy little site. It was created today, has a nice message of support from David Hayter, a voice over actor (featured in the Repives article and is known as "Solid or Naked Snake"), who provided the voice for Solid Snake. But the best thing was the fact that the bit on the "Tasmanian Tiger Snake" at www.raresnakes.tk/ was copied from Parks and Wildlife Services - Tasmania and it appeared almost word for word as a copyvio in Notechis. The "Louisiana Pine Snake" is copied from United States Department of Agriculture - Forest Service. It's been a while since I saw a fake web site created to try and back up a bunch of nonsense like this. 03:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)CambridgeBayWeather (Talk)
  • Comment Why did you even bother to look up the sources on those? --ArrEmmDee 04:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Four words: drive the point home. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Partly but it's also WP:AGF. There are a lot of things in the world that I know nothing about and the few minutes it takes to check that link out might pay off. And guess what, it did, I removed a copyright violation from Wikipedia. People who go to all the work of creating a hoax like this need to have the point driven home that we know it's a hoax. If you don't they just will not stop with their comments about how real it is and follow up with other actions to prove it (WP:BEANS). CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Wow, man. That's freakin' sad. Makin' a website just to back up some BS??? Wow, people can really be sad sometimes. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 18:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete If this was a real snake, however rare it might be, it would be on google all over the place. (edit following) Re-reading the article, it lists David Hayter as a Herpetologist with a nickname of "Solid Snake". In reality David Hayter is a voice actor who lends his voice to the character Solid Snake in the Metal Gear (series). Absolutely 100% hoax, and reaffirm VERY Strong delete JAMDAWG 12:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC) ^{talk with me·changes}

• Strong Keep, but perhaps clarify and cite more references. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Please let us know how you cite something that does not exist. JAMDAWG 16:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC) ^{talk with me·changes}

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete a hoax article. Acalamari 17:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, hoax. Repives is Seviper backwards, this is just a made-up article by some Pokemon fans. -Seinfreak37 17:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Ssssss-trongest Po-Sssssss-ible Delete for being utter WP:Complete Bollocks. Actually, there was an afd recently for a hoax that had an external site backing it up see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hurley-Pugh Eddie.willers
• Delete as likely hoax per Sumnjim. --ElKevbo 21:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It exists. You just like stroking your e-peens by destroying the Wiki for a perfectly real animal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.189.42.17 (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
  • So where are the herpetological studies on this snake? Where are the photos or specimens? Why has nothing been shown in the way of pictures other than the image of the seviper pokemon? Where is your evidence that this is real? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete and Salt. I'm really trying to assume good faith, I really am, but I'm beginning to wonder if someone's just got a wee bit too much invested in pulling one over on us. WP:POINT comes to mind, I'm afraid to say. --Charlene 02:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure is starting to look like it, Charlene. Salt as well but keep in mind WP:BEANS. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Basically, bullshit. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the impressive research by CambridgeBayWeather. Of course, if the guys behind this keep at it, they might be able to turn it into a notable Internet hoax, in which case, it would deserve an article as a hoax. But it's not a notable hoax yet, and, thanks to vigilant people like CambridgeBayWeather, they'll have to make it notable without the aid of Wikipedia. Xtifr _tälk 07:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and Clean Up The rare creature exists, but there isn't much info on it as it is rare. There are no pictures of it as of yet because they're so hard to capture in film. Saying it doesn't exist because you haven't seen one is like saying a dog doesn't exist because you've never seen one. Insolent and naive.
• Speedy Delete Obvious hoax with subtle troll memes and an earthy finish. --Afed 18:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Utter nonsense. Also, the above comment by Afed is just about the funniest delete comment I have ever read. :) IrishGuy ^talk 19:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • His edit summary on Seviper was priceless, too. —Cryptic 19:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, that's nothing, Cryptic, some of those flames in the talk page for this one are putting a smile on my face. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
      • You handle yourself quite poorly on the talk page, falling into the same manner of behavior in which these alleged trolls are. --ArrEmmDee 20:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Point taken. Appreciate the admonishment. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was a preemptive deletion. --  Denelson83  07:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crazy, Sick and Cracked

Crazy, Sick and Cracked (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Disambiguation page for three related magazines. Nothing links to it (except the list of Disambig pages), and I doubt anyone would ever type in this phrase to find any of individual magazines. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 00:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete; Useless. And why isn't it Crazy, Sick, Cracked, and MAD? Pufnstuf 00:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, quite a pointless disambig. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Cause of useless disambig. Daniel5127 | Talk 04:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom., this is pointless. Nihiltres 12:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, because I recall seeing Cracked frequently in stores growing up. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete User:Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend?, please read the nomination fully before you vote, as you must be confused. There is already an article for each of these. The nomiation is to delete the disambig page. It really doesn't need to be there. JAMDAWG 16:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC) ^{talk with me·changes}

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per the nominator. Acalamari 17:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. What is there to disambiguate? They're three different magazine titles. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --ElKevbo 21:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm going to post a CSD G6 here. It's not a disambig page that only points to one item, it's a disambig page that, per consensus here, attempts to disambiguate something that isn't even ambiguous to begin with. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 12:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Gouraly

James Gouraly (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Possibly non-notable, possibly fails WP:BIO. Asking for ruling. Cool Blue^{Light my Fire!} 00:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete, reading the article, he seems to have some notability. But without sources, the information is unreliable. (I like that tuba, though...) :-) --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article was created with a spelling error in the title. The correct spelling is James Gourlay. His records alone make him notable, I think. There are many references for him when you search on Google with the correct spelling. --Eastmain 01:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - the article is puffery as written but searching through news articles shows he will easily pass WP:BIO requirements. Very well known musician, judge in international concerts, present on a few music releases I can find, quite a few mentions in news articles etc... - Peripitus (Talk) 01:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per above two justifications. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep; seems notable enough to me. --ElKevbo 21:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the Philip Jones Brass Ensemble is a notable band, and the adjectives in the articles can be removed (an anti-adjective bot might come in handy; it should be easy to write. ). DGG 23:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Satisfies WP:Music. Cricket02 19:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline of Dragon Ball

Timeline of Dragon Ball (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This a non-notable, crufty list of dates in a fictional series. It cannot be referenced adequately, and is probably plagiarized. There is no way for it to be improved. Nemu 00:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I should probably point out the deletion for Power level (Dragon Ball). It relied off of the same material for a source, and was more important in general than this (yet still crufty and unimportant). Nemu 01:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Dragonball has Three parts The timeline nicely summerises it all. DBZROCKS 01:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please change your "Support" and "Oppose" votes to "Keep" and "Delete". It appears very confusing. Are you supporting deleting or supporting keeping? - Zero1328 _Talk? 01:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete, if the article can be a bit more in depth and if information is cited to insure that it's not plagiarized, it may be useful for some people. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

*Keep I support the Dragon Ball Timeline because it summirises the plot of the entire series including movies without being too long. DBZROCKS 00:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC) *Keep I feel that it is need do to it has the time and dates of many important event in Dragon Ball history. It can be improved but it is a ok article. Heat P 00:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Very, very weak Keep This page needs to be worked heavily, I will try to add references as soon as I'm done with Devil May Cry's FAC. -凶 00:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Per Nemu's points--$UIT 00:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Material that only appeared in a "reference" book and only in Japan. Since it wasn't adapted directly from the series (which had very very few references to internal dates), inclusion of such a lengthly list can't be anything more than plagarism.JRP 01:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's a timeline of a major series, which could certainly be improved if people took the effort to do so. I'm not sure how anyone could claim Dragon Ball is non-notable, but whatever. The only valid concern is the copyright issue. Where do you believe it was copied from? FrozenPurpleCube 03:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It's basically a word for word copy of its only source, the only noticeable difference being what things are called and how they're spelt. Given that this source says, "If you see this exact translation on anyone elses' site, that means they stole it from me, in that event, please contact me," you could easily slap a {{db-copyvio}} on it and be done with it. ~SnapperTo 06:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, sounds like somebody should contact that author then, see if they care to give permission for its use, and if not, delete, with no prejudice against recreation. FrozenPurpleCube 14:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, ballcruft. -- Hoary 05:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and ors Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Copyright violation and WP:NOT a plot summary. ' 09:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and per WP:NOT a plot summary. Notice also Dragon Ball alternate timelines. Fram 10:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Go ahead and Delete After taking a look at the copied source Snapper just gave us I now go with the points Nemu gave us. So I revert my earlier statement. Heat P 11:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Yeah i just looked at the page and it really isn't necessisary. put blunt it sucks. forget what I said earlier. DBZROCKS 11:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, because timelines are helpful for putting things in chronological context! --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per the other deletes. Acalamari 17:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Snapper2. Would reconsider if the original author were willing to relicense under GFDL. --ElKevbo 21:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:CRUFT TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• The team wished upon the Dragon Balls for a Delete...and then a year passed...--UsaSatsui 07:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bonnie O'Neil

Bonnie O'Neil (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I've been meaning to AfD this for a while. Article is a case of WP:AUTOBIO/WP:OR/WP:COI as it was created by User:Perryo, who claims to be husband of the subject. She seems to have written or edited a few technical reports, mostly NN as far as I can tell, and edited a textbook or two (not authored, as the article says). Still, no independent sources, so doesn't meet WP:BIO. Danski14^(talk) 00:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, per nominator. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!, ???) 01:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom, Do I understand correctly that the second "source" is the personal experience of the article creator, the subject's spouse? Pete.Hurd 02:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, also the father of Chris O'Neil, who apparently is notable. Danski14^(talk) 04:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, because perhaps others with less of a personal connection can add and improve it? --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Rgds, - Trident13
• Delete per nom. --ElKevbo 21:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete All of the "articles" she has listed seem to be semi-technical write-ups in http://www.b-eye-network.com , and I do not know the reliability or the standards of that website. Some of their material is clearly edited--some of it is probably not. Items from there have been used to support several WP articles, but never as the sole publication medium listed. (It's new to me--does anyone have more knowledge about it?)

She is the principle of Westridge Consulting, and it's odd that this is not even mentioned in the article.Her work is hard to search as there is an apparently more-widely known economic development consultant with the same name. None of her work is in the least academic--not even listed in CiteSeer. It is possible that an article could be written, but not based on this one. DGG 23:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mariners Mania

Seems like promotion by User: Crushed Optimism. Does not satisfy WP:WEB, so far as I can tell. As a Mariners fan, I have never heard of this site. C S (Talk) 01:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Somehow, I imagine that the majority of notable fansites would at least have up to date information on the standings. The Mariners may have been postponed the last 4 or so days in Cleveland, but they've still played at least 3 games. --Evan Seeds (talk)(contrib.) 01:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, at first glance, it appears to violate WP:SPAM, but I'd say WP:WEB is also a violation. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!, ???) 01:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, because I would like to learn more about this. Best, --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per the nominator. Acalamari 17:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; fails WP:WEB. As always, would reconsider if additional evidence were offered. --ElKevbo 21:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per ElKebo. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• weak delete but I'd be more comfortable if others looked at it. DGG 04:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, no indep. sources. NawlinWiki 14:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Young NOLA

Young NOLA (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Doesn't provide enough sources to make this musician to be notable. It only provides a MySpace page. Also, I provided a Google search and didn;t get results about such artist. Only links to sites of profiles of the perosn on accounts he could possibly made like MySpace, My Crib, SoundClick, & iSound. esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 01:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. None of the specific links on his article are actual articles except for his first CD, which is up for speedy deletion. --Evan Seeds (talk)(contrib.) 01:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, unreferenced, delete it already!! ;-) --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!, ???) 01:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and ors Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Harryboyles 12:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HP Output Management Solutions

HP Output Management Solutions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Appears to be nothing but spam. Questionable assertion of notability of the specific service. Previous prod. Page originally claimed to be copyvio, even if this is not the case it doesn't seem to be notable and is blatant advertising. Goodnightmush 01:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as blatent advertising, and so tagged. If not speedy deleted, delete as spam and as non-notable. DES ^(talk) 01:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, violates WP:SPAM, doesn't seem very notable. Also simply a list, no meaningful information. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!, ???) 01:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete CSD G11 Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, because HP is very important in the computer world. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  And is now an indefinitely blocked sock puppet --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 09:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete spam. Acalamari 17:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete spam, especially seeing that the creator and main editor of the article is User:HPOMteam. --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 18:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete spamalmighty --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 09:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete as original research. - Mailer Diablo 09:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative natural history

Alternative natural history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

The user Warfwar3 has been creating a string of articles, Future Human Evolution (speedy delete), Speculative biology (prod, user keeps creating redirects) and now Alternative natural history. These all seem be advertisement/presentation of original research in relation to the book Future Evolution, which was written by Peter Ward (offhand suspicious sounding relation to Warfwar3, but that may just be a coincidence). Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 01:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I think it should be given some time. Warfwar3 01:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Ha! Warfwar3, Ward?
• Keep Warfwar3 01:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not a vote. Please explain why the article should be kept. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep 72.70.112.106 interesting subject
  • Maybe, but please read this link. "Interesting", in short, is not a criteria here on Wikipedia for a keeper. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. The concept does not seem discussed anywhere reputable - Peripitus (Talk) 01:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete, (edit conflict), the article seems to have an interesting subject and an "expansion-able" title. It is unreferenced, has no meaningful links to other articles, and seems to violate WP:OR, but with some work I think it can be improved. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!, ???) 01:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as vandalism. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Changed my mind, merely delete. The sockpuppets won't help things though. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. While the topic is interesting, where in peer-reviewed journals does the term alternative natural history appear? And now there is a new page called speculative biology which redirects to alternative natural history. Where is this term defined in scientific journals? Warfwar3 just added speculative biology' to Human evolution. I think this is growing out of control. Fred Hsu 02:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 02:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and ors, original research Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as OR unless sources can be produced that show where the information came from. --Cyrus Andiron 12:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Weak delete I do not find citations for the exact term "alternative natural history" but I have seen a number of articles in such publications as Scientific American which look at projected evolutionary trends in animal form under various scenarios. An article examining projected evolutionary developments which have been published in such magazines as Scientific American, National Geographic, or even Popular Science would not be statements of well established scientific fact, but neither would they be crystal balling, since the extrapolations did not originate with the Wikipedia editor. Added: Looking at Future evolution and the other article cited in the present article, I feel the topic is adequately covered there and that this otherwise unsourced article adds too little to justify a separate article. I would argue to keep Future evolution. Edison 14:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's essentially a copy-paste of the other article in question (Speculative biology) and nothing more than a blurb of WP:OR. No reason to keep, compelling or otherwise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arkyan (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

  If Arkyan is correct (and others have also suggested) then this should be a CSD:G4 speedy delete. Pete.Hurd 15:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well the problem is that it wasn't really deleted content, the author appears to have "contested" the prod on the original article by redirecting it here with essentially the same text and an example for padding. Not quite a G4 but constantly trying to dodge the issue by redirecting content elsewhere really isn't appropriate. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• I stand corrected, it's not a CSD:G4, just plain old delete-worthy puffery. Pete.Hurd 21:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, as we need to be open-minded to varities of viewpoints. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• But we cannot be open-minded to any variety of WP:OR. That's policy. New or controversial ideas are welcome so long as it's been attributed and sourced. This is not. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. We should definitely keep the Future Evolution article since that is about a book that is notable and is presented as such. I raised this AfD because the other articles, Speculative biology and Alternative natural history seem to be aimed as presenting ideas from the book as real science (hence the marking as a biology topic/stub, linking to it from evolutionary biology and human evolution). This is also not a speedy delete because it is basically a contested prod off of Speculative biology. Future human evolution was speedily deleted, but the (limited) content on that article was different enough from these articles so this doesn't constitute G4. However, since the Spec. bio. and Alt. nat. hist. articles are substantially the same, they should probably have the same fate. -Cquan (talk, AMA Desk) 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Why not add a criticism section? 72.70.112.106
• comment This could be tied into specualtion about lifeforms on other planets, which is also speculation based on natural laws.
• Delete as Original Research --Leflyman^Talk 22:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep There have been a number of articles and books on the subject, some serious projections, some seriously intended hypotheses to teach the principles of evolution, such as Future Evolution, and of course some popular at all sorts of levels. We need an article to tie them together, and this article would do as a start--or Speculative Biology; we definitely do not need the two. I am not sure which way the merge should go. DGG 23:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep There is a lot of information about this scattered through many different articles. ITs time to bring it together.Bioblue93 — User's first edit. Sandstein 18:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - incoherent bollocks, would say OR if this could be called research. Sandstein 18:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR and/or WP:Neologism. A search in Google Scholar shows that this term isn't really used in the meaning relevant to this article. Yevgeny Kats 04:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. It seems that the article has been improved with the addition of reliable sources.Yannismarou 08:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EmailCash

EmailCash (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:WEB. All references are directly related to the subject, bringing this article closer to an advertisement rather than an encyclopedic subject. Longhair\^talk 01:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 01:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm surprised you (presumably) haven't heard of them Longhair, they've been around for years, have had TV ads, etc. Probably the best known company of its type in Australia. -- Chuq (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Oh I've heard of them, but are they notable outside of their own advertising efforts? -- Longhair\^talk 01:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep, I think it can be improved as long as it squeezes out the discreet attempts at advertising, but the article does seem non-notable, at least for people near where I live... --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!, ???) 01:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete per nom; while notable, it would need significant improvement to bring it up to an appropriate level worthy of encyclopaedic status. Notability is a real issue for the company per Longhair thewinchester 02:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Longhair. --cj | talk 02:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Google News Archive comes up with 25 articles [5] including this article claiming that it was one of Australia's fastest growing companies of 2005. [6]. Capitalistroadster 03:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Happy to leave it up now (see comment below) Per Longhair and also because article has been tagged etc for sometime and has not and is not moving from advertisement to encyclopedic.--VS ^talk 04:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment emailcash is a notable company, though the article is not sourced —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bandwagonman (talk • contribs) 06:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
• Keep I have re-formated and sourced the site. I believe EmailCash is of sufficient notability. User:Bandwagonman

Comment In my view you have done little more than made the article more of an advertisement. There are claims being made (for example comments like ... with over 400,000 members as of 2005) require inline referencing and the article needs to be reworded to encyclopedic terms. Most of us won't mind it staying up and I might even change my vote but please provide direct inline references very soon else I will remove the uncited, non-attributed information in the next little while.--VS ^talk 08:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment I was merely trying to help whoever posted this article, if someone could rewrite it in a more encyclopedic way then I encourage them as I feel EmailCash is a notable company. Comments such as with over 400,000 members as of 2005 were more to establish the importance of the company rather than advertise it, personally I have no interest in supporting or joining emailcash, especially after doing some secondary research on it. Bandwagonman 08:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have removed the obvious comments that may come across as advertising, there may be more that need deleting, also I have referenced two of the articles suggested by capitalistroadster, I still believe that emailcash is a notable company. Bandwagonman 09:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have altered my view as noted above after Bandwagonman's attention and good work.--VS ^talk 10:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Just revise it to sound more encyclopedic. Cheers! --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • So? DXRAW 00:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, annoying enough to be notable. Lankiveil 11:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
• Keep, it's notable and deleting the article will only restart the clock on a slow moving article. John Vandenberg 13:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per User:Lankiveil. Jtrainor 23:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the article fails WP:NOTABLE and WP:ATT, not been the subject of multiple independent reviews from WP:RS the BRW ref is independant but the other is only repeating the BRW article. Gnangarra 11:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, I added another five references to support notablity and to establish that it is attributable, though basically as per norm, EmailCash is annoying enough to be notable. Bandwagonman 14:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

change to Keep 4 reliable sources(didnt check but agf they aren't advertorials) 3 aust newspapers, and 1 nz business mag. Gnangarra 14:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Soumyasch. MER-C 12:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Our Candidate

Our Candidate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

There's no information on itSpookyPig 01:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. No content, no references, no need for it on Wiki. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!, ???) 01:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Probably a test page--$UIT 01:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Just a simple speedy deletion is enough like {{db-blank}} or {{db-band}} --esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 02:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete A3. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete per nom Thewinchester ^(talk) 07:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Akhilleus. MER-C 06:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emmanuel Banks

Emmanuel Banks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Actor in a single commercial; fails WP:BIO. PROD unfortunately contested by article creator. FCYTravis 02:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete over objections per WP:CSD#A7 Hornandsoccer^Talk 02:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, that assertion of notability was also removed along with the dated prod template. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-10 02:35Z
• Speedy Delete, so tagged. Sr13 (T|C) 04:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Does not assert notability, and blanked by author. Maxamegalon2000 05:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World Disasters 2005

World Disasters 2005 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article is redundant, as other lists of disasters exist. It is not sourced and it is not wikified. – Zntrip 02:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-10 02:31Z
• Delete as redundant. Hornandsoccer^Talk 02:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant to 2005. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 08:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge- anything notable should be in 2005. Thunderwing 13:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Offers no new information that cannot be found elsewhere, and elsewhere it is better written. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, because handy, convenient, detailed, well-organized, and fascinating articles about incredibly important subjects! --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the other deletes already say why it should be deleted. No need for me to repeat them. Acalamari 17:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per reduntancy. Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 17:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete seems like it should be at Wikinews. If these existed for several decades I would have voted to keep an umbrella nom. However, this loner should come down. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 17:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elisa Christy

Elisa Christy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable actress. No sources outside of IMDb; utterly fails WP:BIO. Valrith 02:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Google News Archives comes up with sources in Spanish[7] as well as IMDb. Capitalistroadster 03:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. 703,000 Ghits seems a reasonable amount, and the Spanish hits look promising, for all I have no understanding of Spanish. Needs better referencing; if none is forthcoming, I will change my vote. Callix 12:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Actually, when the name is put in quotes, the count goes down to only 500. Still, that's not a terrible showing for a 1940s career in Mexico, given the Internet's spotty pre-1995 coverage, which is why I de-prodded a couple of months back. --Groggy Dice T | C 20:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, because actresses are significant and sometimes pretty! :) --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO Google hits don't nessacarially equal notability. Rackabello 16:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Convinced to keep per Capitalistroadster and Callix. Acalamari 17:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the author is notable, but the article does need to be sourced. Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 17:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I did a search and found a number of articles about or mentioning her. Specifically, eight in the magazines Reforma, two in El Norte(A Venezuelan newspaper), two in Mural, two in Palabra, and in English, Video Store Magazine. Granted, two of those articles are reprints. She's definitely not the most notable person in the world, especially in the English-speaking world, but given that we know she exists and we know that at least five newspapers/magazines considered her notable enough to talk about her fifteen times within the past 10 years, even though she last did a movie in 1951. I say she's notable enough to keep around, even if it might not be immediate apparent why to us monolinguals. Chris Croy 18:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - per research by Christ Croy. Being notable in only the Spanish speaking world doesn't make her not-notalbe in general. --Oakshade 23:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Wikipedia. WjBscribe 23:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia editor

Wikipedia editor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Self-referential and redundant to the much superior WP:TOOLS. Contested prod. MER-C 02:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep, this isn't a WP internal page, this is an article on wikipedia tools that are probably notable enough. But the rationale of the nominator is a non-starter. David Spart (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 03:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:ASR and per lack of attributable sources. Not appropriate for article-space unless the topic gets significant third-party coverage. WP:TOOLS serves as a project-space guide for editors; in the article space, WP:NOT a user's manual. Barno 03:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not only are these tools not notable outside of Wikipedia, but the basis of the article is wrong. Anyone who edits Wikipedia is a Wikipedia editor. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, in agreement with Mr.Z-man. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wikipedia as plausible search term, and the way it used to be [8]. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-10 06:50Z
• Redirect per Resurgent. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 08:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. Baristarim 11:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, because Wikipedia editors are significant to us, right? --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Violates WP:ASR Rackabello 17:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wikipedia. Acalamari 17:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect - as per Acalamari..--Cometstyles 17:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant to Wikipedia. Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 17:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect to Wikipedia per above: WP:SELF violation and redundant. Danski14^(talk) 02:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wikipedia. If you check "what links here", there are tens of articles where "Wikipedia editor" is used in a blue link, in the sense that "YechielMan is a Wikipedia editor." The target of the linkage should be consistent with that usage. The article itself should be deleted. YechielMan 14:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dimelo! Records

Dimelo! Records (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

La Charanga Cubana (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prods. MER-C 03:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. They don't even try to assert notability. --RaiderAspect 12:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no references, only 1st party sources, and no assertations of notability beyond its devotion to salsa. This looks like failing WP:CORP to me. Callix 12:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, because companies are signigficant and it's useful to learn more about them for consumers. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, non notable, no references. Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 17:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Cremepuff222. Acalamari 18:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Ok so how do I fix the entry so you all will accept it? per Dimelo! Records. User:Dimelorecords 10:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Review WP:CORP. --RaiderAspect 11:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly (hot!) 10:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wooddale Church

Wooddale Church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable place of worship. Contested prod. MER-C 03:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No real assertion of notability. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 08:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• It's one of the largest churches in the Twin Cities, and you can see the spire from anywhere in Eden Prairie. It almost qualifies as a megachurch, though I'm not sure how many people attend any single service. I'm still having trouble coming up with an enthusiastic "keep" vote for this one, though, but it's definitely larger and possibly more notable than 95% of the churches in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area (give or take). --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 14:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per the article, it is a megachurch with attendance averaging 5,000 each week. The Governor is a member and attends. The Senior Pastor is head of the National Association of Evangelicals, which represents 30 million Christians. The hall's acoustics are fine enough to make it a regular venue for symphony orchestras and respected chamber orchestras. Satisfies WP:ATT. Clearly one of the most important churches in the U.S. Edison 15:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Edison. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - There's no assertion of notability, and some of the points mentioned above (the governor's membership; the acoustics) are irrelevant; the pastor's association with the Nat'l Asociation of Evangelicals is more appropriate for an article about him. The para about their planting of six other churches is much better evidence. There's also a strong whiff of copy-and-paste about the article; the lack of a lead and the curious shift in tense from the 1995 paragraph "Weekly attendance in worship services averages nearly 3,500" to 2006 "attendance was averaging 5,000 per week" is suspicious. I think this one may be fixable, though. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable and referenced. Clean it up though... Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 17:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Edison; though the article should be improved. Acalamari 18:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non notable--Greatestrowerever 21:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep accepting some of Edison's arguments. Its a large parent Church with subsidiaries, and tied to a notable minister. Much of the article is over-detailed. I just condensed some. DGG 00:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep The lack of extensive attribution is a fault of lazyiness, not unverifiability. Passes the notability citeria for organizations as a notable megachurch within the sphere of the National Association of Evangelicals that has been covered by the media and is also the church of a noted figure in the news, the Rev Ted Haggard. No proof of meeting the criteria for deletion has been met in the nomination and it meets all the needed criteria: WP:N, WP:ATT, WP:NPOV and WP:V. NeoFreak 00:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, sourced and seems notable enough to be here.--Ioannes Pragensis 18:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - a church with a substantial membership and that is planting others seems notable to me. Peterkingiron 14:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Tide Is In

The Tide Is In (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Put simply, candidly, and concisely, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Sr13 (T|C) 03:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. A rumor is not a source. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as crystalballery. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as crystalballism. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 08:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, because sometimes rumors are noteworthy in their own right. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • OK, WHF, tell us why this rumor is noteworthy. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as obvious promotion for tangential artist. Setanor 16:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL. Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 17:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Acalamari 18:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete- as per everyone else...--Cometstyles 18:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 10:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mfkzt

Mfkzt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

sources were requested, but the only sources provided so far have been unreliable websites which cite no references. Subject is dubious in the extreme. I am willing to change my mind if real reliable sources can be provided. IPSOS (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Well, it does get 6 hits on Google Books [9], though I'm kinda suspicious of the reliability of those books. I'm guessing the odd spelling is due to the impossibility of reconstructing the vowels --- is this substance commonly known by another name? cab 04:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletions. cab 04:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, this is not a notable part of Egyptian anthropology, nor even of modern New Agey refurbishment of Egyptian anthropology. Zero hits on Google Scholar, for example. --Dhartung | Talk 05:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Just allow for more time for sources request to be fulfilled, because Egyptology is significant to many. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It has nothing to do with Egyptology, if you were to ask an Egyptologist. There are no reliable sources to back up the claims made in this article, and in fact most ghits to this term turn up a bunch of crackpot sites about a mystical new form of gold that does - ahh - something mystical. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not referenced. Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 17:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Arkyan and Cremepuff222. Acalamari 18:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, if the references are added. If there a 6 gBooks hits, its verifiable. DGG 00:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I'll admit that those books might be stretched into being references, but none of them looks even vaguely like a reliable source (though Rat Scabies and the Holy Grail: Can a Punk Rock Legend Find What Monty Python Couldn't? sounds mildly interesting). I find no evidence that it actually comes from Egypt; it may well be a made-up modern myth (as with much in New Age writings). And since most of those books seem to have, at most, only a passing reference, I'm not convinced that it's a notable myth. If someone really wants to try and rewrite this from a NPOV, I might be willing to reconsider my position, but only after reviewing the rewrite. Xtifr _tälk 09:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I've started by adding some proper cited refs, and further content as to why it's part of Egyptology (amongst other things). Burns flipper 21:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Definitely a step in the right direction, however, I have strong reservations about Laurence Gardner as a source for anything but the opinions of Laurence Gardner. The Cerny citation looks better, but it's not clear whether he's being cited about the word itself, or merely about Petrie's discovery the temple where the word was supposedly enscribed. Also, Cerny died in 1970, but you list his reference as 1980, so something's not quite right there. But you did provide the ISBN, so I can probably sort that out if I want. Anyway, I'm still not convinced, but I am...less not convinced. Xtifr _tälk 10:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 16:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stein Elementary School

Stein Elementary School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

an article with this identical text under Rose Stein Elementary School was just deleted for non-notability, this article was suggested in the article but not deleted Chris 03:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, because large numbers of people will have attended any given elementary school over time, so their specific influences over hundreds and sometimes thousands of people is incredible! --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 17:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable and no sources. Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 17:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No sources; no notability. Acalamari 18:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no sources are provided in the article and I can't find any nontrivial ones on my own, so fails notability and attributability (or verifiability if that's your preferred flavor there). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Jefferson County Public Schools per WP:N and WP:A. --Butseriouslyfolks 20:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Jefferson County Public Schools Noroton 06:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete and Redirect to Jefferson County Public Schools per above. Does not meet WP:SCHOOL (I know that policy was recently "rejected" but I still use it). Danski14^(talk) 02:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails to pass notability at all. And to the two above, there's really nothing to merge.--Wizardman 02:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sales Athlete

Sales Athlete (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CORP. Contested prod. MER-C 03:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Would require a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic, and has no 3rd party sources. —dgies^t_c 05:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No sources. Abeg92contribs 14:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Just rewrite and add sources. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Are you volunteering? —dgies^t_c 18:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, not verifiable by reliable sources. Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 17:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Dgies, and lack of sources. Acalamari 18:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Copyvio. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 13:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael A. Stusser

Michael A. Stusser (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Vanispamcruftisement. Contested prod. MER-C 03:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Someone thinks it's important, so why not give a chance to develop? --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not sure on this one... the article seems to assert a bit of notability, but it's a pretty ugly-looking article, and looks a lot like self-promotion. Also, it seems to have been copied straight from his bio: http://www.michaelstusser.com/about.htm which makes it copyvio and deletable anyway. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, possibly speedy as it is copyviovanispam from here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killing sparrows (talk • contribs) 13:14, 10 April 2007
• Delete, per previous comment. Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 18:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete per copyright violations. Acalamari 18:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete - a obvious self bio violation! Rgds, - Trident13
• Keep The interviews are notable , and the references just adequate. The COI is easily reduced.DGG 00:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Cp,,emt. Looks perfectly fine and informative. Someone seems to have a personal vendetta. Keep as is. Edit perhaps. 11 April 2007
• Strong Keep. We've seen his stuff in many mags and press. Seems legit -- Mageditor 04:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 1:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC) — Mageditor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete - per nom. Creation by Deadguyinterviewer fails WP:COI and WP:AUTO. Ronbo76 04:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce Merkle

Bruce Merkle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable; possible autobiography or vanity page Dppowell 03:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete. The assertion of notability is made with the statement of American actor. However, amateur actors at the high school level are not notable. Further, the article cites no reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable high school/college actor. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not-notable JAMDAWG 12:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC) ^{talk with me·changes}
• Strong Keep, but add more references to fulfil request at notability. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Cfred. Amateur actors != notable. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 18:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete no notability. Acalamari 18:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete His most notable performance was in Booker High School's acclaimed Seussical. I believe that in itself says it all. High school / college actors are not notable. This could even be speedied under this as a non notable bio. --Cyrus Andiron 18:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As said his most notable role was in a High School play. AltoSax456 20:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laz Inc

Laz Inc (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable art gallery, not a place of local significance. Found zero sources on Google. Contested prod. MER-C 03:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Unless reliable third-parts sources establishing notability are found. —dgies^t_c 05:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Give time for more research to be done finding sources and perhaps request this from article creator. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as failing WP:N and WP:V. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 18:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Disavian. Acalamari 18:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Metamagician3000 12:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of gay villages

List of gay villages (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Unverifiable OR. Can't separate truth from high school vandalism. Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep These are easily verifiable. The list should include a header or lead-in that defined "gay village" (this may reference the older term "gay ghetto," explain why "gay village" has become a more preferable term, and include the caveat that gay villages are always in flux, as the percentage of gay-identified residents rises or declines. A link to an article about gentrification and gay real-estate trends could be useful. There are many ways to make this page more "official," but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater! Brent Calderwood 00:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Category:Gay villages covers this better, though that may need some investigation as well. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Baristarim 11:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep- I think it could be turned into a good article- perhaps by using a different name and setting out what defines a gay village. Thunderwing 13:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's unsourced right now, but it is sourceable, and much of it is true. There are also reasons for maintaining lists separate from categories. Fireplace 14:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It can be useful; however, for this list everything is going to have to be cited to keep away vandals. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete. 100% WP:OR and unverifiable. What someone has done here is put up a list of cities/towns where there is supposedly a large concentration of LGBT people. Key West, for example, is well known for being a socially liberal sort of town and very open to people of all types, to call it some sort of gay village flies in the face of reason. Until the Census bureau starts adding "sexual orientation" to their questionnaire there will be no way to qualitatively say what areas are or are not "social centers" for the LGBT community. I suspect that places like The Castro in San Fransisco - which is fairly well documented as a center for LGBT activities - will be very few and far in between, and when you excise all of the OR and speculation you'll be left with a very small handful of locations that can easily be ported back in to the parent article (which is in dire need of sourcing to clean up the OR there as well). Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Response You asked for it, you got it: 2000 Census statistics. Fireplace 16:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That's interesting - and I stand corrected. The data tables that hold this information are not easily accessible through the Census website and don't appear in the fact finder tables published, which is why I assumed it was not information that is available. Curious taht it's buried so deep in there ... anyway, I'll strike my opinion from above, but do maintain that the list needs to be worked on and better referenced, as well as setting some kind of objective inclusion criteria. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, because I think there's an audience of readers who would probably want to learn more about and improve this article over time. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Very weak keep, some may find it useful, but there are no sources. Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 18:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep providing entries can be verified. I know there's an area of Manchester called The Gay Village (centered on and around Canal Street, which has numerous LGBT friendly bars and clubs). I don't know about any other cities that have areas called The Gay Village, but certainly many have areas where most of the LGBT friendly bars are situated. --Darksun 18:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Create a corresponding category and delete this list. WP not Yellow pages. No clear criteria for inclusion, no sources etc. A category will serve much better to the end without the mentioned drawbacks.--Ioannes Pragensis 18:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep can be sourced, is notable, and hardly OR. Carlossuarez46 22:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete' per WP:NOR and WP:ATT. Article fails to cite sources and it really does seem to be original research. GreenJoe 20:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. Doczilla 01:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. These are no less verifyable than the list of Chinatowns. To ensure accuracy and consistency, the criteria for inclusion should be better explained on the list page. The facts supporting the listing should be explained and referenced in the article for the city or neighborhood. -- Beland 23:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep, no consensus to redirect. Sjakkalle's argument to keep wasn't adequately answered by the redirecters; even so, if anyone wants to pursue a redirect further, it doesn't need AfD (see WP:MERGE). However, there is no consensus to redirect as a result of this discussion. Daniel Bryant 04:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of registered political parties in Spain

List of registered political parties in Spain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

1. at 242k, this page is practically unusable;
2. it is incomplete, ending with parties registered in 2001, and maintenance would only aggravate the length problem;
3. most entries are non-notable, eg local groupings established for a single, unsuccessful municipal election;
4. there is little additional information apart from the red wikilink;
5. the information is available in a complete and up-to-date form from the Spanish Ministry of the Interior;
6. there is a maintained list of notable Spanish political parties at List of political parties in Spain.

Physchim62 (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Regarding some of the points given to delete. I do not agree that a long article is useless, length could incidentally be solved by splitting it (though I'm not sure that I would support that idea). Even though the article is long, the chronological ordering makes the list navigable. I see that most entries are not notable and are redlinks, and I think that most of them, being little more than a one-shot gathering of people, should be unlinked. There is in all likelihood very little to write about them. Even so, the fact that the Spanish government keeps registries over this and puts it online would indicate that at least a mention on Wikipedia can be warranted. Regarding the final point, presence of one article does not mean that another one cannot exist unless we are dealing with content forks (which this is not, the two lists serve different purposes). In the interests of complete coverage of the Spanish political system, I think this list is OK. It tells something about the Spanish political system, about how party registration works and has worked historically. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of political parties in Spain; I can't think of a purer content fork than this. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect as mentioned above. No reason for this fork. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, because Spain is a historically important country and political parties are also significant and noteworthy. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect per above. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect, per Diavian. Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 18:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of political parties in Spain; A brief mention of the register of political parties and an external link on the main article to the reigster would be sufficient. Davewild 20:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is an extensive list, and that is why lengthy! Simple redirecting it to List of political parties in Spain would result in loss of information. In fact, this list may be considered as a daughter list of "Registered parties" subsection of List of political parties in Spain, and the daughter has outgrown the mother (in terms of size)! As User:Sjakkalle has mentioned above, the fact that the Spanish government keeps registries over this and puts it online would indicate that at least a mention on Wikipedia can be warranted. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. No information would be "lost" as the up-to-date list is available from the Spanish government (this fact should be mentioned in List of political parties in Spain, along with a description of the registration system). There is no "added value" in the list as it stands, and little prospect of any improvement given the non-notability of the vast majority of the entries. Physchim62 (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 13:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wirt Walker

Wirt Walker (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Private businessman with extremely few reliable sources, questionable notability. Most material found online is from conspiracy websites. Dhartung | Talk 04:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. This gentleman is in business with a member of the Bush family. Other than this connection, he would not be written about at all. The 9/11 conspiracy crowd makes much of the fact that he has the same last name as the Walker family (as in George Walker Bush, etc.), but they are not actually related. It is nigh impossible to write a balanced article because non-conspiracy sources have paid him very little attention other than brief asides. The article as it stands is written from primary sources, with no demonstrated notability. I think it's best to put this article out of its misery. --Dhartung | Talk 04:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Needs third-party reliable sources of notability. —dgies^t_c 05:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - lack of third party sources. --RaiderAspect 12:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - if not a single one of KuwAm, Aviation General and Stratesec warrant their own entries why should their director? - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, but find more sources. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, no sources/notability. Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 18:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• weak keep Since he has the business connection mentioned, he will appear in news sources, and thus be worth an article. One of his companies, Securacom, is certainly notable in this connection. But if so, there should be some sources already, and they need to be added. A Yahoo profile is not an independent source.DGG 00:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Erm, DDG, with due respect, if you want this article kept, it's dependent on you to provide the independent sources. You cant just say "I'm sure they exist". --RaiderAspect 04:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to List of original characters in the Lord of the Rings film trilogy, which has already been done. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bereg (film)

Bereg (film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable minor character from a film (as the article says, he only has one line). Also, it's written from a somewhat in-world perspective. Prod tag was removed without explanation Feeeshboy 04:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The character is not solely from the film, per se, but the film version certainly does not seem to merit an article. Maxamegalon2000 05:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not enough content to justify an article and the only potential merge target, List of original characters in the Lord of the Rings film trilogy is film-specific. Title is too specific to justify a redirect too. —dgies^t_c 05:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of original characters in the Lord of the Rings film trilogy, somehow misread there as being a book/film character distinction. Merging makes lots of sense. —dgies^t_c 18:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Minor character. Abeg92contribs 14:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, because it is useful learning about characters from films, even minor ones. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Please read WP:USEFUL. Not a policy but nonetheless addresses your vote. Rockstar915 18:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, or merge into List of original characters in the Lord of the Rings film trilogy. Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 18:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Dgies. Acalamari 18:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - If the editors of List of original characters in the Lord of the Rings film trilogy feel this content is worth keeping, then I support a merge. Feeeshboy 18:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep and redirect to Islam in Korea per almost unanimous consensus. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC) (non-admin)

[edit] Islam in North Korea

Islam in North Korea (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Nonexistent and therefore... totally irrelevant, non-notable, etcetera. KazakhPol 05:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Islam in Korea which includes the one-sentence text of this article anyway. --Metropolitan90 05:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. --Dhartung | Talk 05:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per above.. It could have even been speedied because of the lack of content. It is not like the article has the potential to get longer in the near future or anything :) Baristarim 11:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to nihilism. But seriously, to the title suggested. Abeg92contribs 14:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect without prejudice to Islam in Korea. I assume the reason for this article's existence is to avoid a redlink in the {{Asia in topic|Islam in}} link box, so don't delete it altogether. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep if true, because this would be something of significance, especially if Islam existed in North Korea prior to its current political situation and if it somehow persists underground. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If true is the key word.. I doubt that there will be an Islamic Revolution in NK any time soon.. Just a hunch :)) Baristarim 16:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment the convention of WikiProject Korea in general is that the "xxx in North/South Korea" articles only cover the period since the division of Korea and perhaps a bit of background information about the time immediately prior, so even if there were, say, Muslims in Pyongyang during the Japanese colonial period (for which I can't find any evidence), that would belong in Islam in Korea. The only other thing I could think of that could be used to expand the page is information about diplomats from Muslim countries in Pyongyang. cab 00:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect, per above. Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 18:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per everyone else. Acalamari 18:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Obvious Redirect like it was before. It's in the history. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per all above. Incidentally this article and various others relating to divided countries (e.g. Islam in the Republic of China, Islam in South Korea) have all been created around November 2006 as copy-paste forks by User:Tarikur, probably filling in links from an {{Asia topic}}-based template. So in general, they should be redirected back to wherever they were forked from. cab 00:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non existant.--Sefringle 22:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect and possibly merge with Dan Boeckner. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atlas Strategic, Rapture, Ye Minions!

Atlas Strategic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Rapture, Ye Minions! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Came across this article when investigating an unsourced image. This article has been speedied many times before under g12, a7, etc. I think we should run a proper AfD to decide whether this band is notable. Also nominating the band's first album for which "Only 500 copies were made". Looks like a NN band to me. My vote is to delete Aksi_great (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nn --RaiderAspect 12:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• The band itself may not be particularly notable; however, due to Dan Boeckner's presence, it deserves to stay. Boeckner is musically significant as part of the recent, critically-acclaimed "Indie" band Wolf Parade, and thus a chronicle of his previous musical exploits demands relevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.77.237 (talk) ; This signature was previously placed at the very top of the AFD, and has been moved by Dennisthe2 at 15:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, because recreations suggest a determined audience who will work to keep it and hopefully improve it. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • A small number of dedicated fans is not a sign of notability if they're that obscure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable band. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, firstly because look at what Dan Boeckner has done since his time leading Atlas Strategic. He's in one of the most notable indie bands, Wolf Parade. Also, the note of only 500 copies being made being a bad thing, that just means the label wasn't able to print more. The only time one has ever shown up on ebay it went for 75 USD, tell that doesn't add some notability. To back that up Rapute, Ye Minions! on eBay going for 75. Also the stir that the band makes, or the page on last.fm, it seems much larger than many other bands who have articles here. I'll find those bands if you would like. Mikqick 02:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Deletion standards are generally not subjective (i.e. just because someone thinks X is more/as notable as Y doesn't mean X should be kept). Reviewing WP:MUSIC, the only criteria it might pass is #5 (contains at least one notable member), but even that is borderline. Maybe merge/redirect to Dan Boeckner? --RaiderAspect 06:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • FWIW, I'd support that. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Question, One of many numerous less needed articles than this is the Flashy Python and the Body Snatchers article. Why should it stay and this be deleted? Mikqick 01:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Answer - because nobody has yet nominated it for deletion. Check WP:AFD for instructions on how to do this (hint: scroll down until you see the instructions) - but make sure you review the reasons that an article should be deleted. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Then why is this article so often up for deletion? Is it purely bad luck? Mikqick 03:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment In a sense, yes, it is purely a question of luck. Some articles that have no place on Wikipedia survive for months, even years, simply because no one finds them and bothers to AFD them. Others are deleted within days. The end result is the same, but the process just takes longer for some articles than others. --RaiderAspect 04:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Question Do I need to continue to prove why this shouldn't be deleted? Mikqick 23:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Answer - If by prove, you mean that you are going to provide reliable sources that verify notability, especially according to WP:MUSIC, then yes, you still need to provide them - in the article. If you can do this, I will change my mind. Read those links for guidelines on how to do this. If, however, this is not the case, then no - in this latter case, my !vote, for one, will stand. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Would a public announcement of the plan to reissue the two albums make it relevant? Does it have to take Pitchfork's ranting about something to make it 'fit' for wikipedia? Should I try to have Global Symphonic publically announce the upcoming reissue? Mikqick 18:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
      • By the looks of it, if GS makes the announcement, then there might be something - heavy emphasis on might. I cannot stress it enough: read up on WP:MUSIC, because the answers to your questions are in there. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Atlas Strategic is a very notable British Columbian band, look at the official description of Wolf Parade on Sub Pop's site, "Band Boeckner of notable B.C. band Atlas Strategic. 72.161.50.57 04:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Above user has made no contributions outside this AFD. --RaiderAspect 08:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Is that relevant? Mikqick 14:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Dan Boeckner per criteria #5 of WP:MUSIC. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I would be fine with this as long as much of the Atlas Strategic information can be added and if the Rapture, Ye Minions! page is left. Also, once there is any new news that makes an Atlas Strategic page 'worthy' of wikipedia for it to be added. Okay? Mikqick 01:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Rapture has even less notability than the main article itself. An album that only sold 500 copies (for whatever reason) is not notable. --RaiderAspect 03:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable band. The fact that this article has until this point escaped deletion is a coincidence, not an indication of value. —Ocatecir ^Talk 07:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Dennis The Tiger ffm ✎talk 13:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 19:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scaryduck

Scaryduck (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

First time author, not otherwise notable, article seems to have been written solely by subject and associates. 81.178.80.196 23:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. non notable BBC journalist and blogger. IMO a blogger award is not enough. Anyway a big clean-up (and removing non encyclopedic facts) should be done after this AfD. Cate | _Talk 13:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it ironic that an internet entity like Wikpedia doesn't hold internet writers who have thousands of readers in the same regard as book authors with far smaller readerships? It's the same argument old encyclopeadias use against Wikipedia in a way. Why are book awards notable and blogger awards not? I'm not an associate of Scaryduck but bloggers are ever more important and deleting them is turning one's back on the future Wikipedia is supposed to exemplify. Most articles start off in a ramshackle way and gradually imporve, that's the whole idea. The category of bloggers is going to do the same thing. Nick mallory 04:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No. You should check carefully Wikipedia:Notability (people). There are an huge number of blogger and an big number of popular blog, so notability must not depends on popular blog. Notability doesn't mean that if you publish a real books, you can have a wikipedia article, nor it is about numbers (Notability_is_not_popularity). For awards, see examples in Wikipedia:Notability (people): it depend on the type (and importance) of award. As an example, check some important movie awards and you will see that not all people have an article. And as third (and probably not a wikipolicy), an internet phenomena needs is less important to wikipedia: a simple search will give you the needed information (but it doesn't happen with a lot more article). Cate | _Talk 12:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - There are 240,000 results for Scaryduck on Google. --Dreaded Walrus 19:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The Guardian is a major broadsheet newspaper in Britain, it's hardly a trivial source. If it gives a website an award then it's a notable award. Popularity is not notability but someone with 240,000 Google hits is going to get looked up on Wikipedia, and if this article is deleted then those surfers won't find anything. On a wider point, Wikipedia is successful because it gives people the information they want and when it ceases to do that, and becomes an end in itself run by editors for themselves, then it will die as quickly as it has arisen. An internet entity which does not respond to the needs of its users is doomed. 203.108.239.12 04:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - As the subject of the article, I support its deletion. I was embarrassed about it being there in the first place as I felt I did not rise to selection criteria. I'm rather offended at being termed a non-notable journalist, mind you. Duckorange 22:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 05:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per the lack of secondary sources. It looks like the book is essentially self-published as well, casting doubts about it's validity as a source. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 13:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no assertion of notability whatsoever other than he has a blog and has written what looks like a self-published book. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as it looks like this is something of increasing notability. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  And has since been blocked. --Dreaded Walrus 11:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no notability. Acalamari 18:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep on the basis of the high quality of the content of the blog. I agree with nick mallory, that our standards for blogs are not attuned to reality. Unfortunately, I have no firm idea what we should use instead. I am reluctant to do it by ghits, because it is not the number of mentions that count, it is where the mentions are. There are various proposed webometrics of greater subtlety, but none that are generally accepted and available. But still f we need to distinguish in some way between blogs suitable for WP articles and those not suitable for WP articles (I avoid the word "notable" )

We can preserve the appearance of continuity by appropriately defining "reliable" and "published." Further, I note that WP:WEB says "the content itself [must] has been the subject of multiple and non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." This means not the blog itself--nobody need have said anything about it as a blog, but the content published on the blog. As a first approximation, interesting blogs will have content discussed elsewhere. (To be refined further for discussion) : DGG 02:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• DGG, I guess then, seeing as how content from the author has been linked to by both B3ta and the BBC, both of which have wikipedia entries, that this counts as multiple non-trivial sources. Russ 20:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was KEEP (no consensus). Nabla 01:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martial Arts Therapy

Martial Arts Therapy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article reads like OR, lacks references, and even has a photoshopped picture of a ninja freud. RogueNinja_talk 22:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There are 4 scientific references in the article, and 7 references to scientific publications at the end that are part of the information in the article. I'm not sure what you mean by lacks references, or for that matter, "original research," since all the issues brought up in the article are derived from said scientific publications. --Scb steve 02:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It has a bunch of external links, not references. Some of the links are dead, some are on random webhosts (ie, not good references), some are password protected, and some show that the article is counter-factual! (Ie, the link 5 says: "The total pattern of results strongly suggests that participation in power sports actually leads to an increase or enhancement of antisocial involvement in the form of elevated levels of violent as well as non-violent antisocial behaviour outside sports." Link 4 says the same thing. One of these references is another wiki article! RogueNinja_talk 02:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you realize that "power sports" and martial arts are different? And that the possibility of learning martial arts may increase antisocial behavior is addressed in the article? Namely, the section referring to Bandura's social learning theory. Regarding the links, one was to a site that had published material by a Ph.D level university professor, one was previously accessible without password protection, and the remainder are PubMed abstracts of peer-reviewed articles. Further, you can clearly see references in the citations, such as (Endresen and Olweus, 2005), (Gleser, 1992), etc. --Scb steve 03:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Article clearly needs work, but we should let it survive for now, keep an eye on it, attempt to improve it, and then nominate it again in say 3 months, if it proves impossible to improve. None of the nom's arguments lead me to conclude that this article can not be improved to the point of being worthy of staying. Jerry 22:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 05:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• delete WP:OR by synthesis. There are references cited in the article, but none of which support the external existence of article's topic, Martial Arts Therapy as a subject recognized as a field unto itself by that name. The material in this article which is supported by reliable sources more properly belongs in the articles on the specific martial arts involved. I've also nominated the image of Freud's head photoshopped onto Bruce Lee's body for deletion, it's beyond silly. Nowhere in this article does the therapeutic benefits of martial arts go anywhere near Freudian psychodynamics. It just makes the whole article, and therefore the encyclopdeia, look juvenile. Pete.Hurd 15:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, because many use martial arts as a mean of therapy and therefore just improve it. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I use martial arts as a therapy of sorts. Click on bio to find out more. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think WP:ILIKEIT is grounds for "strong keep" Pete.Hurd 14:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete As with many proprietary techniques, there are references dealing with the general subject, for the connection between exercise and mood is well-known. Of the refs given at the end of the article, 2 are dead links, 1 is a locally-restricted study--the only source given for POMS-- 1 is a personal web site, 1 was a self-ref to a WP article (now removed), and 4 were truly articles in peer-reviewed journals. At least 2 of the 4 said explicitly in the abstracts they were about traditional Judo, which is not the topic here.

I conclude that the term is not well-established, that it is a common phrase being used in a special meaning by a specific group of practitioners, and that it is self-advertisingin the guide of an article DGG 02:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Pete.Hurd. --Dariusk 19:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Due to criticisms concerning references, revisions have been made, such as the inclusion of links to two full-length, peer-reviewed articles that used non-judo methods to treat juvenile delinquents. I haven't been able to find as good of a summary of the POMS as before, but any quick look will show it's a validated and widely used measure in psychological studies. I have also fixed the link to the UConn source, as that link has changed, and it is in working order now.

There are very specific reasons why martial arts stands distinct from other fitness methods or for other sports in terms of promoting psychosocial health, as explained in this article and at the references. Talking about the specific martial arts and their benefits on their own page is inappropriate since it gets into a tangentially related aspect of those arts, whereas this page focuses on potential benefits inherent to all arts. In fact, the issue of whether some arts are non-therapeutic is a notable controversy addressed here in this article, and would be lost if forced to be put into separate style pages. --Scb steve 01:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Article still primarily an advertisement for the site Martial Arts Therapy.org which is a site advertising particular programs--even though the article is disguised and includes no external links, it uses the wording: "Martial Arts Therapy (hereafter referred to as MA-Therapy)" this is wording as a particular style of using martial arts, as is "MA-Therapy is a concept still in development. " but the references cited directly and through the bibliography listed in almost all the sources are talking about it in general, and use a variety of wordings for the concept. There is no consistent use of the title in the articles cited and listed or anywhere else. . The wording here is specific to this particular school of thought. Most of the article still is OR as the unique summarization of loosely related studies or as totally unsupported OR. If kept I will suggest a title change. DGG 18:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You have no basis to say that this is an advertisement for that site, especially since 1. I have no links to that site while being the article-starter, and 2. That site isn't even mentioned in the article itself. The usage of the term "martial arts therapy" is a codification of the concept "using martial arts to treat physical/psychological disorders," no different than "using horses to treat physical/psychological disorders" is called equine therapy. --Scb steve 22:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of yo-yo tricks

List of yo-yo tricks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This is an indiscriminate list that provides no information whatsoever about any of these tricks. It contains no information and no criteria for inclusion. This article may meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but I listed it here anyway in case it was controversial. Hnsampat 19:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wikibooks. Geez, There's a site call Wikibooks! Use it! 142.58.101.27 22:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikibooks is for textbooks. It is not a dumping ground. Uncle G 00:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge since the use of the Yo-Yo is reasonably notable, a list of the various tricks associated with it would be appropriate. However, I do see that this list is not very much, as it just names the trick, with no description. I suggest adding descriptions in order to flesh out the contents. FrozenPurpleCube 00:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Just reference more. Best, --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete a list of yo-yo tricks is not needed here. I see no reason to keep this page. A load of yo-yo tricks are not notable as far as I'm aware. Acalamari 18:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now to see if descriptions of the various tricks can be a[dded. If they can article could be useful for some people. If nothing is added then another look at deletion in future could be necessary. Davewild 20:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Response FYI, this page has been in existence since 2004 and has pretty much looked the same in all of that time. In 3 years, if nobody's been able to add meaningful descriptions to this page, then I think it's time to pull the plug.--Hnsampat 21:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment explaining reasoning for DELETE I think there are two key reasons why this page simply has to go. First, as it stands, it is an unsourced, indiscriminate list with absolutely no substance whatsoever. It doesn't even define what each of these tricks is. The second and probably more important point, though, is the fact that this list has no hope of every being encyclopedic. Only one or two yo-yo tricks may pass Wikipedia's requirements for notability. All other additions to this page will be non-notable and will most likely have not been cited by any reliable source. As such, this page is a magnet for original research (which, in this case, will be people inventing their own yo-yo tricks and then posting them, which is what I suspect the page is right now). It has no hope of every being encyclopedic.--Hnsampat 21:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any of your arguments as justification for deletion. Descriptions of the various tricks could be added to the page. References do exist ([10] and [11]. I'm not seeing any significant original research on the page right now, but if it were a problem, it's easy to deal with by requiring sources as is the usual practice. Sorry, but your claims that this page can't be encyclopedic just don't persuade me. I think this is just a page that attracts little attention, but it could be improved. At the most, merge it to Yo-yo. FrozenPurpleCube 22:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete this current version without prejudice against later creation. There is no context to this list at all. Yamaguchi先生 01:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki per 142.58.101.27 ffm ✎talk 13:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Majorly (hot!) 16:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pneumatic Detach

Pneumatic Detach (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

no indication that it passes WP:MUSIC. Autobiographical. ccwaters 00:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Appears to be notable. Xanucia 22:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• delete no notability according to the criteria by WP:MUSIC Iyenweyel 06:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Appears to be updated with valid sources. 11:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.65.66 (talk • contribs)

*Keep Reasons to keep article: Falls under the "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture." With reviews/ interviews in many of the top industrial magazines/zines. As well as "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." With 5 releases on the notable Hive Records. 11:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.65.66 (talk • contribs)

• • Comment': notice two separate comments by the same IP which also happens to have similar edit histories as Ppudate. Anyway, please direct us to these unnamed articles. ccwaters 17:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• • comment: first comment was made about six months ago due to a previous delete opinion. Second comment made due to this one. I Wasn't actually attempting to vote twice. Ppudate 06:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment You may only vote once. Rockstar915 19:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. No one made a comment about Ppudate. It was only about the IP's multiple votes. Rockstar915 01:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

*Keep Reasons to keep article: Discogs article states notable history and release history (http://www.discogs.com/artist/Pneumatic+Detach) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.65.66 (talk • contribs)

• Keep Reasons to keep article: Artist is noted under the power noise genre article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powernoise) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.173.1.75 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: This is said IP address's first edit in en.wiki ccwaters 17:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment We should probably do a check user. This all smells of sock puppetry. Rockstar915 19:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Does fit the criteria. Other problems with article have been corrected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ppudate (talk • contribs) 16:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC). — Ppudate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

*Keep Reasons to keep article: Pneumatic Detach performed 2 years as a headling act at Notable North American electronic music festival C.O.M.A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.O.M.A.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.65.66 (talk • contribs)

• Comment. You can only vote once. Rockstar915 19:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Very strong delete. I checked on LexisNexis, google and nothing notable has been written about this band. Discogs is not a notable source, as anyone can add their releases to the site. So by nature the article fails WP:A. The articles cited are trivial. Furthermore, Hive Records is not a notable record label, so the band does not fit criteria #4 of WP:MUSIC. Essentially, it just fails every other aspect of WP:MUSIC. All all this not to mention that this AfD has been vandalized into oblivion. Rockstar915 19:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment #1 if we are uncertain of C.O.M.A.'s validity then why is there a Wiki article about it? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.O.M.A.) #2 if discogs is not a valid source why is it listed as a resource under WP:MUSIC. #3 if the pneumatic detach wiki article is not note worthy why has it been a Wiki article since 01:41, 28 May 2006 with many contributors? 08:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.65.66 (talk • contribs)

• Comment. a) C.O.M.A. does not have an article, per your link. b) Discogs is a good place to check validity of record labels, etc. It is not a reliable secondary source, as anyone can add their album information, thus making it a primary source. c) there is no relationship between time on Wikipedia and notability. By all counts, this article fails WP:MUSIC. Rockstar915 15:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It turns out that C.O.M.A. does have an article. The wrong link was added. However, please show me where playing in a festival, notable or not, fits unter WP:MUSIC. Rockstar915 16:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Would you mind telling me why in WP:MUSIC it states "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted;" and User:Ccwaters has commented on the article before and was Ok with it, nothing has really changed about except some small facts but now there is a problem? In addition there are many other "artists" in wikipedia with much less credability and yet you are targeting this article? if there is a problem here you need to do some reviewing of other similar articles. 02:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.65.66 (talk • contribs)

• COMMENT My silence doesn't mean I've changed my mind. Its great that you FINALLY have references, but you ignored 2-3 past requests for them. It took the threat of deletion for you to produce them. As far as the criteria at WP:MUSIC the only one that this article MIGHT PASS is the label one: is HIVE a notable label? I don't know. The criterium are only guidelines, but that fact that this article meets only one as a borderline maybe and that the article is largely autobiographical says a lot. BTW pointing out other articles that should be deleted is no way to justify you own. With that said, I'll be quiet and let others chime in. ccwaters 22:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Thanks for the comment. Per my research, Hive Records is not a notable label. Pneumatic Detach is the only band on the label with a Wikipedia page, and none of the artists have any reliable sources written about them. I'm still waiting for some non-trivial sources or some other reason why this band might pass WP:MUSIC. Rockstar915 23:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment In addition I feel this article should stay because it falls under WP:MUSIC "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. Examples are (http://www.industrialnation.com), and many online magazines. I can list more if you need them.

http://www.side-line.com/news_comments.php?id=8335_0_2_0_C http://www.regenmag.com/Reviews-521-Pneumatic-Detach-viscera.html http://www.virus-mag.com/index.php?a=3729 http://www.pneumaticdetach.com/press.htm http://www.yip.org/squid/reviews/pneumaticdetach/viscera.htm

"02:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.65.66 (talk • contribs) 

• Comment. Per my research, all of the above are trivial sources. Rockstar915 21:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Undecided (currently) - I am not famililar with the area but there are alot of CD compilations listed on the site. Also, how signiifcant is this C.O.M.A. festival - anyone here from Montreal? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 21:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Playing in a festival does not fulfill WP:MUSIC. Rockstar915 16:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The only criteria of WP:MUSIC that this band might pass is the label. I have a feeling Hive Records is not notable, but that's another discussion. It fails the other 10 criteria out right. The article is overwhelmingly autobiographical and the newly added references are questionable (some primary). This is the only comment I'll make on this AFD. I challenge the author to do the same: make your statement and then let others contribute. There is no need to rebut EVERYONE'S comments. If the article is truly worthy then others will show their support to keep it. AND DO NOT PROCLAIM, like you did before, that my silence afterwards signifies a change in my stance. Thanks. ccwaters 13:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Only appearance in Google News Archive is in a festival listing -- a festival which itself fails to garner any more results.--Dhartung | Talk 13:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep for various reasons listed by "keepers" throughout discussion. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Can you please expand on your reasoning or how this group fulfills WP:MUSIC? Every keep reason given was, as far as I'm concerned, addressed. Rockstar915 18:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems like a useful article and someone went through the trouble of keeping it, so I just want help out a fellow article-creating Wikipedian. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 20:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? has been blocked for sockpuppetry and for disruptive edits. Rockstar915 15:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:MUSIC. --RaiderAspect 06:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly (hot!) 16:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newstalk

Newstalk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

claim to notability is 'only all talk radio station in the Republic of Ireland' killing sparrows 06:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

== There is nothing notable or newsworthy! and is unreferenced with old news about a presenters dificulty from 2006. Recitation of programming schedule is silly padding of a dull article and seems to fail to meet the notability guideline WP:CORP Approve deletion 10:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notable national radio station, the Irish equivalent of something like talkSPORT. The article could so with a bit of citing and tidying up, though. EliminatorJR ^Talk 10:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I agree it needs more citations and references to prove notability. If these are added then I would !vote "keep" but at the moment it fails WP:V. --Vintagekits 12:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per EliminatorJR's reasoning. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, ironically for the statement contained in the nomination - 'only all talk radio station in the Republic of Ireland' is good enough for me. - fchd 17:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per EliminatorJR. Acalamari 18:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Radio stations with a significant broadcast area are notable. --Darksun 18:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per all above. Davewild 20:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: It is not exclusively talk. On weekend evenings it is padded out with music. It is irritating in the number of advt. breaks which are self promoting of itself, truely navel gazing. talkSPORT equivalents appear on all radio stations, as is recognised as a cheap method of having the public fill up airtime. Sports talk presence from 19-22 daily is an shrewd economic way to run a radio station especially if listeners pay 30 cent for texts to pad the program and email comment is not encouraged.

Thus there is nothing original or inovative in the station. It is just one of many forgetable, non notable radio stations, which is not reaching its' advertising quota. Other contributors to this debate are merely saying "aye" without rational reasoning. Their recommendations are as fans who say nothing rather than neutral rational editors. We could fill wikipedia with worldwide similar niche commercial advertising stations so Deletion per notability guideline WP:CORP as non notable is merited. 23:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Extreme keep. Long standing radio station (in its Dublin local format), now a national radio station in a non-insignificant country - this is its "claim to notability". Doesn't meet any criteria of deletion, under any imaginable circumstances. Large listenership. Need I go on? I also note that the delete vote above accusing sheep-like tactics, and which appears to be an attack on the stations content and no justification of why to delete... hasn't actually got a person attached to it. --Kiand 19:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete* Kiand claims that a five year old radio station is a "Long standing radio station"!! Where are the listnership figures quoted. Tune on FM band circa 100 MHz upwards and you will find many stations of non notable worth and uninteresting to the majority of listneners and also correspondingly also to the advertiser. Newstalk is heavily self promoting, implying a lack of paying advertisers, so just another attempt by business interests to garner revenue from a "new" source.

As there are a multitude of radio stations seeking advertising, it is not unique and non-encyclopediac and merits deletion. Zubenzenubi 00:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Zubenzenubi has three edits [12] prior to entering this dabate. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You'll also find that all of those stations "circa 100MHz upwards" that are licenced in Ireland have articles on here, including those with significantly less than 10% reach (Dublin's Country Mix 106.8 for example, as well as those with less than 10% that are well below 100MHz - Lyric FM. I'd also like to suggest that the unsigned, anonymous IP vote above that has exactly the same sentiments is, in fact, you - duplicate voting is extremely frowned on here.

Listernship figures are available from the BCI, and are both quouted and referenced in the article.

Self promotion, perceived lack of advertisers, and an apparent lack of uniqueness do not, under any circumstances, classify as reasons for deletion. I'd suggest you read up on Wikipedia policies before waging what seems to be some surreal, one-man-war. --217.67.139.104 08:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Zubenzenubi HAS voted twice, IP votes or not - [13] and [14]. --Kiand 15:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep article could do with a bit of work but its worth keeping. --Albert.white 12:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strongest possible Keep as per Kiand, fchd and EliminatorJR - I thought I had seen everything until I read this nom. Frelke 12:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Rather strange nomination, rather stranger pro-deletion comments. Meets no criteria for deletion. And I dont like this radio station doesn't count as one :-) Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Items and concepts in FLCL

Items and concepts in FLCL (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Let me start by saying I'm a huge fan of FLCL, so this nomination is not related to my opinion.

The article is entirely unsourced original research. I proposed that it be merged with FLCL a few months ago, but the truth is that anything in this article that is both notable and verifiable is already in the FLCL article. The notability of the "items and concepts" is unclear (as far as I know, no academic publications have explored them). The only source for most of this information is the collective speculation of the authors -- even using the DVD commentaries wouldn't be acceptable for the intent of this page.

In order to convince me that this article should be kept, I would need to see that 1) these items and concepts are notable -- that they have been discussed in reliable sources in a manner that is not trivial, and 2) they can be proven to not simply be the interpretations of fans. Leebo ^T/C 18:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. -- Leebo ^T/C 18:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The ideas on the page are direct observation from the series. It's mostly like "this and that happens here and there". I beleive it should be merged instead of deleted. When talking about a show, the show itself should be considered valid source. As for the DVD commentaries, I don't understand your point in saying it's not acceptable. Wilderns 18:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Reply The information is not just observations; a lot of it is original research -- interpretations of what the directors meant without a source to confirm that meaning. The information also needs to be notable, being info from FLCL doesn't make it notable. And what I meant about the DVD commentaries is that a lot of the DVD trivia is in the FLCL article, and it doesn't go this into depth with the symbolism. Leebo ^T/C 19:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Reply Well, I wonder what makes something in a work of fiction "notable". Tjstrf pointed out the "possibility" (rotflol) of a reviewed academic paper delving into FLCL, but that's just too absurd. Something out of a Monty Python sketch. In browsing Wikipedia, it looks to me quite as much of a (sub)cultural reference library as a strictly academic reference. However, I'm nobody to ruin the game - if that is what's wanted, let's delete 90% of the ruddy thing, and only leave the "notable" stuff from reviewed scientific articles. 195.38.101.16 06:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Reply Yes, if you read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you'll see that a lot of the articles on fiction (especially contemporary fiction) fall short of what is expected in a Wikipedia article. The idea is not to set the standard by what already exists and deal with it. Also, deleting 90% of the original research of fiction articles would not have any effect on the thousands and thousands of proper articles that don't deal with fiction. In short, the "(sub)cultural reference library" aspect is exactly the kind of thing this is aiming to clean up. Leebo ^T/C 10:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Reply Well, one really can't argue with that. Do what thy oh so holy policies suggest, but as a user I fail to see how this would raise the "quality" of Wikipedia. But well, let's be thorough. In that spirit, why not delete all articles on anything but scientific theories and classical art (the kind that has an extensive base of academic papers debating it)? That would make Wikipedia just the best there is! Just defeats the whole purpose of having it on a web2 basis. Why not gather a bunch of professors to do the work for us. I quit. 195.38.101.16 17:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Putting aside the caustic sarcasm, did you read the link I put below: Wikipedia is not for plot summaries? I don't think one can make a case that this article is more than a plot summary. FLCL has an article. I'm not trying to get rid of that. Leebo ^T/C 04:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment 1 important point that I should have mentioned in my reason is that Wikipedia is not for plot summaries. The parts of this that are not original research are essentially summaries of stuff that happens, without much commentary. Leebo ^T/C 19:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Although in complex or lengthy series, it is often appropriate to devote a page to describing terminology or plot as part of the wider subject, this one not only fails to fulfill that function but is made up of Original Research.
  FLCL was written to be purposefully vague, and it succeeded. There is no way to write an article explaining FLCL's meaning based solely on the work itself. (If FLCL ever becomes the subject of a reviewed academic paper or two that delved into the symbolism, then maybe we could write it.) A few parts, such as pieces of the section on N.O., should probably be merged to the main article. --tjstrf talk 19:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination as unsourced original research. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-10 07:08Z
• Delete per nom and WP:FICT. --Dhartung | Talk 13:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, pure trivia. Lankiveil 13:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
• Strong Keep. Just make more clear to readers as terminology that's alien to some is relevant to others. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I speed read, and anyway, I think I voted to keep 50 articles, because it's a nice even number. Anyway, the main thing that I was seeing was that some people seemed to want to keep it, so as I prefer more articles to few, I thought those arguments seemed valid and I throw my lot with them. Regards, --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 20:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:N, WP:FICT, WP:WAF, WP:ATT... Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete — has no place on the encyclopedia per WP:NOT, WP:WAF, WP:ATT, and so on. — Deckiller 18:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly (hot!) 16:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Astor, Baroness Astor of Hever

Elizabeth Astor, Baroness Astor of Hever (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. While nobility is, I suppose, assertion enough of notability to prevent speedy, I can find absolutely nothing to indicate that this person actually is notable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree that this person's lineage and spouse are not enough to pass WP:BIO or merit inclusion in Wikipedia. For what it is worth, I was the one that contested the prod. I knda wanted to gauge community feelings here. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 11:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; notability isn't venereal, and the sum total of this lady's life seems to be that she was born a minor member of the British aristocracy, married a minor member of the British aristocracy, and had a couple kids. Frankly, I'd be curious as to the grounds upon which the prod was contested. RGTraynor 16:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I do not agree with the contention expressed on the guideline for nobility talk page that everyone with a title is inherently notable and that their spouses are as well. However, she is presently the wife of a fairly important politician, so I wold expect she has been written about, so someone might be able to find articles about her activities sufficient to justify an article. The wife of U.S. politician Joe Lieberman, Hadassah Lieberman, has an article, for instance, with only 2 references. Edison 21:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It would have been contested on the basis of being opposed to long-standing policy. I'm not sure what distinguishes a minor member; even if it were decided that mere UK Barons are not all notable, then do we include the richer? the ones with the longest lineage? the ones that are offshoots of the best known houses? -- those interested can and have debated for generations on this sort of thing, and therefore there is a very good reason for having a firm guideline to follow. I think I have a very rough understanding of the UK, but no knowledge elsewhere, and each country will be different. (In this particular case, she's from a rich but parvenue house; but it terms of prominence, and historical notability, the Astors are probably notable specifically. Others will disagree, perhaps sharply) If the guideline is to be challenged, it should be on that talk page. It makes sense to me to keep it--it does not refer to all that many people. I could understand a decision that if she married into a non-noble family, and her children were not noble, then her children would not get articles of their own. DGG 21:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm hunting for the policy you cite, and if I'm missing the obvious I apologize, but I'm afraid I can't find it. Could you please put up a link to it for participants to look at? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion of every AfD on these topics in last 6 months. <personal view>Considering the inconclusiveness of discussion on the actual policy pages, this seems to be where policy is made. Of course, there's nothing to stop us from changing direction. </personal view> DGG 05:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as per DGG above. The UK nobility is small enough that we'll never get 10,000 articles cluttering up the encyclopedia, and (for better or worse) is still of interest to a lot of people. Elected hereditary peers are rare enough (there are only 92 of them) that to be both the daughter of one and married to another is interesting in itself, whilst the Astors are an interesting family. I agree it could be expanded with some details of what she's actually done in her own right, but that's not grounds for deleting it. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per comments above on British nobility. She's an Astor, even if by affinity, and that's enough for me. 23:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Being part of a notable family doesn't in and of itself make one notable. I'd imagine there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Astors in this world. Do they all get articles? szyslak (t, c) 09:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Personally, though, I think this issue should be decided by English editors. Those of us in countries without an established nobility probably don't know how inherently notable a hereditary peer is. I'm sure the article can be expanded - she must be patron of lots of things. StAnselm 11:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Astor family, an article which can easily contain a line or two of information such as parentage for all minor members of the family. This is a widely-accepted solution for the "family notable, member not" dilemma. --Dhartung | Talk 13:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as for the love of God a baroness, someone with a royal title, is significant and part of a lineage! --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 17:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Baroness is not a royal title, at least not in the UK. It's a noble title, which is not the same thing. --Metropolitan90 01:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - we have kept some nutty one election politicians recently, surely someone who's house was used for the greatest 20th century British poltical scandal is notable? Rgds, - Trident13
• Comment right, there ought to be no discrimination against major historical figures of past periods. We have , besides minor state politicians, many articles about 20th century heirs and heiresses of no importance whatsoever except their money. This is not an argument that othercrapexists, as I have ben questioning the N of the politicians here, and will soon start asking about the heirs. Those articles shouldn't exist. This one should. DGG 02:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG & others. Johnbod 15:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn by nominator. EliminatorJR ^Talk 02:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belfield Park

Belfield Park (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Football park with no apparent claim to notability killing sparrows 06:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge & Redirect to University College Dublin A.F.C... Weak Keep. UCD are an Eircom League side, so their ground is probably notable; no problem with a Merge as I previously stated though.EliminatorJR ^Talk 11:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep this is an FAI National League ground for heaven's sake. If and when they finally move, we can consider deleting it. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Iredescenti's reasoning. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 17:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per User:Iridescenti. Even if UCD move, we'll probably keep their old ground for history's sake (as with the Baseball Ground. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Iredescenti. Davewild 20:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep from nominator. I came across this on a cleanup list. When I saw that it seated less than a thousand I figured it was an insignificant venue. My high school football stadium seats more than that! Mea culpa.

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly (hot!) 17:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Densa

Densa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, see WP:ORG CA387 06:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no independant sources. given that meetings are now few, and it was seen as a vehicle for scientists' irony, rather than standing up for the stupid, and we can't get good references within a year, it needs to go. Callix 12:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Densa now has three New York Times references and a book in the article as references. Densa gets 1.6 million Google hits exclusive of Wikipedia. A humorous alternative to Mensa, which has been around for decades. Edison 15:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Edison's reasoning. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 17:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep' thanks for the referencing, Edison. --W.marsh 18:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Where are you getting the 1.6 million hits figure from? The organization seems defunct now (archived site), which makes me question whether it's worth having an article on. Despite two references in the Times, the last one was back in 1999. --CA387 19:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • What does it matter when the reference was? Wikipedia is not just for things in the news lately. --W.marsh 19:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Edison. Just because may not be active now does not mean it should be deleted. References now establish notability. Davewild 20:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment If some organization had multiple independent reliable sources with substantial coverage, then absolutely ceased to exist one day after the last reference was published, it would still be notable, because notability is permanent. Edison 05:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per Edison.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Condense to a brief section in the Mensa article, and redirect. "Densa" is not notable as a real organisation, but it is notable as a common pun with 40,000 Google results (there are 1.6 million results if you don't include "Mensa" in the search, because you end up catching countless pages with densa, which is "dense" in Spanish, Italian, Latin and other languages). — Chameleon 08:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antoaneta Kyuchukova (Antoinette)

Antoaneta Kyuchukova (Antoinette) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This was originally tagged as a speedy, but then it started to look a little better, so I prodded it instead. The prod was then removed, and so I am bringing it here. I am just not convinced that being head of a student union confers notability- there are a few web sources, but they all constitute blogs, and are not third party anyway. Delete from me. J Milburn 10:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This is not the sort of article where truly independent references can be expected--the most that would be found would by Oxford student publications. Probably almost all will be blogs. DGG 01:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Then surely, they are non notable, unless notability is automatically conveyed by such a thing? J Milburn 12:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. --DMG413 23:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; sooner or later "the first <insert race here> student to be President of <insert student union name here>" ceases to be notable enough for coverage in reliable sources. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-10 07:01Z
• Delete as non-notable and lacking reliable sources. --RaiderAspect 12:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Just augment reasons for notability and provide more sources. Sincerely, --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 17:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - the point is that there won't be independent sources of such a non-notable person. Feeeshboy 01:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Until she graduates and does something notable, she will not be. But this will then be a factor in her bio.DGG 02:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hosinshu

Hosinshu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Not notable. There are no Google hits for the subject of this article, "Hosinshu". The article makes it clear that this is a martial art that was only recently invented by one person. There are no references and the lack of hits implies very few people use it or are talking about it. andy 12:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable, Unrefed looks like was created as an ad. --Nate 12:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• It probably was. The article originally began with this line: "This Article is Hosted with the permission & information from the developer of Hosinshu Martial Arts only. Please do not edit this." andy 13:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed that & replaced with the {{advert}} tag --Nate 13:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete if you do not want us to edit it, find a free web host to host your advertisement. We aren't the site you have in mind. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-10 07:04Z
• Delete as nn spamvertisement. There may be an article on this subject as soon as it's mentioned in reliable sources. szyslak (t, c) 08:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the lack of reliable sources. Given that it was uploaded by the developer of this martial art, it raises serious conflict of interest issues as well. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 14:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

*Strong Keep, because martial arts develop over time and so even new developments are worth mentioning when concerning something that is significant to pretty much all human civilizations. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC) (user blocked indefinitely as sockpuppet) --Ashenai 08:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 17:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no notability. Acalamari 18:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, hoax, WP:NFT. --Ashenai 08:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly (hot!) 19:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unchurched Belt

Unchurched Belt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Original research. Just 272 Google hits, most of them Wikipedia mirrors. Just about the only non-Wikipedia use of the term I could find was from a single paper written in 1985, mentioned here. szyslak (t, c) 07:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I withdraw my original comment that the article is original research. I wrote it as I was looking through the first reference, which doesn't use the term. However, I still support deleting the article, as the term "unchurched belt" is little used outside Wikipedia and thus not notable. szyslak (t, c) 21:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Religion in the United States. It's an interesting academic term (5 Google Scholar hits, all referencing the original paper) but mostly relevant as an illustration. --Dhartung | Talk 13:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, because terms like this are helpful for people doing research on such topics. And on that, ta ta for now! :) --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 17:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Not original research in the Wikipedia sense at all. The term was used in 1985 by Rodney Stark and William Sims Bainbridge according to "Accounting for the Uncounted", one of the references cited in the article. --Eastmain 18:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep or Merge The term is not original research as per Eastmain. However not sure how notable it is and if no more can be added a merge into Religion in the United States could be appropriate. Davewild 21:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, Stark and Bainbridge are well known authors.--Ioannes Pragensis 18:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - even if the term is not much used, the conclusion is an interesting one. It is not original research, since is is based on a statistical source which is cited. However it is a stub. That might warrant a merge, but certainly not a delete. Peterkingiron 15:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Non-admin closure. YechielMan 15:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internet Infidels

Internet Infidels (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Has been nominated for speedy deletion (presumedly on the grounds that it didn't establish notability, see WP:WEB). I don't believe that it really meets the speedy deletion criteria, so I am bringing it here. In any case, the article has been around for some time, it is linked from multiple articles, and has been kept after this discussion in 2004. For the record, Internet Infidels (www.infidels.org) has an Alexa rank of 84.583; its discussion board (www.iidb.org) 95.460. Procedural nomination - no vote. - Mike Rosoft 07:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. This site is really well known in the web world both by atheist/humanists and particularly christians where an awful lot of links are to refutations of stuff on this site. Whilst I agree its not the best written article there are plenty more sources to add but care is needed as as with the Richard Carrier article it can be come a case of "us versus them" in the links. As I'm not a deletion review expert I assume the no vote means this is just a discussion on the merits of the article. Sophia 08:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sort of; every nomination for deletion is more a discussion about the article's merits than a vote. By the "no vote" comment I intended to stress that my nomination was meant neither to support its deletion, nor its keeping; it was only made for procedural reasons. - Mike Rosoft 16:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I think that this site should be kept, and that the Richard Carrier article should be merged into it, because i think he is notable only for his involvement with this site. DGG 08:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep legitimate website operating for twelve years with monthly site-traffic exceeding 600,000 unique hits. website has an international audience. website is pure HTML with no bells and whistles. the article is little more than a stub and needs work. obligatory disclosure: member since 1997. παράδοξος 09:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable and often-referred-to website, well worth an article. I'd like more in the article, though! Snalwibma 09:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, an oft-referenced website in its topic area. 73 Google Scholar hits 22 Google News Archive hits Actually gets slightly more results than "secular web", incidentally, which is a generic phrase not always referring to the website. Article should be cleaned up, it has a very amateurish tone. --Dhartung | Talk 13:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Dhartung. Acalamari 18:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dipole antigravity

Dipole antigravity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Fails on notability and possibly on original research grounds as well. The article appears to have been written solely to promote the author's theory, which failed to gain acceptance in the physics community (see the author's note on the talk page). Jim E. Black 08:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: Discussion removed to the talk page --EMS | Talk 17:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete – the article in Physica Scripta has never been cited, and the corresponding preprint has been cited exactly once (in another dead-end paper which exists nowhere but the arXiv). WP:VANITY, WP:NOR, WP:FRINGE. And ever since the Bullet Cluster results, the market for modified gravity theories to escape the need for dark matter is, well, not inviting. Anville 17:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails WP:SCIENCE. No evidence of notability. (It does pass WP:NOR on the technicality of peer reviewed journal publication.) It also fails WP:ATT due to the total lack of any independent primary or secondary sources. --EMS | Talk 17:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Point taken about WP:NOR; however, since the Physica Scripta article is behind a subscription wall, I can't tell how much of this came from there and how much was invented ex nihilo. I suspect much of the material is not in the arXiv preprint, either. Anville 17:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  I'm willing to give the author the benefit of the doubt. Even without WP:NOR your other reasons apply, and are more than adequate for the removal of this article. (This article is one reason why I frowm on WP:NOR, and love the idea of merging it into WP:ATT.) --EMS | Talk 18:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Addendum: As the creator and primary editor of this article (User:Tachyonics), is almost certainly the creator of this theory (Dr. Eue Jin Jeong), this article also violates WP:COI. See the related discussion for evidence. --EMS | Talk 01:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of notability. Gnixon 18:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- one person's theory. --Pjacobi 19:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Getting some theory or experiment published in one of the thousands of scientific journals does not ensure getting an article in Wikipedia. I would have several articles if that were the case! The article has never been cited by another scientist, per discussion at the Wikipedia Reference Desk: Science. Edison 05:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus and article's improvement PeaceNT 05:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Carrier

Richard Carrier (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

probably NN except for Internet Infidels, and I do not think that II is of sufficient importance that it alone is enough to make him notable for WP purposes. Contested speedy--probably should have gone here directly DGG 08:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC) (P.S. I !voted Weak Keep for Internet Infidels). DGG 08:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep As Carrier often debates outside the infidels forum it would be POV to include all his links there. I'm considering attempting to flesh this out a bit but we have had horrendous problems in the past as this guy is positively hated by some Christians and we run into WP:BIO issues. Sophia 10:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless properly sourced. Article contains no reliable sources demonstrating notability. No Google News Archive results for "richard.carrier empty.tomb", and his other book is apparently self-published. --Dhartung | Talk 13:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep What is the criteria for notability? According to Wikipedia:Notability (people), it has nothing to do with whether the man has an impressive CV or if you think the website he writes for is famous or not. The criteria is whether there has been enough external notice from intellectually independent sources so that we can write a verifiable and neutral article without having to engage in original research. Sources that establish notability are things like: a critical response to his book, a response to his review by Earl Doherty, and a mention on the apologetic website "Tektonics". These are the kind of stuff that establish notability because they are completely independent of the subject, and independent from each other, and therefore can help us write a neutral account of his views. --Merzul 14:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Considerable web presence, extremely notable - just because he doesn't have a PhD or a formal university post does not make him not-notable. One of his books is self-published, but that is not all that surprising, given the medium he works in and the ways he works. He is an internet person, not a member of the formal academic "history" or "philosophy" club. He is also very strongly disliked in certain christian circles - so beware POV-pushing attempts to delete this article! Gnusmas 15:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete This guy has a lot of ghits and although I profoundly disagree with his views he has a perfect right to express them. But he's a PhD candidate (who BTW claims to have an "office" at the University of Colombia!) and one book published by a vanity publisher and a lot of bloggery/web presence is certainly not enough for notabilty. We need reliable published sources ("intellectually independent" sources have nothing to do with it, the question is are they reliable and published - mentions on websites aren't enough). I'd be surprised if these can't be found in sufficient quantity, and if they are then I will of course change my vote. User:SOPHIA is a v experienced editor and I have no doubt that if they exist she will find them. NBeale 15:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  Please read the guidelines, intellectual independence has everything to do with it. You are confusing importance with Wikipedia:Notability. --Merzul 15:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Gnusmas and Merzul. Not much else to say. Clearly meets notability, lots of google hits, IMDB page, editor-in-Chief of a website with a high google ranking and a wikipedia article. -Andrew c 15:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable atheist thinker and expert on the historicity of Jesus. Laurence Boyce 15:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment if he is indeed notable there should be reliable published sources that establish this, referenced in the article. Whether people like or dislike his ideas has nothing to do with it. The IMDB page shows an appearance along with many others in a documentary, and being former editor of a website (which I think was in fact self-published?) is not per se enough for notability. BTW: no reputable scholar considers him an expert on the Historicity of Jesus - Jesus as Myth is lunatic fringe stuff on a par with young earth creationism. We should vote on the basis of what is in the article. NBeale 16:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Jesus as Myth is lunatic fringe stuff on a par with young earth creationism. Whereas the idea that Jesus was born of a virgin, walked on water, turned water into wine, died, stayed dead three days, and then rose up from the dead prior to shooting off into the sky . . . Laurence Boyce 16:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

...is true iff Jesus is the Son of God, as believed by c2bn people. The ideas may look a bit strange, but so does QM NBeale 07:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

....but QM has the photoelectric effect whereas Christianity has the power of prayer. And what about the 4bn that don't believe??? Sophia 11:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

. . . and besides, more than half of Americins are creationists, so we have to take that seriously too? Laurence Boyce 12:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Absolutely. Even if he is on a lunatic fringe (which he isn't), he is notable, and that's that. Snalwibma 16:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per the other keeps. Acalamari 18:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per above. Anyone interested in this area will come to know Carrier's work, as it stands out among the literature in the field for both is accesssibility and noteworthyness.Giovanni33 20:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Coverage in published sources is limited but not trivial, and I think his significant online presence tips the balance in favour of notability. EALacey 07:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep ^^James^^ 19:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as this meets any sane interpretation of Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines. RFerreira 02:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. MER-C 03:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Ervin

Dave Ervin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person - surely we don't have a Wikipedia entry on the General Managers of every major radio station Richard 09:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. So tagged. --Dhartung | Talk 13:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep by non adminstrator, Tellyaddict 20:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 740 Park Avenue

740_Park_Avenue (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

I originally prod'd it. While quality of article has significantly improved, it still has too many opinions (5th vs. Park Avenue for example) and what seems like fact is not referenced. Yes, books and articles have been referenced but they are not linked to specific facts such as it allegedly having the highest ceillings or who the architechts were. This article need not be written more than once to be properly written and readers need not go through all the listed references to verify the alleged facts. Postcard Cathy 14:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, even speedy keep, quick Googling confirms the general claims (but the article needs a rewrite to conform to WP:NPOV). [15][16][17] (including paysites). A notable building from construction to present day. --Dhartung | Talk 13:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Note, Postcard Cathy, the quality of the article is not a rationale for deletion. It needs cleanup and other attention, but the topic is notable. This wasn't the proper route to getting it fixed. AFD is not for content disputes. --Dhartung | Talk 13:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - listed as one of the most significant buildings by architect Rosario Candela, and article establishes notability. The article probably needs some cleanup, but that's not a matter for AfD. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep I live 4000 miles away from this building and I'd already heard of it. Postcard Cathy's reasoning seems like a (inadvertent) bad faith nom. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep as mentioned, AFD is not the proper avenue for cleanup requests, and the article proves notability. JavaTenor 17:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep obviously notable, AFD is not cleanup. --W.marsh 18:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per the other speedy keeps. Acalamari 18:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly (hot!) 19:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abstruse topics in Pynchon's Against the Day

Abstruse topics in Pynchon's Against the Day (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

An unnecessary article on one aspect of a book that has yet to prove lasting value. Abstruse topics within a work of fiction should be included in that book's article, they do not require a lengthy, separate article. Ipsenaut 04:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep or Merge; this article was split out from the main article on Against the Day after considerable debate. The material should be kept; much of it is quite useful, and comparable to other efforts such as the featured article on List of cultural references in The Cantos. I am neutral as to whether it is maintained separately or as part of the article. A Musing (formerly Sam)

• Strong Keep Nominator is wrong on every count. When a book garners as much serious critical attention as this one does (see the looooong list of reviews at the bottom of Against the Day) from just about every major publication that reviews books), the book can well deserve more than one article about it. This has been happening with all of Pynchon's books for decades, and hardly any of his books have gone out of print. In fact, not only are they reprinted -- books are written about them, as the Amazon list I just linked to will show. Abstruse topics in the book are hardly just "one aspect." The nature and meaning of the abstruse topics is intimately connected with the themes of the book, and there is no settled consensus opinion among the critics so far as to how the book's themes and abstruse topics fit together. So this has become the primary topic of most of the reviews. This novel is one of a relatively small number (see Category:References in literary works) that are both of proven importance (as well as we can prove any contemporary novel -- by citing the enormous attention it has received), that are widely known to be difficult to understand and where understanding the abstruse references is key to understanding the novel. I don't know how you could adequately cover this encyclopedic subject without this article in addition to the main article on the book. I initially opposed splitting this article off from the main article on the book, but both articles are valuable and could not now fit well into one Wikipedia page. Nor should they be shortened. They will both change in time as the critics eventually form something closer to a consensus on the book. Noroton 22:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand the literary merit of this book. However, this article is nothing more than a depository for links to related articles. Readers can research these subjects on their own. This may not be Wikipedia policy, but I believe we agree that Wikipedia is not Cliffs Notes. On a more serious note, could you show me another article that is solely composed of links to others, with no explanation given? I have never seen one before and I don't see why this should set the precedent. Ipsenaut 03:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Readers can research these subjects on their own" applies to everything in Wikipedia. Readers sometimes use lists for easier research. If the article were renamed "List of abstruse topics in Pynchon's Against the Day" that should completely satisfy your objection to it being nothing more than a "depository for links" (which in Wikipedia are usually called "lists") but it would make the lengthy title even lengthier to no useful purpose. I can show you dozens of articles composed solely or almost solely of links to others, usually with the two words "List of" as the first words in the title. There's List of school districts in Connecticut. Want more?

If these topics figure into the plot of the book, they can remain in the book's article. The items on this list share no common ground. Honestly, just linking a bunch of years? Does that do anyone any good? Simply enough, if these topics aren't abstruse-- Colorado?-- then they don't belong here. If they are so unique, they surely merit inclusion on the novel's page. Ipsenaut 04:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The "plot of the book"? The plot of the book is a labyrinth, extremely hard to summarize and impossible to summarize with the details that would be required to include this information. Really, the plot summary would be longer than this article is. Please read through to the bottom of this discussion, because you're making points that have already been answered (concerining year links, for instance). Noroton 04:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Even were the book never to sell another copy, the stature of Pynchon in 20th/21st century literature ensures that it will be the subject of study for many, for a long time. Part of the nature of the writing is the often seamless merging of fact and fiction. The article provides a single point of reference for readers who wish to investigate topics in the book, many of which fall well outside the category of general knowledge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.84.57.149 (talk) 08:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep– I doubt this could fit within the Against the Day article itself. After more of the literary types have written about the book, it should be possible to craft an encyclopedic article about it which satisfies WP:NOR and incorporates references to these "abstruse topics" in a more natural way. Anville 17:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Among the "abstruse topics" are 28 places, including New York City and Paris, The 30 individual years when the story takes place, 15 historical events and people, including Pancho Villa and the Mexican Revolution, 35 scientific theories and scientists, including Marco Polo and imaginary numbers, and 23 other topics, including poison gas and Buddhism. This is self-evidently nonsense. As for the content of the article, the topics are merely listed. A reader of Pynchon wishing to find out more about World War I (near the top of the list) could go to that article just as well directly. If kept, a title change will be proposed--and an edit made.DGG 03:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for calling "self evidently nonsense" what other editors have discussed and thought over probably a lot longer than you have. A reader of Pynchon that wants to look up one topic here would likely want to look up many topics here. Clicking on them here is more helpful than forcing the reader to type them all in. Also, it is much easier for the reader who forgets a topic or can't think of just the right subject or doesn't always know the Wikipedia name for the subject, which is occasionally different from Pynchon's reference. Please see the very, very extensive history and discussion on this article and the related one. It's all been discussed before. Please review WP:CIV. Noroton 05:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I expect to be able to give my own opinion here, independent of what others may have said, and even if I know myself to be in a very small minority. if we come to opposite conclusions it does not imply that either of us is uncivil. DGG 01:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I said precisely what I thought was (mildly) uncivil and put it in quotes, and it wasn't the fact that we disagreed. You are, of course, entitled to reinvent the wheel as many times as you want, but you'd save us both trouble if you bothered to see the past discussion in the talk pages of both articles about the book.Noroton 02:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Rename to something like References in Pynchon's Against the Day. With all due respect to the compilers, it really is absurd to label Paris, Colorado, Marco Polo and the year 1900 "abstruse topics". That's more a problem with the title than with the content, though. The article would also benefit from some trimming -- rather than listing every single year covered by the narrative, it could simply give a range and let people follow the links from year to year if they want to -- but that's an editorial matter that doesn't require AFD. —Celithemis 07:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm very open to a name change and to a different way of presenting the years. The only reason there are year links in the article is to help readers who may not be familiar with the fact that Wikipedia has year articles and to make it as easy as possible for people to get to them. I'm putting that suggestion for a name change on the article's talk page. Noroton 17:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Abstruse topics in Pynchon's Against the Day#Changing the article name. Noroton 18:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It seems it would be quite useful for a reader interested in researching the relevant topics in depth, and it's long enough to suggest that it's better as its own page than remerged into the main page for the book. Not every book should be treated the same, and it seems this particular book has a unique need for such a page. There are reasons why such a page should be edited, and improved upon, but not deleted or merged.zadignose 13:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep, meets WP:BIO. Majorly (hot!) 19:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chance Phelps

Chance Phelps (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

• Delete Being killed in action does not make an individual notable.--Looper5920 17:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I originally put a notablity tag on the page and the nominator is correct, being killed in action does not make a person notable.--Joebengo 17:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Simply non-notable. Ale_Jrb^talk 11:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as he meets WP:BIO, per [18]. Doesn't matter why he got non-trivial news coverage. --W.marsh 18:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep does seem to meet WP:BIO as per W.marsh. Davewild 21:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as he in particular was the subject of major media attention he's notable. In this case, far more than the two mentions. There will be many more besides those in Google News. DGG 03:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as this person meets qualifications in WP:BIO. He has recieved significant awards, is the subject of several media articles (including PBS), and two creative works. I'm also pending permission from another newspaper to reference thier articles. --Bahamut0013 16:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7 by RyanGerbil10. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chateau Beaumont

Chateau Beaumont (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Seems to lack so much in notability. The place seems to be, after a bit of research, pretty minor. I don't see any obvious place where this can be redirected to either. Maybe into Chailland, although it isn't clear if the place is in the region of Pays de la Loire or in Normandy. Botley Crew 22:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, no assertion of importance. So tagged. --Dhartung | Talk 14:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per the nominator. Acalamari 18:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commerce (University of Toronto)

Commerce_(University_of_Toronto) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View AfD)

Reads like advertising for the University in question. Also does not adhere to the Nobility criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celendin (talk • contribs) 2007/04/08 11:59:03

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a course catalog. Not sure it's CSD eligible unless G11 applies. --Dhartung | Talk 14:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete No assertion of notability given. Danski14^(talk) 02:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Majorly (hot!) 19:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dufferin Mall

Dufferin Mall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

NN example of the many medium size, non distinctive malls in Toronto, lack of any special features in its stores and otherwise; no sources of any sort and no reason to think there will be. DGG 04:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)